The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About760726.tiff I TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PARKLAND ESTATES FEBRUARY 11, 1976 Tape #76-23 , 24 & 25 CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I call this hearing to order on the Final Plat of Parkland Estates. Before we get started, since we do have quite a large crowd, and some of you may want to make comments or you may have spokesmen to make comments for you, all of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners of Weld County are taped and for our staff people to identify those people who speak, you will required to give your name and address whether you are representing a specific group or whether you represent yourself. We request this same procedure by legal staff. If the Board feels that we are getting into repetition in proposals that are being presented, it becomes the perogative of the Board to so indicate. Hopefully this hearing will not run into the late hours to keep any of you from carrying out your regular daily duties . The Chair will at certain time determine whether we have heard all of the information that the Board feels necessary to be heard. I guess with those ground rules . . . . I am passing around an attendance record which we request all of you to sign with name and address because this will be needed for the record. I will open up the hearing on Parkland Estates Final Plat and turn this over to legal counsel for Parkland Estates and he can then introduce those people whom he wishes to have testify or produce the information which he ba.s . Do we have legal counsel here for Parkland Estates? FREDERICK L. GINSBERG: For the record, I am Frederick L. Ginsberg, Attorney at Law. I represent the applicant in this matter. This matter comes before you on request for approval on the Final Plat of the Parkland Estates Subdivision. The matter was before the Planning Commission in December of 1975 . 760726 • S At that time, the Planning Commission denied approval until such items as were listed in the Planning Commission' s resolution were accomplished. These matters related first to resurvey the location of ditches on the Plat. This has been done and we can under oath have an engineer testify to this fact. The second point which was raised dealt with the updating of the condition of title to this property. We have given to Mr. Fortner on this date a document of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company which shows the title to this property is vested in seven parties as trustees for Parkland Associates. These are the parties who are responsible for the signatures on the Plat. Another point which was raised dealt with the changing of covenants . We propose to put on record these changes first of all dealt with who would be responsible for the maintenance etc. In brief , Parkland Estates , Inc . is a Colorado corporation. That corporation (inaudible) covenants (inaudible) to common areas to develop them. This would also apply to water and sewer mains , wells , etc . The seven trustees are under the covenants charged with managing these common areas , managing the water and sewer mains, etc. These covenants provide that the trustees have very specific and very broad powers at the same time. They have the right to levy assessments that are necessary amongst the members in the subdivision and file liens if these assessments aren't paid, and the right to go to court and enforce any one or more of the covenants and any one or more of collections for assessments . Each owner of a site will be a member of Parkland Estates , Inc. So in essence it is a non-profit corporation and the trustees are the managers of the corporate ' s assets. The Planning Commission had also requested that there be a change to the extent that no more than ten thousand square feet of any lot could be irrigated; that is included in the covenants. Another change requested dealt with the signs being subject to Weld County regulations; that is , for sale signs and things like this that -2- • • might be necessary from time to time--that is included in the covenants. Another change which was requested dealt with animals--that is included in the covenants. This would be all animals must be leashed. There are several other changes which were requested in the covenants and those changes were made to the best of my knowledge. I have made the changes requested. Another point in the Planning Commission' s reso- lution dealt with the ditches. We did, following the Planning Commission' s meeting, and more specifically, on December 30 , 1975, send to the County a letter making it clear that we would fence, at our expense, all of the ditches involved and that we would provide right-of-ways for changing of locations of exis- ting ditches if the ditch owners wanted this to occur. Now this was also set forth in my letter of December 5 . There were questions raised by me in my letter of December 5 dealing with some vagaries , so to speak, within the Planning Commission' s resolution. I subsequently made inquiry, discovered what the problem, question, what they wanted done and these are the things that appear in the covenants. I have presented two copies of the proposed covenants to the Planning staff. Another point raised in the Planning Commission' s letter dealt with the giving of land and/or money in terms of donations and we specified in our letter that we would be paying money to move land, as this had been known, had been made known to us by the Planning Commission as being the desire of the Board of County Commissioners. There was another point raised with respect to the applicant meeting with the basically, opponents we ' ll say for the second, and that this meeting would be arbi- trated by the Board of County Commissioners. I raised the point in my December 30 letter to the extent that there was no provision within any of your codes , ordinances , rules or regu- lations of the County of Weld providing for such a thing to occur. Very shortly, we received a letter from Weld County advising us that you, as a body of the Board of County Commis- sioners would not, in fact, be willing to act as arbitrators. -3- I did send a letter to the attorney who will be opponent in this matter at about the same time I wrote the County requesting that we have another meeting with him and his clients, or any of them that should be present. This letter was responded to just about the time that Mr. Dinner went on vacation and I believe he returned, what, last weekend, so there had been no possibility for us to meet in light of the fact that he was on vacation. But Mr. Dinner is aware of the fact that we are willing to fence the ditches and we have provided the easements requested. One other point I would make , Mr. Oscarson, who is the representa- tive of the ditch company, did visit with Mr. Goodwin, who is present and who represents or is a representative of VTN Coloradc Inc. , the engineers in this matter; he made some suggestions with respect to changes on this plat. All to the best of Mr. Goodwin' knowledge have been incorporated save for one small one which some how or another got overlooked and has not appeared on the construction plans. Mr. Goodwin informs me that this particular change will be made on the , our other construction plans . There is no dispute as to what Mr. Oscarson is requesting in that respect, is that correct? So, to the best of our knowledge, we have done all the things we have been requested to do in conjunction with the preparation of the plat, the covenants, and ect. Now, it was pointed out to us at the Planning Commission hearing by I think, Ann Moore, when she was testifying , that this is probably one of the most complete submissions ever made on any project that you have had in Weld County. We do not know of any more we can do. The agreements which we negotiated with the sewer district, copies of that are your records . I think the record clearly states the problem we had with respect to obtainin water from Erie. We have sufficient water of our own. We have letters from qualified engineers and technicians to support this fact. As such, unless it becomes absolutely necessary for me here today to put on a case and cheep as I had to do at the Planning Commission, I will try to defer doing that, and suggest -4- to you that what we have submitted, to the best of my know- ledge , conforms with the requirements of your county for conditions precedent to our obtaining an approval for this final plat. I would be happy to answer any questions or we can supply any technical answers that you may have need of. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Are there any direct questions by the Board at this time of legal counsel for Parkland Estates? I realize you just received a copy here of the restrictive cove- nants. You may want to look through those a little bit. I guess maybe I would start off by somewhere, Mr. Ginsberg, correct? MR. GINSBERG: Yes , it is. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Being very interested in irrigation in Weld County and that added protection be provided for those people under irrigation systems in Weld County, and since you have alluded to (1) fencing of all ditches , and (2) providing waterways , and (3) of changing ditches that might need to be changed by request of the ditch company. Excuse me. The Board in the past, many times , had these same items come before us on other hearings and the Board in many instances have set certain requirements and standards as far as the type of fencing; as far as the amount of right-of-way that might be required for proper maintenance of that ditch; and I guess maybe to some degree it would be new to this Board in changes of a ditch structure. You did allude to these. Now I guess I 'm asking the question, within your agreement, what type of fencing (1) are you proposing to use to protect the interests of the ditch company, and is this a continual fence which would eliminate any access to the ditch itself by residents apart from the Estates? And that would be my first question. MR. GINSBERG: My answer to your question is we propose to -5- use chain link, to the best of my knowledge. And secondly, the fencing will be continuous; there will not be any gates except those which are put in and locked and the keys given to the ditch company. We have no desire to be involved there. I would touch on one other point, Commissioner Billings , and that is that we obtained letters from people who are primarily engaged in the business of cleaning ditches . We used (inaudible) The easements which were set for these ditches were based on the letters given to us stating, in effect, the width that would be needed to move machinery in and clean these ditches. So we relied on people in the business. These letters , I believe, are on file with the Planning Commission and were part of our submission to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I guess in that area in easements being recommended, were the easements recommended from the high water line of the ditch or from the center of the ditch? It makes a considerable difference . . . . MR. GINSBERG: Yes, I think it does. . . . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : whether an easement is allowed from the high water line on that ditch or from the center of the ditch. MR. GINSBERG: Mr. Goodwin, who is a representative of VTN Colorado, Inc. MR. GOODWIN: Mr. Chairman, shall I repeat the name for the record? Neil Goodwin, VTN Colorado, of Denver. The recommended easement on the Cottonwood Extension ditch is the full width of 70 feet, measured 20 feet from the center of the ditch on, I believe, the uphill side , I may have the sides reversed. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : It wouldn' t make too much difference as long as you're talking about the center line of the ditch -6- instead of the high water line. MR. GOODWIN: Yes, sir. (unidentified male voice) : If I may just make one cor- rection, when you refer to Cottonwood, you mean to Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Resevoir Company ditch, correct? MR. GOODWIN: Yes , I understood the name of this parti- cular ditch was the Cottonwood Extension, it isn't? (unidentified male voice) : The Cottonwood ditch ends some four or five (not audible) CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Now, now please, if you're going to make comment, put your hand up, because when you make comment I would rather go through the total hearing here between Mr. Dinner referring questions regarding the ditch company and legal counsel for Parkland Estates and then return comments. We ' ll get back to you later, sir. (unidentified male voice) : I didn' t mean to interrupt but I do want to correct which ditch we were referring to. MR. GINSBERG: Neil, for the record, state that the ditch on the Plat is the ditch company represented by Mr. Dinner. MR. GOODWIN: Yes , the large ditch crossing the Parkland Estates property. The easement that we proposed provides a full space of 20 feet from the center line of the ditch on the uphill side and 50feet from the center line of the ditch on the down- hill side. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Are there other questions by the Board members regarding the ditch? My correct understanding at this -7- time is that the width is from the center of the ditch, 20 foot on the uphill side and 50 foot on the downhill side and that we 're measuring from the center of the ditch and not from the high water line of the ditch. MR. MOSER: There have been, I beg, I believe this is correct, excuse me, in communications prior to today, that the question had been raised in regards to for many years that runoff had not been brought into consideration in regards to the runoff off of the agricultural areas. ait all of the sudden with this proposal , it was brought to the floor. Well, this is very, very true. I think the 1973 flood on the Platte, which we so well remember, and what was caused by primarily a, what we 'd say a normal rainfall, with about three inches in a certain length of time, the records would show how long participation was prevalent, but we do know that due to the urbanization in the upper areas of the Platte , compared to say, even 20 years ago, the increase which is coming in is multiplied manyfold because there is no absorption by the agricultural structure of the area. Compared to urbanization, it still has come, I think, the water comes in a greater amount and concludes to the irrigation canals and this can be a real problem. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I guess , Mr. Moser, the question you' re asking is what provision has Parkland Estates made. . . . MR. MOSER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : . . . . to take care of runoff that, at this time, is not, in other words , runoff which would exceed the normal runoff based on the use of the land at this point. MR. MOSER: That' s right. MR. GINSBERG: I ' ll let Mr. Goodwin also answer that -8- question. MR. GOODWIN: I guess I would start by pointing out that in the roughly 320 acre parcel of land, there is a total of only I believe it' s 91. . . . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : 91 Homes . MR. GOODWIN: 91 homes being proposed. So that the average, taking the parcel as a whole , would be one home on more than three lots , which is far, far different than where you have three, two and a half, three and a half homes per acre in a normal suburban subdivision-type development. So that going through the hydrologic calculations on the area, the drainage patterns are being changed as a result of the proposed subdi- vision layout. Firstly, an item that we call concentration time increases significantly by the imposition of the side ditches along the roads that are proposed, and the roads them- selves within the development. The net, net result is that the runoff , under any given storm, it would reach the lower side of the property, is changed almost insignificantly by placing the subdivision in the area. There is only a very small percentage of the property that would be covered up by solid surfaces such as house roofs , paved streets , and that type of thing. That in itself would increase some runoff, but the fact that that pattern and the route that the water has to follow is changed has the effect of reducing the volume of water, the quantity of water and how fast it runs , it reaches the lower side of the property so that it comes out almost even. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : June? MRS . STEINMARK: My question was you spoke only of the 91 homes, but certainly the airport runways, the paving, the buildings that will be used for the airport should have been considered, shouldn' t have they? -9- • MR. GOODWIN: There ' s no plans at this time for hard sur- facing on the runway. The plan at this time is for a sodded surface on the runway. It' s true, it is true that there would be some buildings , some time in association with the operation of the runway, but relative to the whole piece of property, the surface percentage of the area would be very, very small. MR. MOSER: Not all that 320 acres is going to hit that ditch. MR. GOODWIN: No, that' s true. MR. MOSER: Roughly 90 or 100 acres would be what would drain from therewith? MR. GOODWIN : It ' s fairly close to a north-south drainage direction so that w1ere the ditch leaves the property, that roughly defines the area that would get drenched. Of course, the big area that drains into the ditch comes into the southwest corner of the property and meets the ditch right here. Now this drainage area, for this little draw, extends back up into several hundred acres that is entirely south of Parkland Estates and so the flow coming into this draw at this point is just entirely unaffected by what use is made of this land. MR. MOSER: Well, it ' s always been there. MR. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. MOSER: That' s, there ' s a high center to there, isn ' t there? Isn't there kind of a hogback right here--the water runs to the southwest. Down right about there . MR. GOODWIN: Yes , right in here, yes . Very slight, very slight. Just barely tends to go this way here and then it tends -10- to go this way here . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : If, in the future, if this were approved, and in the future , Parkland Estates chose, because of adverse conditions with a sod runway or a dirt runway, to asphalt that runway basically giving you all-weather use . In your estimation, you may have the exact figure, but in your estimation how many acres could constitute the asphalt strip to handle the airplanes and based on your hydrologic knowledge, how much water would be running off from that instead of percolating into the ground? MR. GOODWIN : I do not have any exact figures , but if they were to pave the runway there, I would assume that for this type of airport they might pave 50 to 70 feet wide. The usual length for the runway here is about 35-3600 feet, so 3600 by 50 would be about 18 , 000? 180 , 000 , okay. Slightly over four acres. That would be an increase roughly equivalent to about twice what this full street is through here. As a percentage, it is very hard to say. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : You've answered my question. MR. GOODWIN: It would be a small, small percentage increase. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I am trying to establish an under- standing of this large volume of material we have here. There are some people who are concerned about the amount of water that might run off of this subdivision and create some type of a pro- blem and hazard for those people; so I am basically trying to determine at this point for the Board, the maximum possibility of water running off from this subdivision if it were developed to a (inaudible) . By that I think past the what 91 homes if 91 homes are actually constructed, plus the asphalt streets , plus -11- the possibility of asphalting the runway, on 320 acres, if I 'm correct. Would you estimate that 25 acres, then would be so constructed or there would be construction or something that would cause 25 acres of that land to have runoff? And I am just using 25 acres as a I am not qualified myself to determine that 25 acres is an accurate figure if we looked at the ultimate development of that. MR. GOODWIN: I would really estimate, I think, about half that much, 12 to 15 acres . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : 12 to 15 acres. MR. GINSBERG: Commissioner Billings , let me state for the record, on behalf of my clients, that in the event, and we can certainly put this in the covenants , if it would be the desire of the commissioners, if in the event the runway is paved, we would agree to provide such . . . . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Holding bonds? MR. GINSBERG: Holding bonds as are necessary to take care of (not audible) CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I am glad you brought that up because that' s what I was leading to. MR. GINSBERG: We knew you were , and that' s why CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : In other words, put in a subdivision to establish adequate holding bonds so that runoff from that property would not exceed the existing runoff. MR. GINSBERG: Yes. Basically that is correct. In other -12- • • words , it would pave the runways from the (inaudible) . . . and we ' ll put it in the covenants, and if you want, we can have separate ones for county. In essence, what we could do is pro- vide that the runway couldn' t be paved until such time as the county approved, just as we 've done in other things in the covenants. For example, there ' s some other things which we 've made subject to county, Weld County' s approval. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Do you have notes on that Gary? That they are in agreement to add that to the covenants as it is approved? MR. JACOBUCCI : If CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Mr. Jacobucci. MR. JACOBUCCI : If this is approved, you would have a registered airstrip, right? It would be with the FAA? Would that in turn then terminate any practice flying which is carried out in that area now by the Jefferson, Boulder and probably some other outfits? I want to know that for sure because at the present time we have an airstrip right now, Firestone (inaudible) and it isn' t stopping any of the practice that ' s going on in that area. One or the other should carry the prior- ity. MR. GINSBERG: I ' ll let this gentleman testify; will you state you name , your record and qualifications . MR. MOBLEY: Don Mobley, Route 2 , Box 646 , Broomfield. I am a pilot; I work at United Airlines. What you say is quite true, Commissioner. It' s supposed to stop practice flying when the airport is registered on the navigation charts there ' s (inaudible) . Violations could be filed for anyone practicing over a private airport. There' s nothing to prevent them flying -13- • • over it but it' s not supposed to be used as a practice area. We have similar situations around Boulder County. Woodbrothers have a private airstrip just west of Erie, and there ' s not supposed to be any practice flying over any registered airport. MR. GINSBERG: Commissioner, we have a right to file , in effect, you likewise, in effect, any part that' s directly c Alit Cat 0 affected, I checked the on this, if, in fact, it is a registered airport, which this will be. Then automatically the county in which it is located, the city, the village , the town, whatever, and/or the parties or the owner of the private airport may register or lodge with the FAA, complaints , and the FAA' s bound to proceed to stop the practice flights over. It' s very clear that they have the power to do it if somebody lodges. At this point, you can' t lodge a complaint, the County cannot, but once we have private airport in there, you can lodge a complaint. MR. MOSER: Could a private citizen there now lodge a complaint against anyone who' s flying low over their place? Which I 've heard is going on. MR. GINSBERG: Yes there are height descriptions in any . . . MR. MOBLEY: Yes, sir, if it endangers persons or property. In their opinion, why, yes , sir. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Sir, being an experienced pilot, with United Airlines and, I guess the question I am leading into now is if this is developed to the 91 homes, each home would have an airplane, maybe you would be able to answer this, in your experience, maybe someone else can answer it, but in your exper- ience, with this type of an airport, what would you estimate the daily flights , if you had 91 homes and 91 airplanes, I would have to assume in this type of enviroment that more of the flying -14- • • and not business from this home to somewhere else but you're looking at recreational flying and so you' re probably looking at weekend flying or certainly based on the occupations that many of us have now, Monday is as much of a dayoff as Sunday or Saturday. But would you have any estimate as to . . . MR. MOBLEY : As to the number of flights per day or per week, no, sir, I couldn't make any correct estimate, However, I would like to correct one assumption that you're making. The 23 lots you see south of the road there, these people implicitly gave up their access to the airport, doesn't have no taxways going across there. There is provision that they can own an airplane but we 're essentially talking about 68 homes sites rather than 91. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : 68 homes sites that would be allowed to have a plane. MR. MOBLEY: These are allowed, but by their location, they have expressed no interest in airplanes. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : No interest MRS. STEINMARK: What if they, say, sell the house and someone who moved in would take over that house, they would still be able to use that airstrip, isn' t that correct? MR. MOBLEY : Yes, they can own an airplane and have a hangar area, here, they can have an airplane there. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Absolutely no commercial business involved. MR. GINSBERG: For the record, I should like to state that 12 people period own planes , there are only 12 planes -15- planes are very expensive. So basically people are going to share ownership and don 't have the option of 91 planes . It' s too expensive for people to do. MR. JACOBUCCI : It was thought all along that you'd have quite a few planes to make it quite a MR. GINSBERG: no, not entirely. The idea was that there would be facilities for the planes , but by there being a common and mutual interest say, three families might own one plane. That' s the whole idea behind it. Because airplanes, as some of you who already own them, are very expensive and not cheap. So therefore the idea was to have, and this is what has resulted from having common interest, therefore, you don't need as many planes . Thus, out of 60-some right now, you have 12 planes. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Yes sir, are you addressing this as one of the owners or right now or listening to these people presenting this , hopefully you could save that for a little bit later, if you have a question for these people. MR. GINSBERG: I should also like, for the record, while we ' re on this subject, Mr. Goodwin, would you state your qualifications, your license as an engineer. MR. GOODWIN: Yes , I 'm a licensed engineer in Colorado. Also land surveyor. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Hydrologist, also , engineer? MR. GOODWIN: Well , I do a lot of hydrologic work, there ' s no such thing as a licensed or registered hydrologist. MR. GINSBERG: You are a civil engineer? -16- MR. GOODWIN: Yes, that' s right. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I guess I would like to get into the area of domestic water that you indicated you have available for those lots , and even though I know it must be in this vast amount of paper we have, I think hearing it directly from someone would be best suited to this Board as to how much water it takes per unit per day for an average family. How much water you' re going to have for grass, how you plan on having your own water system. MR. GINSBERG. All right, let me give you generalities and then I will let Mr. Goodwin go to the specifics : 1.We have under the covenants provided that no more than ten thousand square feet on any given site can be irrigated. 2 . We have wells , permits , wells which were already drilled. The quality of the water, etc . has been looked at by the various agencies which in charge, have looked at. I ' ll let Neil go into the findings and what ' s available. It will be a water system built in the junction of those wells . The mains will be installed in the streets , hydrants , etc. The maintenance of the system is the responsibility of the trustees in accordance with the covenants. The trustees have the right to levy such assess- ments , file liens , and file suits for collection against any property owner who does not pay, in this respect. We attempted, over a period of a year, to comply with the resignation of the County Commissioners with respect to obtaining water from Erie. We got nowhere. We 've got letters , in fact I believe I 've copied all of my letters to Commissioner Billings with respect to the correspondence I had with the town of Erie. So I won't labor on the point. All of this is available in your records. I will let Mr. Goodwin explain the water, the specifics as to the water we have, gallons and so on. MR. GOODWIN : First, Parkland Estates has by permit of the -17- state of Colorado, the right to produce approximately 96 acre feet of water per year, out of the four wells that they have on the property. We, in designing the water system, I suppose, used estimating factors based on water consumption per capita for the type of area in this part of the country. And for the total development, we estimated that the average daily use through the course of the year, was just over 60 , 000 gallons a day. That is roughly one-fifth put in (inaudible) . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : May I ask a question right here. When you refer to the amount of water and everything, you' re referring to development of the total subdivision, that it would require 60 , 000 gallons a day? MR. GOODWIN : Yes. Based on the density and the lawn restriction, and the kind of development that it would be. MR. JACOBUCCI : 91 homes at ten thousand square foot? MR. GOODWIN : Yes. In the course of the year, at one-fifth of an acre foot per day, that' s roughly 70 acre feet per year that would be needed. So that it appears that they have ample water so far as taking care of their annual needs. The problem that does develop is in the peak days that occur in the summer- time, when water consumption goes way above what it would average in the course of the year. So that, within the system, we have designed a 200 , 000 gallon storage tank which provides the fire protection that ' s needed and it also provides a surplus , 24-hour supply in storage so that when a peak day occurs , they have that water already in storage roughly 60-70 , 000 gallons in storage, and a longer time then, to recover from the wells that they have. MR. JACOBUCCI : Is that tank to be built in the immediate future or . . . . -18- MR. GOODWIN: Yes , sir. MR. JACOBUCCI : If the plan goes through? MR. GOODWIN: Yes, sir. It' s an immediate part of the water system. MR. JACOBUCCI : Two hundred thousand gallons? MR. GOODWIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Have you established a location on that facility for a storage tank? MR. GOODWIN: Yes, sir, I believe it' s right here. It also happens to be the highest point on the property. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Gravity? MR. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. MOSER: What, how much higher is that elevation than that ditch? If you would know? MR. GOODWIN: Forty to fifty feet, I believe . Sixty feet I guess it' s about sixty feet. MR. MOSER: What' s the diameter, the gallons permitted on the wells , I don' t know whether you could tell me? MR. GOODWIN: The wells , I believe , are all ten inch? Seven inch wells. The anticipated pumping capacity is different in wells but ranges , I believe, from about 12-15 gallons a minute to 25-30 gallons a minute. -19- MR. JACOBUCCI : That' s not the best of wells. MR. GOODWIN: There not very large wells , like you would find in a business system, but we are limited by the water rights, the amount we can produce. So that' s as large as wells as (unidentified male voice) : Is there any way of judging how long these wells would be productive? Or is that just an estimate? MR. GINSBERG: In the reports that have been presented, it is 128 years . (inaudible) and you have copies of this . MR. GOODWIN: The original report on water wells was done by (inaudible) in order to secure the permits and approval of the State Engineer. MR. JACOBUCCI : Are these wells rotorized now? Have they been MR. GOODWIN: Temporarily yes, yes, they have been tested. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : They have been tested and also you indicated that it has been approved by the State Health Depart- ment to the quality of the water. MR. GOODWIN : Yes , sir. MR. JACOBUCCI : What' s the grain hardness? MR. GOODWIN: It varies, do you recall? MR. GINSBERG: No, it' s in the report, but we have received approval from every agency that has jurisdiction over this -20- • • matter. These approvals are all part of the record which has been submitted to you. MR. GOODWIN: . . . . (inaudible) see if I can get a design of the water system and data on the water wells, and there is a letter in the record which may help the (inaudible) those matters . There were questions when we presented this to the Planning Commission in December, there were some questions from the Fire District concerning certain line sizes and locations of fire hydrants . Those matters have been changed as requested by the Fire District over here. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Do you, that was one of the questions I was about to bring up, regarding the Dacona area fire protec- tion district, at this point, do you have agreement with the Dacona Fire District as to the amount of water you're going to be able to supply there, the facilities in case of a fire? MR. GOODWIN: It' s the Longmont CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: Longmont? MR. GINSBERG: And the answer is yes. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I have a letter here from the Dacona MR. GINSBERG: No, its Longmont, and all of the changes that were requested by them have been incorporated in the final plans , specifications relating to construction and final improvements, including types of hydrants , size of lines, pressure, etc. , etc. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I have one other question on water and knew that it, there has been an impossibility at this point, for Erie to supply any water, and for Parkland Estates and Erie to come to an agreement. I would wonder that even though you -21- indicated these wells very well could last for 128 years or 120 years , in the design of your water system there, are you looking far enough ahead at all the new regulations coming down from the federal government, state government on water quality so that in the future, or necessary because of the very high requirements for water that you would be in a position to, through agreement which you would have to make , to either purchase or intercept domestic water from some of the availing systems that might be in the area? MR. GINSBERG: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, we are prepared to do this if, and when somebody is able to make it available to us. And we so stated this to Erie in many meetings , that if and when we get the water system intact and can service the water, I specifically asked the question at the final hearing we had with Erie on the 25th of August, I asked the council , can you supply us water, they refused to give me an answer. They would not give me an answer, so we had to take that to mean no, because if they had said yes, we could have moved forward, but they said no. Then shortly after that, this problem arose in respect to the fire service Erie has based on its present system, how severe or not, how severe the problem, of course I can't judge because I only read about it in the newspapers and question many things in the newspapers , but the council was clear on the point that they would not answer my question. And I asked, there is a copy, I believe, of the record of that hearing CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I not too much concerned about Erie' s capabilities at this point. My concern is that at such time as Erie or some other water facility there has the capability MR. GINSBERG: We' re prepared CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : of supplying that water. I personally think we have too many water districts in our area at this time, -22- too many delivery systems, and too many inadequacies . And so I have to be concerned that down the line somewhere in all the mass confusion which we have now with water regulations that provisions have been made to adequately supply the people in that area with proper water if this were approved. MR. GINSBERG: And any time Erie or any district would supply us water, we 're prepared to take it into our lines, with no problems at all, and our storage tank can hold that 200, 000 to boot, if in fact, it became part of the district operation, then in essence this equipment could be turned over to the district for its use. MR. MOSER: Would you charge each person that has a home in Parkland Estates a tap fee? MR. GINSBERG: No, because the people here are contri- buting in essence, their own funds to build this , there is no necessity to do that. The taps can be made by them; it' s their own self-containing system. Thus, in other words, they're putting out their own money, there ' s no need for it--there' s no district supplying us with anything in this regard. I do say to you . . . MR. JACOBUCCI : Are you going to build the tank, may I ask? MR. GINSBERG: I 'm not sure. I understand MR. JACOBUCCI : How, where are you going to raise the revenue to build the tank? MR. GINSBERG: Oh, with our own monies . We have the monies to do the job, once we get the collateral. -23- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Are there any other questions regar- ding the water? I would like to move along into how we treat the water after it' s used by any means through any of the facil- ities , sewer systems, septic tanks, I would like to find out how that' s going to be handled and here again what, if we ' re talking about leech fields and septic tanks, what type of soils are we talking about, and what is, if there is a problem, in the leeching of the water into these soils , which might affect or contaminate wells , domestic wells , below. MR. GINSBERG: First, let me state that there is in the file of this county, a copy (inaudible) between my clients and the Erie Water Sanitation District which says that at such time as the district is able to handle our sewer, etc . etc. , that lines will be built in connection with the district. The district at this point is not able to do that. There , I understand they are making some progress in this regard, but they have not completed it yet. They are obtaining funds for the expansion their existing facilities . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Could I ask a question right there before we go any further? You indicated that at such time that Erie has the capability that lines would be built. Would this be an obligation for Erie to build these lines and hook onto you. MR. GINSBERG: That ' s our obligation. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, I just wanted to be sure. MR. GINSBERG: It' s clear in that agreement and in the covenants , the trustees have and are empowered with rights to make such assessments , and create such enforcements as are necessary to implement the operation of that agreement between the district and Parkland. Now, the existing systems will involve basically, a system for each unit, or each home, and these have all been engineered, etc. etc. ,again in conjunction with both the county and the State authorities and I will let -24- Mr. Goodwin be specific as to the type of the system and if approval has been obtained, etc . etc. MR. GOODWIN: There was , about two years ago, slightly more, a large number of percolation tests , made in various locations on the property. The information at that time was submitted to the Weld County Health Department for their review and approval was given based on that information, for the concept of building septic tanks and leech fields for all the property south of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. At such time as an individual gets ready to do their own house, as far as septic tank and so forth, on a particular lot, there does then have to be additional tests made in the soils on that on which he wishes to build the leech fields so that we can be sure that the field is properly sized and designed so that the soils that you will encounter in that location. Under the original investigation, the Weld County Health Department expressed concern over the suitability of these seven lots lying north of and below the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. Well, recently, immediately following the presentation of the proposal to the Planning Commission in December, we conducted an investigation of those particular seven lots and the test depth of each lot was eight feet deep so that we can get a first-hand look at the soils, at the water (inaudible) The results of that work were just submitted to the Health Depart- ment last week and also to the Planning Department. The findings were that there are two lots in there that because of the local type of the ground, it looks as though they might be workable for septic tanks, but because they're so near the borderline condition, we have proposed that all seven of those lots would be restricted to the use of an evaporate transpiration system so that there is no possibility of the ground water interfering with the operation of the drain field and there is no possi- bility of the drain field contaminating the water table. MR. MOSER: Then primarily all these homes will be served by septic tank? -25- MR. GOODWIN: That' s correct. All except those seven CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I would ask one more question here again because here again something was that this Board felt in the earlier stages, felt should be a part of the Erie system, in the designing and constructing of the delivery from the homes and buildings , whatever, to the septic tanks are they going to be designed and at such a depth so that at such time in the future whether it is Erie or some other entity so that that system can be also hooked into a public treatment facility? MR. GINSBERG: That is exactly the case . Designed for that purpose. Both the water and the sewer. Both systems are designed in such a manner that we can hook to we' ll say quote unquote public system. That ' s the intent. MR. GOJDWLN: May I add one comment to that? During the time when the negotiations were under way with the Erie Water and Sanitation District, we didn' t have a lot of time working with the engineers to Erie, and a sewer system or an interior part of Parkland was , in fact, designed, so that has all been accomplished, but at the moment hinges on them being able to provide the service. MR. GINSBERG: We designed it according to the criteria of the Erie Water and Sanitation District. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Are there any other questions by the Board members regarding the sewer system, quote the septic tanks? Hearing none, are there other questions pertinent to other areas . I understand somewhere that there are 63 , 61 lots that have been sold? MR. GINSBERG: Fifty-eight. -26- • S CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Fifty-eight lots . MR. JACOBUCCI : Have been sold? Bonafide customers? Going to build a home? MR. GINSBERG: There are people in the room that want to build a home. Have been waiting. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: I think probably I overlooked or did not ask some other questions regarding the irrigation ditches, that have been involved in this for some time. Maybe I should wait and these questions will come out later. I 'm going to wait on that. Other questions in any other areas that the Board has at this time of Mr. Ginsberg or Parkland Estates? MR.MOSER: Mr. Ginsberg, you made a statement in your introductory remarks that these animals would be leashed, but in the covenants you presented to us, it doesn' t say anything about them being leashed. It merely makes a statement that unleashed animals or pets within the PLE, Inc . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Let me clarify a word there. You've got me confused. You 're talking about leashed animals, not leased. Okay, I thought you were leasing some animals out there. MR. GINSBERG: Let me read this to you, Mr. Commissioner, I think it ' ll clear it up; it says, I ' ll make it brief, that pets and animals may be kept on lots as long as the owner restricts and maintains them to the degree that they present no safety, health hazard or nuisance to neighbors and aircraft operations . And then it defines, safety, health hazard and nuisance, includes but is not limited to insects , noise, and smell. Unleashed animals or pets will be considered a safety hazard, so in essence, you can ' t have an unleashed animal because it is considered a safety hazard. And if you' ll look -27- at the first line, it specifically says that you can not main- tain a pet so long as it, but that you can maintain one so long as it does not, or is not a safety or health hazard. And an unleashed animal is defined as being a hazard. MR. MOSER: What I wanted to point out that in your intro- ductory remarks, you said that there would be no animals unless they were leashed. MR. GINSBERG: Well , that' s correct. Under these, that' s correct, because you see it would be in violation of the cove- nants if, in fact, they weren' t leashed. That ' s your domestic pets and animals. MR. MOSER: Guess I 'm kind of confused here. Run it by kind of slow. In other words, If I have a dog and I have a lot there, a home and everything, and I 'm living there, my $250 registered dog has to be leashed or in a kennel. MR. GINSBERG: Yes, because otherwise, it' s in violation of the covenants. MR. MOSER: I 'd like to see that, I 'd have to see that to believe it. (various murmurings that are inaudible) CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I would like to go one step further here so that we can define animals . I would have to assume that the animals we refer to here are pets . Are there any other provisions for any other livestock other than pets, cats, dogs , I ' ll stop right there? I know that some people have different types of birds. I just want it made public, I know it' s here but I want the people who are here to know exactly what we 're talking about. MR. GINSBERG: Domestic pets are allowed. Now what is a -28- domestic pet? Now, without trying to go into a long disser- tation of the covenants, we've said that pets and animals can be kept on lots as long as long as they are leashed. We 've gone on to say that only three major animals of 80 pounds or more would be allowed on any lot, and that there cannot be any livestock raised for profit purposes , no animals can be raised for profit purposes. Therefore, what you might have here, is a fellow who ' s got a couple of cattle that he ' s going to raise for his own family' s use, that is if he wants to raise the beef and slaughter it, he ' s got the right to do it. He cannot raise beef for profit. MR. JACOBUCCI : You' re going to allow that in your covenants , a couple of calves? or a couple of animals CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Long as they don' t weigh over 80 pounds , Vic . MR GINSBERG: No, no no. They can weigh over 80 pounds. No more than three over 80 pounds can be kept. But they cannot be kept for the purpose of profit. So if the fellow wants to raise it and slaughter it himself , that' s all right. But he cannot be in the cattle business or the pig business . MR. JACOBUCCI : Well, what I 'm getting at is, say Sam has a home there and he wants to enjoy his airplane and nice lot, people outside him has two calves , well calves can create an odor. MR. GINSBERG: I agree. MR. JACOBUCCI : I see that right there north of Firestone, now. He moved there because he wanted to enjoy the peace and quiet, and it was going to be free of foul air, free of smell , and now my neighbors got cow, and chickens and MR. GINSBERG: I ' ll say this much to you. Living where they're living, they'd better get used to that smell because -29 everyone else has got horses and cows and chickens and hogs and so I think these people are well aware of the fact that they are living in basically a community which has this type of a thing. But we have restricted them to their own use; in other words, they cannot be raising them and selling them. MR. JACOBUCCI : In other words , corral animals--horses, cows , sheep, hogs , etc. are allowed. MR. GINSBERG: No, they ' re limited to three CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Limited to three. MR. JACOBUCCI : I didn' t say the amount, I said they are allowed within the limitation. MR. GINSBERG: They are allowed within the limitation for their own families. Period. MR. JACOBUCCI : Not for commercial MR. GINSBERG: That' s correct, not for profit. MR. JACOBUCCI : So if everybody in the estates wants to have three hogs they can have them. ? MR. GINSBERG: Yes , sir. MR. JACOBUCCI : Or three cows or three horses? MR. GINSBERG: Yes, I think the chancesin that respect are probably unlikely, but yes , sir. MR. JACOBUCCI : Who is going to police the area, or I don't know how, the area as to when it gets out of control? Or some- -30- • • one' s yard get to be obnoxious? MR. GINSBERG: The trustees. They have not only the power to levy assessments but to act in a court of public jurisdiction at law or in equity. In other words , they have that power. MR. JACOBUCCI : I 'd hate to see one junkyard start up MR. GINSBERG: No, no well, you can' t have junk, you can ' t maintain MR. JACOBUCCI : Well, I apologize, it' s not a very pleasing sight. MRS. STEINMARK: I would have a question concerning the policing of the unleashed animals as far as you are in a rural area which certainly has unleashed animals running around. Is the county expected to control the animals on Parkland Estates or are you going to police that yourself? MR. GINSBERG: No, it' s policed, in the covenants , a guy let' s say I had a cow, okay, and it' s on my property, if my cow causes nuisance then the trustees would immediately have the power to stop that. MRS. STEINMARK: Okay, what I 'm asking you is a man down the road doesn' t live in Parkland Estates but his cow get out or his dog get out on Parkland Property. Are you policing against the man who lives half a mile down the road? MR. GINSBERG: No, ma' am. I go by the law of the State. My duty is to, if you own cattle, it' s your job to keeping them in your fence and my job keeping them in mine. MRS. STEINMARK: Yes, but you just said to me that Park- land will police those animals belonging to Parkland but how -31- are you going to tell one cow from another as far as whether it belongs to Parkland or down the road? MR. GINSBERG: Well, MR. JACOBUCCI : I think we're getting into some confusion here, MR. GINSBERG: I think she' s entitled to an answer, though. MR. JACOBUCCI : I 'm sorry. MR. GINSBERG: I understand what you ' re saying. The answer to yourquestion is it' s very easy to tell cattle because they're going to be branded if they ' re not. I think that the point that you're making is a very good one and if we've got a fellow down the road who' s running his sheep across our lands , obviously, he is going to hear about it. MRS. STEINMARK: Well, there are other types too. MR. GINSBERG: Yes , I know, I was just, you know. . . using that as an example. MR. JACOBUCCI : . . . . No, I think Colorado law states that you must fence your property to keep livestock CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Absolutely right. MR. GINSBERG: It is Colorado law, but the statutes have changed. MR. JACOBUCCI : When did this happen, sir, I 'm interested. MR. GINSBERG: You' ll find two pieces of law on the subject. -32- One in 1973 and one in 1975. And it' s changed. MR. JACOBUCCI : In the legislation? MR. GINSBERG: Yes, sir. MR. JACOBUCCI : I hadn' t realized that. MR. GINSBERG: Now they haven' t changed it in a broad manner, but I think in reading through the statute you will find that there is change. I just had this question raised to me by a fellow who' s in the cow business and that ' s how I came across it. It used to be the law. But they have changed it. MR. JACOBUCCI : Do you know, would you, know which MR. GINSBERG: Which bill that was? Well, I don't think no, sir, I can' t remember. I can research in my office. It' s not a broad, it' s not broad, but it stems by the way, (much murmerings inaudible) MR. GINSBERG: Let me answer her question. It stems from certain regulations passed down by the Enviromental Protection Agency on Federal level, with respect to animals getting into open waterways, etc . , etc . MR. JACOBUCCI : Did you say Federal level? MR. GINSBERG: Yes , it' s the legislation stems from the EPA regualtions which have come down from Washington which deal with keeping animals out of, not streams , but any waterways which can get into a domestic system. I guess the Platte River would be a good example. If water is drawn off of that, which -33- • • it is , and is used in a domestic or city system, that' s where this legislation' s come from. But we ' ll be getting off the sub- ject in that respect. The answer to your question, Mrs. Steinmark is that the trustees are responsible for policing the area under the covenants. Now If a fellow' s animal got in that wasn' t in the area, obviously you' re going to have a problem for the moment until somebody notices and says, hey, you know, this isn ' t right. MRS. STEINMARK: I have a couple of other questions that bother me as far as the covenants , or I would like to know about is, first page on four--contents of common real property-- and second paragraph talked about tie-down hangar area for exclu- sive use of PLA members and guest aircraft storage and display. I guess display to me means you put something out on display to sell , is this what you mean by display? MR. GINSBERG: If you want I can change the wording there, but what happens there, the building is for their exclusive use so that their plane is parked there (inaudible) When I say dis-- it' s a bad use of the word, and it' s not for the pur- pose of displaying for sale, you will notice in here, it cannot these people cannot engage in using their aircraft for profit. It' s very clear. By the way, this point has to be made at the time we file and have our airport registered with the FAA. So if suddenly we went into the commercial flight business, or lessons, we'd already be in trouble. MRS. STEINMARK: Then I have a question on page three under resubdivision; MR. GINSBERG: Yes , ma' am? MRS. STEINMARK: It states that no lot owner may resubdi- vide until after June of 2053, but can they if they show cause that the sewer and water facilities are sufficient to serve the resubdivided unit? -34- MR. GINSBERG: Well, it goes one step further which the Planning Department added and I note on their copy and we have no objection and it also says under such resubdivision as meet the requirements of the Weld County resubdivision regula- tions. It should, what there, in essence, what they ' re trying to say, and subject to approval of Weld County. And we will concede that that should be added. That was an oversight on my part. In our minds, it ' s clear. We' re not interested in resub- dividing here. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Any other questions of Mr. Ginsberg or MR. MOSER: Getting back to this Platte River, it ' s not fenced yet, animals are still walking into the Platte River. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : This is not relative, let ' s not get into this , it' s already 3 : 30 . Okay, are there any people who are interested in the development of Parkland Estates who has anything to say that has not been brought up? In favor of Parkland Estates. MR. GINSBERG: I might ask that we have a showing of hands as to the people here that are Parkland Estates people , all those that are sitting there that are Parkland Estates people, if you'd raise your hands please. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Let' s do this right because I am going to ask it later and I won't have to so put hands down and the back row please raise your hands--one, two, three, four, five, six. Next row--seven. Next row--eight, nine, ten, eleven, next row--twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen; the front row--seventeen, eighteen. Let the record show that there are eighteen people present interested in the development of Parkland Estates. MR. GINSBERG. Mr. Commissioner, I might state to you that I asked Doris to try to limit it to twenty or twenty-five people because last time we had what--thirty-five or forty -35- people here, and it just got so, if you recall, it just got too much. So I did ask them to limit it. There are many people who could be here but, in effect, I thought we could make the point with just as many as we have. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Are there any other of those people who are in favor of the Parkland Estates who would want to make any comment that we have not already talked about? Hearing none, I am going to switch to Mr. Mark Klauber, I believe, representing the town of Erie. Do you have questions and comments? MR. KLAUBER: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. The Erie Town Council met on February 2 earlier this month and requested that I be here on behalf of the town of Erie at this time. Erie, by resolution, we have previously submitted to the Commissioners , approximately five letters , those range from December 20 , 1973 , through 1975 , September 1975. I do have copies of most of these except one, the December 20, 1973 letter is a five, five or six page letter, which is think is quite explicit. It expressed the concern of the Town of Erie and the Planning Commission of Erie regarding various matters, particularly utilities and particularly at that time the Parkland develop- ment did not coincide in a number of ways with the Erie comprehensive plan. The council requested that I appear today so that the Commissioners would be advised that Erie still feels that they are not able to recommend approval of this Parkland development. They do feel that in a number of areas it would not best serve the needs and requirements of the people and the town of Erie. I am not certain whether at this time the, any representative of the Colorado Land Use Commission. Is there anyone here from that body? I have spoken with a person with the Colorado Land Use Commission. They are meeting, I believe, on the 27th of this month to go into the matter further, but they expressed certain reservations and I would just like to mention these for what consideration the Commissioners can give -36- to that. Basically they expressed four reservations : (1) that they are concerned with the encroachment by developments of this sort upon the dairy farm and the farming in general in this area. I believe some parties , I know of one whom I believe is Mr. and Mrs . Koch. I think there are other persons who have expressed concern both to the Planning Commission of Erie and to the Land Use Commission. Some of these reservations , by the way, are very strongly shared by some of the council of Erie. The second consideration was the increase in the urbanization in the area which they feel is a problem obviously, it is in other areas. We are getting into annexations and other problems which could very well concern Erie and very well concern Weld County as well as Boulder County. Also, what they feel is a problem as to the airstrip that has been proposed here. And number four whether the development as its outlined is still not, in various ways , contrary to the Weld County comprehensive plan as well as the plans which Erie has formulated. I think that at this time at least, I cannot of course speak for future boards ,either the Water Sanitation District or the Erie town Board, but of my knowledge at least, and knowing the feelings of the present Board of Trustees of Erie, Erie is not inclined at this point to extend either water or sewer system to this development for various reasons . But if you even want to term it a bailout if that problem would ever arise with the developement or something of an incommodation, Erie, although we have negotiated with Mr. Ginsberg in prior councils with Parkland Estates , Erie is not inclined at this time to extend water or to allow Parkland, if they so desire to blend into the Erie system. I am not sure that that is the definite feeling of the Water and Sanitation District which is a separate body, but it ' s my feeling that it probably is. I think actually that some of the individual members of the Board would go a little more strongly than simply the suggestion of not being able to recommend approval; I think there' s some very definite questions regarding Parkland and regarding the utilities there, regarding the water system there. I think on the other point I would like to make at this time is that, per- haps the commissioners are aware , protective covenants, and -37- • • I 've simply been listening to this , protective covenants are not ordinances or are not laws , per se, if whether it be leash law or otherwise, the protective covenant is not a violation of law, and if there is a violation of a protective covenant, as was discussed, it does call for a rather expensive and compli- cated actions that can be brought by trustees , it can be brought by individuals. But there is a difference between protective covenants concerning leash law and a private statute or ordinances; there very substantial. The only other comment that I picked up just in sitting here and listening was that there might be some problem in say, that animals can be raised not for profit. It seems to me that here again, this presents some difficulty because many farmers don' t even make a profit in a year. We ' re not talking really . . . . I think a more inclu- sive term would be commercial, something in reference to com- mercial, because it' s quite hard sometimes to show profit or nonprofit. You can gain depreciation in different ways showing no profit and yet you're into a commercial operation. But in general I am simply here to express my council, town council of Erie, their feelings that they are not able to recommend approval for this development for the reasons set forth in our correspondence, and I could go into these in more detail but I know it is getting late and I would be happy to try and answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I think we have, if not all of them, almost all of the copies of the correspondence between Erie and Parkland Estates. I guess my thrust here in sharing that both the water and sewer of this were approved, and installed at such time in the future, whether it be Erie or who, you would then have the capability of serving the area. I guess I have mixed feelings about Erie being concerned, the town of Erie, this is, of an additional 320 acres when Erie chose to annex 800 acres to an 80 acre town. This doesn' t prove logic to me . I don' t know how Erie is going to be able to serve that 800 -38- plus acres that they annexed to the town of Erie. And I know it' s not relevant tothis case , but knowing those backgrounds, and reading the resolutions which the town of Erie has passed, indicating that no agreement regarding the delivery of water from the town of Erie to Parkland Estates has been reached, and on that basis, no agreement being reached, the town of Erie is opposed to Parkland Estates. It doesn' t really say a great deal to me. And I 'm not criticising the town board of Erie either, but just bringing out some points that I think the rest of the Board should be aware of. Are there any questions of Mr. Klauber? Hearing none, the Chair would like to move on to (unidentified male voice) : Hey, I just, would like one minute, Commissioner Billings . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Yes , sir. (same unidentified male voice) : In the area which you mentioned--320 acres , at least a very significant part of that-- we have had for over a year, very detailed hearings that has been zoned as PED Development, meeting extremely stringent to the requirements to the town of Erie and we do feel, in regards to that area, which is immediately contiguous to the town of Erie, that we in effect, and can control the type of develop- ment we are accustomed, and trying to add to the, to some degree, to the industrial base because we are having continual financial problems and tax problems. But I thing that is quite a bit different thing in particular regard to what we ' re dealing with here, and which concerns the council to a large extent. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Could I ask you a question, here. I 'm sure you' re, hopefully you' re quite sure with Weld County ' s zoning regulations and I certainly know you' re well aware of Erie ' s regulations. Would you feel that Erie ' s regulations are or Weld County' s are equal, or one is more restrictive than the -39- other or I personally feel that our regulations in this county are very restrictive because hopefully we 're (1) trying to pro- tect agricultural base . And I was just wondering if you had any comparison between, in knowing both those documents if you do, if there is any major differences in those areas? MR. KLAUBER: I have no reason to think that Weld County is any less restrictive than is Erie ' s ; ours , in fact, will have to be updated. We are just looking into this . From my knowledge in dealing with them, I think Weld County' s regu- lations are better. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Klauber? MR. HAMILTON: Yes, my name is Steve Hamilton and I 'm here as an individual . Mr. Klauber, on that development of Erie 8 , which is the property which went into the annex, is it correct to state that Erie 8 brought the one and a half times the water to the city of Erie at the time they approved this? MR. KLAUBER: That ' s a exact provision of the covenant. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I am aware, am very aware of the water rights that Erie owns so I , not get into that issue because that is the right of Erie, Erie Town Council to know exactly the amount of water they do own or whether they ' re some other types of rights. I am not going to take a position and I do not think this Board should take a position in determining the actual amount of water rights which Erie owns or which they do not own. I am sure that Mr. Klauber MR. HAMILTON: I don' t want to hog this, Mr. Commissioner, but if I could just make one other point, -40- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : No, that' s fine. MR. KLAUBER: . . . .because I think there' s been an allusion to it. Erie does have substantial water plus fairly good storage. We have had a problem, mainly financial ones, as far as transporting as far as water pressure. And this is a diffi- culty for us and this is one of the problems we were not able to resolve with Parkland, who for example, would pay for ease- ment rights, for any court proceedings that were necessary to extend the water the, approximately one mile that it would take to reach Parkland, and some other matters of this type. But we are trying acquire water. Any developers coming in do have to convey to us one and a half times the water or water rights that they are going to use. And again, this is something that was not completely resolved with Parkland. So that these are some of the problems, but Erie does have sufficient water and water rights, at least for our present needs, and we anticipate for the future. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : My expression here was not to get Erie involved with how much water they have or how much they do not have or what their capabilities are because I did have the opportunity to meet the Erie Water Board and Town Council not too many months ago on some other matters and did become aware of that and don't want Erie to have to stand up and be counted for something that somebody else here or that we are discussing and saying. So I just, rather than, I think you understand. We 're going to move on now with Mr. Dinner, who represents the irrigation interests, I believe, Mel, and MR. DINNER: Yes , that' s correct. I am with some others and perhaps for the record it would be helpful to the Board if I indicate who I do represent, Mr. Billings. May I indicate at this time that I am pleased to be here on behalf of these various parties who are appearing as protestors to the -41- i • to the approval of this final plat. They are requesting quite frankly that the final plat be rejected. I am appearing here, first, of all, and foremost, on behalf of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Resevoir Company. This is a youthful ditch company, which has approximately 120 shares outstanding. This is a fairly sizable ditch which perverses the property involved. It has a average width of approximately 18 feet across as it goes through this particular Parkland Estates proposed project. The capacity of the ditch in terms of what it carries is something like about 50 cubic feet of water per second. So this is a sizable amount of water which moves , under normal conditions , through the Parkland Estates proposed project. In addition, I am also representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Koch, who are neighboring farm owners and farm operators of the dairy oper- ation. Mr. and Mrs . Koch have a lateral ditch with a head- gate out of the Erie Coal Creek and Resevoir Company and this particular ditch is likewise located upon Parkland Estates project and perverses a portion of this ground. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Mel , this is the lateral off of the Coal Creek? MR. DINNER: This is the lateral off of the Erie Coal Creek ditch, correct. In addition to those parties, there is Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Mr. and Mrs. Conklin as such who own what is known as the Smith-Conklin ditch. This is likewise again in private lateral which is located upon the Parkland Estates proposed project. There ' s is not one which comes out of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch, but out of another water source, but their private lateral, nonetheless, perverses this pro- perty and is similarly shown on the maps and plats and data which have been supplied by Mr. Goodwin' s firm. In addition to these specific groups , I also represent a group which is, perhaps , composed of approximately 40 or more plus people, which is known and described as Citizens Committee for Planned -42- Community Development and these are by in large all the residential owners who surround the Parkland Estates proposed project. They are people who are the neighboring land owners. These are people who are farmers within the area. And I might add, in this instance, that to the best of my knowledge, all the so-called residential owners who are nearby and adjoining this property are members of this group; they are all highly opposed to the approval of this plat and request the rejection of the final plat. There are a number of issues which I feel it necessary that I need to address myself to, some being with general matters with the submittal of this final plat and matters pertaining to the zoning resolutions that are invol- ved. And I particularly think it necessary, since there has been additions to the Board of County Commissioners since the time when the initial resolution was adopted, roughly one ,or two years ago. So let me go back and deal with, first of all , with the generalities dealing with the zoning matter. Secondly with matters regarding, involving the final plat itself, and then perhaps thirdly with some specifics pertaining to matters to the water irrigation matters and the issues of materials to be supplied by Parkland Estates. Number One. MR. GINSBERG: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner, I would like to make this note on the record, that we were notified the purpose of this hearing today would be for the purpose of hearing the final plat. MR. DINNER: That is exactly what I am dealing with and what I am addressing myself to. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Chair will make a ruling on this. Mr. Dinner brought out a point that we have new commissioners on the Board who have not totally been aware of all the process of Erie and I would rule and allow Mr. Dinner to present all the infor- mation which he has which does not become repetition so that the -43- Board can become fully advised to better determine the final decision on the final plat. MR. GINSBERG: Mr. Commissioner, I understand that. My point was only for the record, to the extent that, in as much as this is a hearing for the final plat, the matters before the Board, that we have presented before the Board, are solely in support of why we should CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : My ruling is also that only the infor- mational items. MR. GINSBERG: Fine. So that we don't have to rebut informational items . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Right. That' s right. MR. DINNER: If I may, Mr. Commissioner . The public hearing was held with reference to the change of zone requested by Parkland Estates from an "A" agricultural dis- trict to an "L ' estate district plan unit development on December 10, 1973 . This was a request to change what was then an agricultural status of what was approximately 336 some acres lying in the southwestiprtion of Weld County, which I might add was at that time and still is today, productive, irrigable , irrigated ground. MR. GINSBERG: It' s not irrigated ground, Mr. Commis- sioner. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : We will catch those, hopefully. MR. DINNER: At a hearing on February 13 before this commission, there was a resolution which was adopted, by which the traditional form of approval was given to the -44- change of zone. From "A" agricultural district to "E" estate district plan unit development. It is essential that I indi- cate that this was not simply a change which was granted in perpetuity, or a change that authorized, for all practical purposes, a change of zone. But it carried with it a series of four strict conditions , which had to be complied with as a part of the program with the Parkland Estates program. I read and I quote from that resolution, "Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners that the petition of Parkland Estates, care of Wayne Barton, Northglenn, Colorado , for change of zone from "A" agricultural district to "E" estates district plan unit development, said area being more particu- larly described as follows : the north half of Section 8 , Township 1 North, 68 West of the 6th pm , Weld County , Colorado, containing 336. 25 acres , more or less, and subject to all ease- ments , roads , and rights-of-way existing or of record, is hereby granted under the conditions as follows : (1) that any water and sanitation facility to be installed shall be approved by the State Health Department; (2) all applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regulations shall be followed and complied with in accordance with the zoning resolutions of Weld County, Colorado; (3) subject to complying with the recommendations of the town of Erie, Colorado, regarding adequate sewer and water service for the area rezoned; (4) that said change of zone herein granted is conditional only for a period of 12 months from the day hereof, on condition that the developer proceed with due diligence to begin with development of area rezoned and submit plans for such development for the approval of the Weld County Planning Commission, and with subsequent recording of said plans of the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Weld, Colorado. And that major construction shall commence thereon within said 12-month period, otherwise the County may take action to rezone the property to its present classification. " End of quote. Now there is no doubt from the information that appears to be available, that -45- certainly three of these four items and the conditions which are spelled out here, have not been met, cannot be met, and will not be met under any circumstances, and there is not question that there can be any compliance with the provisions 2 , 3 , and 4 . And I certainly doubt, also, the ability to make any compliance with the first condition concerning water and sanitation facilities. And let me be specific. I will with- hold some comment about Item No. 2 of the conditions because that will relate specifically to the second item which I talked about with regards to the final plat. Because those are items I do intend to deal with and that I wish to inform the Commission about; which iS that there is a violation of the Weld County Comprehensive Master Plan, there is a violation of the Weld County Subdivision regulations , there is further a violation of the zoning regulations of this county. And that is what they are proposing that you overlook and that you pass today. All right. Let' s go specifically to No. 3. It says very clearly this is subject to complying with the recommen- dations of the town of Erie regarding adequate sewer and water service. Mr. Klauber, who is the town attorney for the town of Erie has appeared before you and stated that as late as February 2 , 1976 , the town of Erie recommends to you as the Board of County Commissioners that you reject this final plat. That, in essence, is exactly what they have told you. They have not provided and will not provide adequate sewer and water service for the area rezoned to the Parkland Estates project, which project is something like a mile to a mile and a half away from the closest boundaries of the town of Erie. This was a prime requesite. It was a necessary requirement, as a part of the conditional rezoning from "A" to "E" estate, planned unit development, that they comply with those recommendations of the town. And if you pass a final plat, doing such today, or at some later date, you are then overlooking, you are waiving, you are failing to comply with the specific requirements that you set out over two years ago on February 13 , 1974, something -46- which is in total contradiction of the requirements that were made by this Board two years ago. Item No. 4 , the change of zone clearly spelled out that it was conditional for a 12-month period. It also called for various items relating to construc- tion. We ' re not talking today about a period of 12 months, we are talking about a period, since today is February 11 , 1976, virtually 24 months from the date of the passage of this reso- lution. Now, counsel for the applicant and the applicants themselves would have us believe that in some mystical or magic fashion, they may come and may continue to say we have contin- uance of this. There can be no continuance of this. No public hearings were scheduled as such relating those matters , no notice was given to anyone concerning these matters . What was given has now expired, has terminated, is over . And the County should therefore take its action to rezone the property back to its present classification, which is "A" agricultural . I 'm not going to labor that issue any further for the time being. Let me deal directly then, with a series of matters in which I am certain there is clear violation of the Weld County Comprehensive Master Plan, the Weld County Subdivision Regu- lations , and the Weld County Zoning Regulations; and these I call your attention once again, are items which appear as No. 2 of the contingencies under the resolution of February 13 , 1974 . As an example, I call your attention, and will go through, perhaps, page by page, so you can see what I am refer- ring to, quoting from the bible, that is, the Comprehensive Plan. I turn to page 33 as an example. And it tells us , in summary, agriculture is a valuable resource in the county and an important factor for consideration in the day to day deci- sions . It goes on to tell us the importance of agriculture. This is our base in this county. What you are doing if you grant this final plat, is to destroy a portion of the agricul- tural base of this county. It goes on to say in paragraph, on page 36 , it is the latter trend, leading the trend toward urbanization, which threatens the county' s rich, agricultural land. And if you persist, and you approve this final plat, you -47- are then destroying what becomes a part of the agricultural, of the economic base of this county. I think it necessary to also point out, when we're talking about economic base, we are talking about a problem that will be very clearly provided if, and when this plat is approved, in that every information, every bit of information that we now have , would indicate to us that the approval of these plans, as now submitted, will create a negative tax base to this county--not a positive tax base in which you will get excess dollars because of their houses coming in, but quite to the contrary, you will cost the county more in dollars to provide the necessary service that will be required for roads , fire, education, and other facilities than they will ever hope to get back in taxes by way of resi- dences to be constructed on this property. And so if we allow them to come in, you are saying to the other taxpayers in this county now, you, in effect, as a taxpayer, are going to have to support the Parkland Estates project, because this will be a negative tax base and therefore your dollars are going to have to help these people so that they can enjoy the privilege of putting an airplane with an airstrip down in southwestern Weld County. Now I don' t think that' s what the rest of Weld County wants. Now, let' s go back to page 43 , and we say another source of conflict is the irrigation ditches that are vital to the farmer and to agriculture but are merely attrac- tive and dangerous play areas to children of suburbanites. That' s exactly what you do if you allow this project to be placed on this parcel of land. And probably the only reason they acquired the land, and I am just simply guessing here, is that they were able to make a very cheap buy on the property involved and therefore it looked very attractive and they failed to adequately prepare and recognize the kind of problems they had and were facing with regards to these three irrigation ditches which came through the property and the other effects that it would have with regards to other irrigation ditches in the area. -48- • • CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Hopefully, Mr. Dinner, so that we don' t take too much time, and were referring directly to agriculture and irrigation, that if you would explain to the Board exactly how you feel agriculture and the irrigation ditches you mentioned are going to be affected by this development. MR. DINNER: Right. This is why I CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : The Board is well aware of the Com- prehensive Plan and well aware of rules and regulations within our zoning. And I know your expertise in that area and appre- ciate that expertise but I think we would like to have you express the exact problems that you see so that then this Board can make a decision on whether those are problems and if this final plat were approved, how those problems would be solved before it were approved. MR. DINNER: It isn' t my desire , certainly, to belabor the issue, but it is necessary that I bring out quite clearly exactly what you have just indicated and that is that this is probably, I won' t say probably, it is the major agricultural county in Colorado. It is probably the major agricultural county between the Mississippi and California. There' s probably no other county like it. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Just one other--we're second in the nation. MR. DINNER: Whether we 're first or whether we' re second, this is something I think we 're quite proud of and something we desire to retain. And if we pass projects such as this , we are destroying this agricultural base. And this is what our Compre- hensive Plan says--preserve at all regards this agricultural base. They are taking productive agricultural land, changing -49- it into a program of urbanization. Now, what' s the next policy that we are getting into and that' s a part of what we 're talking about, and that' s we are not only deviating fromthe master plan, but we are deviating in other respects too. The master plan clearly calls for additions by way of subdivision or other areas of expansion to occur from existing communities, meaning tht if this were to occur within that general scope or Erie, it should then be tied to the town of Erie and not loosely disconnected somewhere out in the county. We have horrendous problems that could be created with regards to police protection, fire pro- tection, and they've given us no information as to how those items are to be handled, how they will be taken care of . They are simply looking to the county to provide them with those services , once again, which I say, create this negative tax base. All right, so that the County Comprehensive Plan has spoken very clearly that you are not to create disconnected areas in terms of urbanization and subdivision areas away from existing areas , and that is exactly what this proposal is to do. Therefore, being clearly in violation of the comprehensive plan, it is also quite clear that if we examine pages 109 and pages 114 of the comprehensive plan, I simply call those to your attention, that this a reputation of the very zoning objectives and the zoning policy which you have set out in your compre- hensive plan. Next let me turn to the subdivision regulations. Once again, the same thing occurs . And I would call your attention to a series of pages, If I may, that you may desire to look at later, referring to specifically pages 22 , pages 23 , pages 33 , and pages 36. Now, let me talk specifically about page 33 for a moment. And I call your attention to what is 6-3B (3) . And I read the only basis for rejection of a final plat shall be its nonconformance to adopted rules, regulations, and resolutions currently in force and affecting the land and its development in the county. Its lack of conformance with approved preliminary plan and changes required in the public interest. We are saying that the basis for rejection of this final plat is that it is not in conformity with the Weld County -50- master plan. It is not in conformity with the subdivision regulation and it is not in conformity with those existing zoning regulations of the county which are now in effect. Page 36 , which I referred to, clearly, once again, says the land, and I refer to the as Section 7 , land being subdivided shall conform with the comprehensive plan, zoning resolutions, and other resolutions and regulations in effect in the county. Certainly there is no way that this final plat of Parkland Estates can meet the test of the comprehensive plan or the zoning resolution. And lastly, I will call your attention to provisions of what are described as the zoning resolution. In this case, I call your attention to pages 54 and pages 55 . Fifty-four refers to reasons for rezoning. Subsection A-4 refers to conditional review, and it talks about within six months aftsrezoning to one of the above districts, the owner or his representative shall present a final site plan and final construction schedule to the County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Once again, it calls for construction within 12 months and if this does not occur, it says upon request that the County Commissioners may then proceed, along with the County Planning Commission, to insti- gate action to rezone the district. Accordingly, we exam, therefore, all these three : the comprehensive plan, the sub- division regulations and the zoning resolutions , there can be no way in which the final plat as now submitted, under the time requirements and under the conditional zoning which was granted, is there any ability for them to be granted the final plat; which should be rejected summarily. Now, with specifics, I 'm well aware that Mr. Ginsberg has indicated to you that he has some title information which would indicate that some trustees are now supposedly in control of the property. I can indicate that I personally checked the records of Transamerica Title Insurance Company, here in Greeley, today, and that certainly a review of their records of the north half of section 8 Township 1 north range 68 West of the 6 pm Weld County, -51- 111 Colorado, as of their records today, do not disclose any set of conveyances to a set of trustees . Now this may very well be that something has been reported within the past two or three days , because they are probably four days behind in the posting of their dockets . And if this is true, it might be what he says . But that doesn' t change the turn of events because I am concerned because they have totally failed in an unsatisfactory manner to give us the information which you have been requesting ever since I began to appear at these hearings last June, which is what is the real title status , and what is the distinction between Parkland Estates , Inc. , Parkland Associates , the trustees , and some other so-called districts that they talked about that they might be creating. And we still have no identifiable entity that we know of, who is to take care of all the things they are tellixq us about. Let ' s also examine what the covenants say. I haven' t even seen the covenants because they were just delivered today. And as I understand it, they have not been available until today. May I see a copy? That is , the revised covenants ; and I call your attention to what I 'm guessing is somewhere in here. Let me locate it a moment. I assume that there is a time period involved, is there not? Yes , and this to me is virtually a subterfuge. And I call your attention to paragraph 19--these covenants run with the land and shall be binding on all persons claiming under them for a period of two years from the date of recording. I read the rest and if you people don' t want them, you destroy them. That' s what it says. You read it. MR. GINSBERG: Yes, I will read it. And it says quite clearly. It doesn ' t say the county will keep them in force. What it says--at which time said covenant shall automatically be extended for periods of five years unless there is executed an instrument which is signed by a majority of the then owners of the plots agreeing to change said covenant in whole or in part, providing any such change shall first acquire approval of a majority of Weld County Board of County Commissioners before becoming effect. So it' s just what you said you wanted done -52- • • and it' s already in there. MR. DINNER: What I 'm talking about is a two-year period. We likewise find that there is a total lack of requirements. They have not set what time limit to you, as a Board of County Commissioners , will all these things occur in terms of when they will occur, how they will occur . As an example, you have information about a fence. They haven' t said to you --we will construct an eight foot chain link fence according to such and such specifications. All that we really have is we're going to construct a fence; and I 'm not sure if we 've got a one-strand fence that' s going to be put out there as a means of saying, well, we've satisfied the requirements . Ha, Ha, Ha, there it is. No, it doesn't tell us the specific specifications and the requirements for an eight-foot chain-link fence. Now the fence we' re talking about only relates to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Resevoir Company. It was never intended by them that there be fences along the Koch lateral or along the Smith- Conklin lateral, and I 'm sure that ' s the case. Likewise, we do not know that all of these items will be done and will be con- structed in conformity with what they would like us to believe prior to the time that any of these lots go for sale. And we would like to know, if and when, this should occur if this plat is made available and is approved, will all the things that they're talking about will be completed in proper manner prior to the time that any single lot is made available for sale and prior to the time that construction occurs on any of these lots . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Now, so we take these one at a time, you brought up the fence. The fence certainly disturbs , not disturbs , concerns me. I am speaking for myself, not the Board. If this plat were approved, I would require a minimum five-foot chain-link fence with the proper arms that lead in, with the proper three strands of barb wire on it for two reasons : No. 1 children inside of the Parkland subdivision would not be able to crawl that fence and get into the ditch, No. 2 debris , what- ever it might be, loose papers , whatever , blowing because of the winds or the breezes , would be caught by that fence and because -53- of the barb wire, coming up, would not get over into the ditches. And I personally will require that. MR. DINNER: Okay, these are , this is part of what I am getting at, is that it' s fine to talk in generalities . We are concerned with specifics. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : As you bring these up, then hopefully the rest of the Board can express their feelings about the specifics if this is approved. And I think these are important points that need to be clarified, not only to you, but to the interested people on both sides. So I 've only expressed my own opinion regarding that fence protecting the irrigation ditches . MR. JACOBUCCI : I would concur with that. That must be a must. All irrigation ditches that are in the area, and not just one. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I 'm referring to irrigation ditches. MR. DINNER: As an @xample with regards to a number of the other items dealing with the covenants , it says no lot owner a, this is paragraph 9 resubdivision, where it says no lot owner may resubdivide his property until after June 6 of 2053. That may sound like a long time off but yet the material which was submitted here which came from the state clearly outlined to these people that there should be no availability of further resubdivision of these lots . If Mr. Ginsberg will go back to the material which was presented to the state, this came by way of the State Engineer, I believe, in connection with water matters, in which they specifically outlined that that should be denied. And part of the reason came from the so-called questionable aspect of water quantity. Dealing with those matters, perhaps maybe it will be helpful if I simply examine those for the time being. The State Engineer indicates to us -54- • • apparently, that there is an adequate supply of water. Quite frankly, I 'm not here to necessarily refute the State Engineer but I am simply speaking as somebody who has had some practical experience in dealing with some of these water matters and I call the Board' s attention to the fact that every single member of the Planning Commission, at the time this matter came before them, quite frankly, were of the similar opinion that the amounts and quantities of water which were suggested by the Parkland Estates group for domestic use were totally inadequate; and an insignificant amount to provide for the needs of those resi- dents, particularly in view of the use of modern-day conven- iences such as garbage disposals , washing machine units, etc. , and all other types of electric apparatus that would be using water. And it was felt that under those circumstances , these four wells , with such limited capacity as to have 12-15 gallons a minute, were totally inadequate to provide the kind of water supply that was needed to advantageously provide a water system for the area. Now, they do not spell out, in these covenants , the times , I said, for construction. Perhaps we should talk about that. As to when these will be done, how they will be done, and how they will assure us that they will be paid for. No provision is made as an example, for a fund. No provision is made for bonding. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: Mel , so I get clarification on con- struction. I assume that you' re talking about construction of the homes? MR. DINNER: No, no, I 'm talking about construction of the fence; I am talking about construction of conduits; I am talking about construction of drop structures for drainage, etc . Things of this variety. We 're quite concerned, and I 'm not sure that there is suitable answer to this, quite frankly, Mr. Commissioner, with regards to the drainage. This area, and a portion, I won' t say all, but there is a portion of the Parkland Estates project which is located, which they well -55- • • know, within a 100-year flood plain area. And we have some serious problems that can result with increased water supply coming into these ditch systems of these various people, including the Koch lateral , the Smith-Conklin lateral, the Erie Coal Creek Ditch lathal , and there is no provision simi- larly made for retention ponds. We have asked them all along to consider the possibility of construction of retention ponds. Now you raised the question of retention ponds at some later date. We 're talking about the construction of retention ponds at this time, in addition to the various cement drop structures and drainage patterns. Now there are a number that Mr. Goodwin has placed in through the final plat, but that' s one of the areas where we located the problem of us missing and I assume here it will be corrected, with regards to that one item. They have also indicated to us , and we find nothing here with the material which supplies programs of indemnification or programs of liability protection, to either the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and Resevoir Company, the Smiths , the Conklins , or the Kochs. Now they have indicated to us that they carry, suppo- sedly, or plan to carry public liablity insurance in some size- able quantities. We have no assurance that that will be pro- vided. We have likewise no assurance that it will be cortinued once commenced. We feel that too very essential. You recognize certainly, the danger of children getting into that ditch, etc. And you're creating a suburban area surrounding these ditches. We do not want to find ourselves, with these people who own these ditch systems, are subjected to lawsuits or hazards , or problems resulting from people who will be abutting upon these so-called ditch systems . In answer to the question about the Sanitation District, incidentally, I think I need to call atten- tion to the fact that the Sanitation District agreement clearly provides that it is subject to approv--here it is , page 5 of the agreement, at subsection 2 , and Iread--the obligations of Erie (and they mean there the Erie Water and Sanitation District) to provide service under this agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon an agreement between the applicant and the town of Erie, providing water service to Parkland Estates subdivision. -56- Well, they're not about to get any so-called sewer system with this so-called district until they make their peace with the town of Erie and the town of Erie is not about to make peace with them at this point in time, because the agreement is not a one-sided one; it clearly calls for water services from the town of Erie--something which is not now available and perhaps may never be available. I call your attention next to what may be an impracticable scheme of subdivision. I call your attention to the fact that there are numerous lots which are split by the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. All right, now let' s take a look at what we ' re creating. We have a lot, and a rather sizeable ditch with a 70-foot right-of-way, fenced on both sides coming through. Those people will find that the other portion of their lots are totally inaccessible, as a matter of fact they can' t even get back to it to chop the weeds down. There is no means for them to get the large portion of these lots. So we have an impracticable subdivision plan as now designed. I would also, perhaps, with all deference to the gentleman from United Airlines , Mr. Hamilton, whose (inaudible) if I may just take a moment and let them indicate to you what they learned from Mr. McGhee and what they knew previously. (unidentified female voice) (inaudible) Two years ago, I contacted from my office, in Denver, Mr. McGhee, with the Federal Aviation Traffic Safety Control, in Denver. Before I start this , sir, I didn' t get your name from Broomfield but you' re with Jeffco? This gentleman said he was , are you with Jeffco? airport? CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : No, United Airlines. (same femalevoice as above) United Airlines? That' s what I wanted to get. Oh, I 'm sorry. I just wanted to get th straighten that out. It has nothing to do with this, but I wanted to straighten it out. And I called Mr.McGhee and he gave me the information at the time that the air belongs to all -57- of us, which you people have brought up many, many times , too. But this is what he just got through telling me; he said that the flight safety people at Jeffco airport set up the practice areas , am I right? Will anyone dispute me? That' s good. (unidentified male voice) : Miss (same female voice) : Okay (same male voice as above) Who is he describing as flight safety people? (same female voice) ; Who does he? The people at Jeffco who control (same male voice) : I don' t know that who he meant by that. (same female voice) : I 'm not going to argue with you, sir. I 'm not here to argue with you. All right, the people at Jeffco have the authority to clear the flight paths . In other words , they have the authority to clear your area, your Parkland area from crafts in flight, and change the practice area from Parkland. I asked him, then, that being the case, how would we know, in that area, and I forgot to state my name I 'm Mrs. Hamilton. I have property at 4020 Weld County Road 5, which is less than a mile just south of here. And I asked him how we were to identify if one of these planes was a practice plane or if it belonged to Parkland. We're already overcrowded with airlines . And he said that we will just have to continue the protesting if the flying practice does not change. But Jeffco has the authority to set up the flight paths of Parkland and practice areas. MR. DINNER: Thank you, Mrs. Hamilton. -58- • CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Mel, Could I clarify who Mr. McGhee is, what his title is, and what authority he has to make those statements? MR. DINNER: Would you indicate who Mr. McGhee is? MRS. HAMILTON : I sure would. And I have a letter which I ' ll be glad to bring to the commissioners if they would like it, not at this time, but it is at home. And Mr. McGhee is with the FAA in Denver and I have a telephone number and he said you were more than welcome to call him. MR. DINNER: Do you have his title, Mrs. Hamilton? MRS. IPMILTON: Yes, he has a to do with the traffic con- trol patterns of the United States Government. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : That really doesn' t mean alot ma' am. There are a tremendous number of employees who work for the United States government who are traffic controllers who are only employed with no authority to make that type of a state- ment. MRS. HAMILTON: Well, I ' ll bring his letter. Will that be all right? CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: Yes. I think it' s important that we MRS . HAMILTON: I will surely get it. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I think you understand what I 'm getting at. MR. DINNER: I understand. Please understand I did not talk to him today and that' s why I asked Mrs. Hamilton -59- • • MRS. HAMILTON : No, it was me MR. DINNER: and I asked Mrs. Hamilton because it was she who indicated that she went out at the remark of a lady because she had had prior contact with Mr. McGee in the past and she called him specifically this afternoon. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : If he ' s the Director of Safety Control or System Director or is responsible MR. DINNER: I personally cannot give you his title because I am not familiar with the gentleman. MR. GINSBERG: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner, I should like to make note on this on the record that this conversation is born solely out of what we call heresay and I should like to inquire, if I might, did you state to this gentleman that this would be a registered airport when you talked with him? MRS. HAMILTON: Yes, I did sir. That ' s what you said. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I think, Mr. Ginsberg, we will get this clarified because MR. GINSBERG: Yes, I think so, in rebuttal I ' ll attempt to clarify it. MR. DINNER: I do just briefly want to go back to this problem of title identicating. We have not been given satis- factory information. They may say that the title now vests in the trustees, but that to us is not sufficient because we do not know who we are really going to be dealing with because who the trustees represent in terms of Parkland Estates, Inc . , Parkland Associates , or some other group or who will this entity be and what are the means we have. And this raises those idemnifi- cation, liablity, bonding, etc . requirements . Okay, going -60- ahead, there are a series of lots lying to the northwest corner. About seven of them, and that is what Mr. Goodwin was referring to with regards to septic tank and leech problems . And that it is totally unreasonable to consider the usage of septic tank systems in that area. As a matter of fact, Mr. Glenn Paul, of the local county health department has suggested that that entire area not even be subdivided because it is in the lower end with potential drainage coming from the existing ditch into that area. So it might be well that that be blocked out as a part of a subdivision area. We have other areas that, perhaps, need to be resolved, and that is they talk about the movement of some of these ditches, but they have said, yes, we ' ll give you an easement but they have not said that they will pay the cost of movement of those ditches. And we are still waiting for them to come and say to us, yes, we will pay that cost. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Now, that' s something I want to get back to, also so, in my mind I 'm clear. As representing the ditch companies , the irrigation ditch companies, have they, the irrigation ditch companies , indicated to you that those ditch companies need to be relocated? MR. DINNER: They will no doubt have to be relocated, specifically CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I wish you would show us on the map. Where and why. MR. DINNER: Okay. County Road No. 3 over here on the what would be the west side apparently has today the encroach- ment of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch within the right-of-way of County Road No. 3 now. And with the advent of a subdivision development, you are probably going to have to increase the width of County Road No. 3 as it now exists because you're -61- going to have tremendously increased traffic patterns which will occur within the area itself .May I call your attention looking closely at the map as to how far the ditch now is within the area, which will require its movement easterly, from where it now is located. And thus , considerable cost would be required to make that movement easterly off of the county road. Similarly you have the Koch lateral moving along, and they have now provided by a ground survey added on to the map along the west side, the easement area for the construction of the Koch lateral as well. Okay. Similarly in that case they talk about the easement and its availability but they don' t tell us any- thing with regards to who will pay the cost. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, now let me ask you again another question. Other than that ditch encroaching on County Road 3, Parkland Estates basically, I 'm, if it were approved, I 'm asking a question not making an assumption, by the develop- ment of Parkland Estates and proper fencing and proper right- of-way, 20 feet on the high and 70 on the lower or vice-versa. There is no physical reason why the ditches would have to be changed, in other words , because of Parkland Estates, other than that you've indicated on County Road 3 , the proper irrigation of the irrigated lands , either above or below, whichever way it goes, that the development there would not necessitate a changing of that ditch to still deliver the same amount of water to the irrigated farmers, above or below, if the ditch were maintained in its present state? MR. DINNER: I think I would have to concede and say that is correct, to the extent that the existing Colorado law would prevent them from attempting to make a change of our existing ditch system as it is now located without our permission and consent. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, I wanted to be sure that the -62- Board here was clear on that--that if proper provisions were made, that there' s no reason that there would be a change in the amount of water that would traverse through that ditch with proper irrigation. MR. DINNER: I think it would continue, in the future , assuming everything being constant, just as it has in the past. And I reiterate that they have no right to make a change of our ditch system without our approval. CHAIRMAN BILILNGS : Yes , well I guess that' s the reason, over here I asked you if there had been a request for changing the ditch. I just wanted to know MR. DINNER: Well, it' s a recognition that this will have to be changed over here on the west side in reference to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch and similarly to the Koch lateral. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I would also at this point, speaking personally, if this were approved, it certainly would not fall to the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners. I mean, I 'm talking about myself. Not the other four people. But I would not accept the responsibility of widening County Rd. 3 and developing into a major traffic area and it would be the requirement of Parkland Estates that it were necessary. MR. JACOBUCCI : I would second that on account of I don' t want any part of County Road 3 being widened or curved to make Parkland exist. We 've got enough handicaps there as it is now. MR. DINNER: That ' s why the easement was provided, I think because everybody recognizes the problem as it exists . What we ' re concerned about is who ' s going to pay that cost of making this change? MR. JACOBUCCI : We ' re living with it today. -63- MR. DINNER: Yes, but probably what happened if we go back and we find some of the old timers we would find out that the ditch system has been in being long before the county road ever came into being. MR. JACOBUCCI : That might be but probably the ditch has been going a little west all the time too, and encroaching on the county road MR. DINNER: That might very well be. MR. JACOVUCCI : It may have been 15-20 feet over to the east before it curved there CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Would you say, Mr. Dinner, that that ditch was there before 18 MR. DINNER: I said I don' t know. It may have been. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I was just wondering if it was there before 1886. MR. DINNER: I don' t know. It could've been there. It ' s very likely because some of those ditch systems in that area weren' t in being as I understand it. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I realize that but I just, you know, thought you might because of your expertise know. MR. DINNER: I have no way of telling you about this specific one. I have no information. I did want to point out those particular items. Now, I don' t envision or see as of right now any change with regards to the Smith-Conklin ditch, other than the items that are referred to by way of a number of items that we have discussed with them such as various conduits, -64- i • CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, now, that' s what I was waiting for you to bring up. You said there was a discussion about conduits. Where would be, what would necessitate a conduit in the irrigation system in, as it now exists , in Parkland Estates if it were approved? MR. DINNER: All right. We have made the request, ini- tially, as an example, with regards to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch, that rather than fence, our prior choice by way of a discussion with them was a total underground conduit be pro- vided. Now, it might be possible even under those circum- stances that the right-of-way line or the easement line of the ditch be changed in some manner because we would go to an underground conduit. And of course , Parkland Estate ' s group were opposed to that idea, of the underground conduit, because they felt that the expense involved was far too great to con- sider that as a potential and that the fencing was far more feasible in terms of economically. MR. JACOBUCCI : May I ask this question. Mr. Smith, what does your ditch carry? About an acre foot or a second foot of water? MR. SMITH: Two foot. MR. JACOBUCCI : Two foot? I can see where I would love to have Parkland Estates seam a conduit in my ditch also, if I were in the Smiths place because they have immediate water to their farm the minute the headgate ' s open and it gets into their farm in nothing flat then. But I think it would behoove those folks then to support some of the charge. I don ' t think it ' s fair to put that total amount of expense on Parkland Estates to seam that ditch because that' s something they could do now and benefit tremendously with the savings of water. -65- • • CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Now I have another question MR. JACOBUCCI : I ' ll take that deal if I can get Parkland Estates to seam that ditch. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I would, maybe the engineer might answer this, Mel, I 'm not going to direct it to you, but because it' s been mentioned, the conduits before, and I 've heard this a number of times . Just an example, and I 'm not familiar with the area so I have to ask a question: from the upper point of any one of those irrigation ditches, what would be the percent of drop per foot, per hundred foot, per thousand foot? I am asking this question for a specific reason. If, in fact, the conduit was constructed, and we do not have a proper drop in excess of four to six percent, that conduit is going to be silted up in less than two years . Now if the engineer has that in, answer , I would like to know that. MR. DINNER: We recognize the problem, of course. MR. GOODWIN: I don' t have the absolute precise figures but the Erie Coal Creek Ditch, the Smith and Conklin lateral crosses the property right through here. No, it ' s a very small ditch; the Koch lateral, this has been changed since this pic- ture was drawn, but the Koch lateral comes off the Erie Coal Creek Ditch back here in this , into the County Road or right beside what is now the County Road. And it' s northward. The Erie Coal Creek Ditch, to answer your question about the drain, is an extremely flat ditch, about between, right around two- tenths of one percent. The size of the ditch at a capacity of 50 second feet illustrates the flatness of the ditch. It' s my feeling that siltation would be a very severe problem in any conduit placed in that area. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Vic, I don' t think you want your ditch now. -66- • • MR. JACOBUCCI : No, you' re talking about the Coal Creek Ditch CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Is there a difference in the other one? MR. JACOBUCCI : You can' t tube that ditch, My Lord, that would cost a fortune ! If they have enough money CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Would the drop in the other laterals be similar to that? MR. GOODWIN: The other ditches , I haven' t really studied the grade on the other ditches, but at one point in a meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Smith, they indicated to us that they didn' t want it, the conduit, so MR. JACOBUCCI : Could I ask a question? Are Mr. and Mrs. Smith, or whoever it is here? MR. GOODWIN: They' re here. MR. JACOBUCCI : They' relere? Well , I 'd like to ask this question. Are you dissatisfied in any way with the way your ditch is now? I think that would be an important part. MR. SMITH : No. MR. JACOBUCCI : Okay. That says a lot to me. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I would hopefully, at this point, strike any consideration of the Board of considering a conduit on any of those ditches . MR. DINNER: What were referring so you may understand in part, there are a series of itemsvh re conduits are specifically required, such as in the Smith-Conklin lateral. It is coming -67- under the airstrip. Therefore it must be covered CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, MR. DINNER: so there is conduit required. Now the length of that conduit was of such sufficient length that we said to them we will need a manhole opening. They agreed to this. It is shown on the plat. We worked many of these problems out. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Are the conduit problems worked out where they are necessary for the proper distribution of wait'? MR. DINNER: Well , I would say, I am sure you would find otherwords . We have tried to resolve them as best we could before we came to this meeting today. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay. Then the Chair here will the Board will keep whatever notes they want to regarding conduit, but I think it becomes irrelevant. MR. JACOBUCCI : I 'm very familiar with irrigation systems and whatnot. Down through the years I 've worked with water in many various forms and irrigation. How do you clean your ditches at the present time? MR. SMITH: With a ditcher. MR. JACOBUCCI : With a ditcher . Well, you get a number of conduits in there, crossing, then how are you going to clean the ditches . MR. SMITH : That becomes a problem, a real problem. MR. JACOBUCCI : I 'm not here to be pro or con but I want the Board and everyone concerned to realize what happens when -68- you put in conduits crossing . So I think you have answered a very important point again. Someone, then, has to put in extra hours of work or whatever to keep this open for water . It' s something that we cannot overlook. I mean it ' s a cost factor to somebody. MR. SMITH: I 'd have to at leaf every two years get a backhoe in there to clean out around where this goes into this conduit. It' s something I 'm very familiar with but the question in my mind, as long as you brought this up, is I heard one res- ponse that we are included and our lateral will be fenced, and that' s what I heard one time , and then I heard again that it is not going to be fenced. But if you fence this , and you come to the runway, how do you keep people out, youm ow, and how do we get through to clean it up? MR. JACOBUCCI : Gates , and so forth. MR. SMITH : That gets to be a probibm, getting down off the tractor and open all the gates as you go through and MR. JACOBUCCI : You would say you haven' t come to a satisfactory understanding of that problem. MR. SMITH: That particular part of it I don' t understand. MR. DINNER: As an example, one of the things that has not been resolved, for example, trash collection gates and things of that variety also as a part of the conduits, because you can' t simply put the conduit in, you have to put in other facilities with it as a part of it to make it a workable conduit. As any farmer knows , and I 'm just going to put the pipe in, you've got to do something besides . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Mel, I was out for a minute, but it' s been my experience that with a fence like I described, on both -69- sides of those ditches , that there is going to be less debris in those ditches than now exist because those fences are going to also catch the weeds . MR. DINNER: Course the fences they' re talking about and they can correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding their agreement to fence relates only to the Erie Coal Creek Ditch. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Well, this becomes the decision of the Board, what they fence. MR. DINNER: I am just saying what they have suggested to us by way of what they have said they would agree to do, is the fencing of only the Erie Coal Creek Ditch, and they have not intimated in any way desire or willingness to fence the Koch lateral or the Smith-Conklin ditch. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I wanted to ask the gentleman back here, and I don' t remember your name MR. SMITH: Just plain, old Smith. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Just plain, old, Smith, that' s good. Good easy name. You indicated a problem with getting off a tractor and opening a gate and going through. Now I 'd like to put a direct question to you. Would you prefer this fence which I 've said I think should happen to protect your ditches , or would you prefer a lesser fence where you could drive through without getting off and on your tractor? I 'm trying to protect the irrigation system and I know by protecting the irrigation system that you certainly cause other problems, such as having to get off and opening the gate to go through, or something like that. MR. SMITH: Well, I can' t see what to do other than have gates when you come to the runway. -70- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Well, this is what I mean. I 'm saying that I think it should be totally fenced, with proper gates wherever they might be needed. So, automatically that causes you a problem, as farmer in the area, of unlocking the gate. You can' t fence it and not get away from that other problem. MR. SMITH: It doesn' t do a bit of good to put a thousand feet if you leave one open. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : But I just wanted you to be sure that I can' t solve both of your problems , okay? MR. JACOBUCCI : And another thing comes into play there. It is this would be an airstrip. If I was on the tractor and I was crossing that and seems like I don' t know, you can watch the airplanes coming or what? Would there have to be a device or something to indicate no landing? I mean this could, you know. MR. SMITH: Hadn' t even thought of that. MR. JACOBUCCI : I 'm not familiar with airplanes but I know they 're quite speedy. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Before we get into all this open dis- cussion because right now I 'm going to set a ground rule--we ' re going to be out of here by six o'clock, if not sooner. And so I 'm going to move right along. MR. DINNER: I would be happy to answer any other comments I would just make a few items that I feel essential to tell you. One is the location, which is what Longmont Fire Protection District raised also, is the location of high tension lines within the immediate area of the proposed subdivision and the airstrip. In addition to that is the location of that which you -71- know to be the NARC (National Atmospheric Research Center) tower, which is planned for construction in that same area of over 900 and some feet of height. These are items that need to be brought to your attention. There are a number of other items , but I know that the members who are here of the ditch company system would like to give you some personal remarks and so it may be advantageous if I said I 'm going to call a halt because Mr.Mleynek, who is the president of the ditch system and may I indicate , for your benefit, and likewise for those of Parkland Estates, he is a pilot likewise with one of the major airlines . And so if you have questions , he knows what he ' s talking about because this is his occupation, likewise. He, too, is a farmer. He, too, resides '.n this area; he is highly opposed to it. And so at this point I would prefer if there is some remarks by Mr. Mleynek and Mr. Oscarson, CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, at this point, before we start now, for exercise, or anything else , restrooms , I 'm going to declare a break until five o ' clock, which is about six minutes and then we will start immediately at five o'clock . And hope- fully those people will be back, some of the rest of them, in just a few minutes. So that all of you have an opportunity who want to comment on this and as long as it' s not repetition that you' re not saying something that somebody else said. I 'm going to limit the time of each individual because legal staff , in all three areas, I think, have supplied us with a tremendous amount of expertise and what we really want to hear now from individual people and so I am going to limit that time for each individual who wishes to speak for five minutes . And Mel, you are the first person. MR. DINNER: Okay. I 'd just like to indicate because a number of people contacted me during that intermission to make comment to me about a number of items. They requested that I briefly say it, and perhaps they will comment upon it. Number -72- • • one was the matters relating to education. There is a letter from the St. Vrain Valley Public Schools dated November 19 , 1975 in the file. It does clearly indicate that there will be a housing shortage, particularly with regards to the Erie Junior and Senior High Schools for a peiod of time to a number of years as a result of the proposed subdivision. And this is based on CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : May I speak, go ahead MR. DINNER: the rate structure of perhaps 31/2 people per family. We have no way of saying to people--you come in on each site with 31/2 persons per house on an average. And so they are quite concerned because these people tell me that today all those classes in the Erie system in that area are terribly overcrowded and not capable of handling an excess today that would be caused by the construction of Parkland Estates. Item No. 2 CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Let me speak MR. DINNER: What? CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : May I speak to the item of education first? MR. DINNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : The Board of County Commissioners has no jurisdiction in making a decision on land use, subdivision, etc. As to the impact on education facilities. So even though that has been expressed here Mr. Dinner, we do not have that authority. It is something that we certainly consider but we have not any authority of evaluating on a subdivision what im- pact it might have on a school system. -73- • • MR. DINNER: Secondly, they have indicated that I indicate to you the economic impact which will result within the county. Both by way of the change to urbanization in that area and the general service requirement problems which will occur in providing services to the region, involved over there. Fire protection, police protection in terms of sheriff ' s office, etc . etc. And thirdly they requested that I bring to your attention the problems and hazards and nuisance created by airplanes flying over in that area. And we 're not talking about high-flying jets , we 're talking about small aircraft, and the visible flying conditions, and flying in and out of this airstrip. And there are some people who want to address theirselves to this and perhaps we can call on them during the course of this discussion.And I 'd like to start if, I may then, first of all then, Mr. Mleynek, who is the president of the Erie Gal Creek Ditch. MR. MLEYNEK: I 'm Jack Mleynek, and I 'm president of the Erie Coal Creek Ditch Company. I have some things that I 'd like to bring up and they're related to different sub- jects, the ditch being first and foremost. Now some of this might border on being a little repetitous but I 'm very con- verned about the fact that nothing' s been brought up here today by Parkland about how our liability, as a ditch com- pany, is to be covered. We face, and we have faced in the past, and unfortunately know it' s going to be a problem in the future with a development such as this the question of once people have put up expensive houses, good houses, they have a lot of investment in them, and then people, say, below the ditch during the summer , their yard get muddy, they complain to us , we can' t do anything about it , they want to take us to court, they want to sue us. We 'd have the same thing. We have to clean our ditches , we have to pile dirt along the bottom of the ditch, they say it is an eyesore--they want to take us to court. We have the same problem, then, with the -74- possibility of weeds growing along our side of the ditch. They 're an eyesore, get rid of them. They want to take us to court. What protection do we have against it. There is nothing that has been written and presented to us to protect us against this. If Parkland does say that they will take the liability, for the liability insurance for this company, how long is this for? Will Parkland still be here five years from now, or will it be dissolved? They say the owners of the houses will sup- port us . What happens when they move and forget to tell the people that come in that they are responsible for paying the liability insurance on the ditch? And liablity insurance at this time is not a big problem but we know that in the future there are more problems with ditches clogging, floodings , and ditches running through residential areas , and of course the biggest problem of all, individuals drowning in ditches , that this liability is going up and up and up and we 're , there ' s going to be more requirements on the ditch companies. What if ten years from now the insurance company say a six-foot fence is not enough? We want an eight-foot fence on it. Who is going to build a new fence to cover the liability in- surance? These are all questions which I feel have not been answered adequately and especially they haven't been set down in writing. Another problem, again, with weeds. We have a problem on our side, of course, but what about the problem of weeds piling up on their side? If we have a land owner who doesn' t take care of his property, the weeds could pile up to sufficient highth that it' s theoretically possible that in a high wind condition, which does exist in Colorado, that the fence could actually be bent over or blown over. Wetave no stipulation that states that the property owners are responsible and liable for keeping their side of the fence clean. Also on the heighth of the fence, we do not feet that five feet are adequate, or six feet. I would like to make one remark as to the conduit. Now I 'm not too familiar with what the people involved are wishing, but I do own a small subdivision of my own -74- in Larimer County, with forty-nine units. We had two laterals on the property and there was no question; we put one in a plastic pipe underground and another one we spent several thousand dollars worth of money for leveling in order to move the ditch off our property. I felt it was our obligation as a developer to do this . I do not see why this developer does not feel it is his obligation to provide the same kind of service. In passing, I would just like to mention again, the split lots; I realize there are no regulations specifically for a pivot having lots on a subdivision that are split by a ditch. On the other hand, I believe the preliminary plat was recommended again by the Planning Commission and that this was one of the reasons , and just because there is not a regu- lation against it, I cannot understand how the preliminary plat was passed with this kind of a discrepancy in it. I would also like to mention that we never received, the ditch company, never received notification of the zoning or the preliminary plat hearing. Another question which I had, was brought up by Mr. Ginsberg, that they had they had tried in any ways to secure water, in other ways besides the wells , and that it was impossible to get. What is to happen, if in years in the future we have years of drought like we had in ' 55, these wells are inadequate , where are they going to get the water? Mr. Ginsberg has stated that, in the future, re- garding many questions--sewers, water, retention ponds, ditch liability, that they would be willing to do whatever was required. But what type of bonding, what type of responsi- bility is provided to guarantee this? CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : The County requires certain bonding for streets , drainage, those types of things. I ' ll answer that directly for you. MR. MLEYNEK: Well, I would request then that the bond be set up before the . . . -75- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : We have a procedure based on the cost of having to do it ourselves if the subdivider does not do it. MR. MLEYNEK: Regarding the airport, several statements were made which somewhat imply that almost, almost imply that the amount of traffic would actually be less than what it is now because theoretically the practice area would be dissolved because of the airport being there. I find that I disagree with this. And that again, they mentioned the aerobatic flights over the airport but they did not mention approaches to landing, takeoff, and of course , the amount of traffic generated by the subdivision itself , it is assumed, but what about the people, and they stated themselves that they had visitor tie-down areas. These people are going to have their friends coming in, they're going to come in, they' re going to land at the airport, they're going to take off the airport. I know of no regulations that state that you can' t practice touch and go on your own private airport. Also, I do not live next to the subdivision, I live at the end of the ditch. And I 'm Gatside the airport area. The traffic, the low-flying traffic, the aerobatics , and the rest of it, is going to be increased over my house. I moved to the county to get a little quiet. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I 'm going to have to cut you off. Somebody else? MR. OSCARSON: I 'm David Oscarson. I live at Erie just north of this subdivision. In regard to that map, when we were talking about drainge into that ditch, the entire subdi- vision drains into the ditch. It will probably be some 300 feet on the east side, Road 5, where it carries it down. That' s just for clarification. It takes all the drainage off of that. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : That' s into the main ditch? -76- • • MR. OSCARSON: Into the main ditch. Erie Coal Creek Ditch. There was talk of some 15 acres as it now constitdes on agricultural , you have a cultivation system which is good, fine. Now any time you put down sod, we know grass absorbs better than (inaudible) so you are going to have a greater runoff. I think the 15 acres is a little bit short there at that particular part. And even you would have that sod runway, strip, that' s going to increase over historical. This is what I 'm commenting. I think Mr. Mleynek brought up on the weeds on the outside of the fence there, for weeds and trash, paper and that stuff going over. In regard to some of this conduit, that you were speaking of, I think there is one there that is 300 and some feet long. Now, if you were down into that and you get that plugged up in the middle, even if you take and put one, you still got some 150 feet there. So I think, trashwise, this is one of the problems. I think on this dealing with the roads, with the easement, I don' t know just how many he is , Mr. Smith, is going to have alone. But one of them over there is over 300 feet long. When we ' re talking about the conduits , lot of them are coming a, right into the cul de sacs of the streets . In regard to Mr. Mleynek, I ' ll have to take and disagree with him a little bit here where he ' s talking about insurance. I happen to be on the Board of the South Platte' s . . . (inaudible) . . .we wanted to increase our insurance a little bit and we had to go to three insurance companies before we could, finally got it. (inaudible) Colorado . . . . Division, and we got to go to three, why, this is getting a little ridiculous. And our premium goes up twice as much or half again when we get more insurance. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: Okay. Thank you. MR. THURMAN: I 'm Wayne Thurman. I live at 1920 Spruce Drive here at, in the CamacarRanchette. I speak with the private citizens. I 've got a checklist here I 'd like to read. I 've been an airplane driver for 31 years , 14 years in jet fighters. Iwould like to express my views on the location of the proposed landing strip. Like my friend here, I moved, out _-7.7_ to Carmacar Ranchette, to get away from the noise and the hazards of aircraft. I live about a thousand feet beyond Road 12. Landing a light aircraft, in a strong wind requies real skill and considerable luck to get it stopped safely in one piece and undamaged. This runway is not oriented with the prevailing wind. I say that for a couple of reasons , based on my limited experience, and also having lived close to the runway proposed for a matter of about a year. And also there ' s the abandoned runway over south of the Road 12 , and it runs northeast and southwest. Second the landing strip is located parallel and perpendicular to some power lines, need to mention. There ' s a transmission line that runs along Road 12 here. It' s about 75 feet high maybe 100 . Then there ' s one low voltage power line right here on the end of the runway that ' s runs up to the farmer' s house. In my experience, transmission lines and tele- phone lines are a real hazard to light aircraft. I 've taken down one or two myself. Finally, I 'd like to say that the an airplane is a Bing missile, as far as I 'm concerned. And if it' s out of control, it' s a real hazard. And whether the pilots are amatuer or professional--they still have their problems in an emergency that takes some real skill and pro- ficiency to live through it. And if this proficiency is not maintained, which it probably won' t in most cases, disaster will result. I recommend that the proposed land strip be located in less populated and less hazardous area, where the flying mistakes will not endanger so much public life and property. DR. KAUFMAN: I 'm Dr. Margaret Kaufman. I live at 4630 Weld County Rd. 5 , about half a mile from this landing strip. I would like to add, simply add one point to what Mr. Thurman has just said because I agree with what he ' s said entirely. An airport unsupervised, such as this , provides an oppor- tunity, a very easy opportunity for illegal drug transport. Buy a house--you 've got it. And I find that unacceptable to the community of Hie. MR. DINNER: There were some others I didn' t get a chance -78- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, the one in the green shirt. (unidentified male voice) I personally object to that insinuation. (another unidentified male voice) I do too. (many mingled voices talking) CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I don' t want to get into any argue- ments , no, we, when we talk about drug traffic, it doesn' t make any difference what airport you got, you have that possibility. You have the same possibility by car , motorcycle, or anything else. So I think that indicating this could become a major drug area probably is not part of the informa- tion that this Board will consider. I want to, are you opposed , I 'm listening to the people now who have opposition, ma' am. All right, this lady over here. MRS. THURMAN : I 'd like to address myself to the matter of air space. It hasn' t been touched upon. CHAIRMAN BILLS : Give us your name and address, please. Name and address. MRS. THURMAN: My name is Edwina Thurman and I live at the Carmacar Ranchette, and my house is probably a thousand feet from this runway that is this proposed runway. And I 've made a few notes, If I may read them please. I think that this request to build a subdivision and runway over here is fine. But, in addition, they are asking you to give them the air space over all the adjoining residences. But the air space above my house belongs to me. I bought it and I paid for it. When a person buys property, that property includes the certain amount of space overhead. And my air space is not for sale. And just what would they do with it--the air space? -79- I see two major things that they 're to do. First of all, they would pollute it with noise. And excessive noise, gentlemen, is a terrible distraction. They will be revving up their motors and taking off and landing--why, the noise will be unbearable. I don' t see how I can sit on my patio and have a normal conversation. Imagine if just one airplane takes off, of course it has to land to, so one airplane once a day. To me, that' s a real annoyance. Imagine five air- planes taking off in one day, or ten. They said they already have twelve. Fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, can you imagine, gentlemen, this is madness, having all these airplanes circling around, taking off and making this dreadful noise. But there' s a third reason. And that' s been touched on already but I would like to elabor#e. And I 'm talking about the hazard involved. It' s dangerous when airplanes take off and land. This is the time when most accidents occur. We've all heard, nearly daily, how airplanes, both large and small, crash on takeoffs and landings. And this is what they will be doing. Practicing landing, other people will be coming and going. Why in the name of everything that' s decent should we be subjected to this hazard? Why should we be forced to endure this constant mental anguish? It can be argued that the people living in the proposed subdivision will also be living under these same dangerous conditions . Well, that' s fine. Evil Kneivel jumped over trucks and over canyons and all kinds of things . But I don 't have to. If these people want to live dangerously, let them. But please, don' t force me to do the same. I 'm not adverse to flying. I love to fly but I don' t like airplanes buzzing over my head. It' s inconceivable to me that anyone would plan deliberately to put a runway adjacent to a residential area that has 75 homes. Why did they do it? What' s the reason for locating this monstrocity next door? Does it help the enviroment? Does it enhance the neighborhood? Does it contribute anything at all? It would of course line the pockets of the developers , -80- but to the detriment of the already existing residences . The Carmacar subdivision has been on record since 1969 , so why in the world plunk down a runway smack against this housing area? To do so, in my opinion, is a very grave injustice. We were here first. Let them go elsewhere. Weld County is big, the largest in the state of Colorado, and one of the largest in the nation. Surely they can find another place to indulge their flying hobby. A place where other people will not be disturbed nor endangered. Just because they made a poor choice in trying to locate beside a residential area is no reason why this Commission should give acceptance to com- pound the error. As Commissioners, you are called to rectify such errors in planning, not to create them. If that runway were built, it' s possible that one of these aircraft could crash into adjoining residences, and destroy life and property. This has happened before. WouYd the chilling aftermath of such a probable disaster be your responsibility. Surely, you cannot, with a clear conscience, foist upon these residents such a noisy, dangerous condition. Surely your compassion and good judgement will compel you to vote a resounding no to this request. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Anyone else? Gentleman clear in the back that I didn' t know but asked a question long time ago. MR. MCALE : Shane McAle, I live at7244 High Street. . (inau- dible) . . . There will be 91 homes , not 91 airplanes . Now the way this started out, there could be three owners to one airplane. One had to live at Carmacar, the other two didn' t. I mean Parkland. But they could come and they could fly. Three of them could own an airplane. They could fly in and fly out. Now, gentlemen, if all of them come out tere and start flying, you're going to have to find a place to lock some of us up because you can' t take it. There is nobody human it ' s possible for. And if we have 54 lots as they say, there ' s 54 airplanes . There ' s 150 people flying them right now. And it hasn 't been approved yet. You made the statement a little while back, you, Mr. Jacobucci, that you didn' t want nothing -81- to do with the roads down there. Now if they CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Let me correct that. We said that if there was a need for widening of that road and upgrading it because of the traffic created by this we would, it would not be the responsibility of the County of Weld, but the respon- sibility of this subdivision. MR. MCALE : That' s right. So, you don' t want any part of it. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : NO, we 're putting, we ' re putting the burden on them if it ' s approved. MR. MCALE : Well, I know. But you can' t put county roads on the burden of them. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Yes , we can. Sure can. MR. MCALE : That' s what we can do in this meeting, but we can' t do it when it comes down to it. Because they say we ' re not going to take care of them. Then Weld County is going to take care of them because they 're going to have to. There' s going to have to be bridges widening down there, there' s going to have to be Road 3 , Road 7 , 12 , and 10 is going to have to be oiled. You can' t hardly breathe now down there in the summer. And last summer was terrible. You put a counter down there, but the bad part of it was you put the counter at the same time the gas company tore the road down. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Why didn' t you tell us, Mr. McAle? MR. MCALE: . . . and I 'm going to make it my business because the lady put it very plainly--we boughtit, we don' t want the airport. If we have the housing, I 'd like to see -82- the Weld County Commissioners put it down in writing that we will grade the roads, and we will oil them, and will build a new school, not the taxpayers , because I paid $530 a year school tax now, and that ' s about all I can stand. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I think you understand our position on schools , we have MR. MCALE : I understand. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : we have not authority. MR. MCALE: I understand your position but you understand us trying to educate our children. I have three of them in Erie now, and one in grade school. There ' s 80 in a room. I have two boys over in the high school, there' s some 40 to 50 in a class . No man and no woman can teach them. All they 're doing down there right now is babysitting , so if we get this much more, who' s going to babysit? We don' t even have a place to put them inside the s3hoolhouse. We don't have it. So, before it going, goes in, we want schools, we want a place to educate those kids. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: Thank you. Lady, here. :IRS. KOCH : My name is Shirley Koch. And these people have all addressed themselves to the planes , and the housing and the rest of it, but one thing, our farm is located next- door to Parkland. And there is 550 acres there; we have a dairy farm. And there is one problem. We talk about the, protecting the people from falling in the ditch through the area which they own, but what' s to stop them from trespassing on my property? It turns me into a policeman. And instead of being able to farm, I watching for children, and (inaudible) We have to protect these people ourselves . Our pastures are turned -83- • • into a horsepath. Our ditches , the one that Mr. Oscarson owns , that ditch, at one time, had a headgate turned on by some little children from Westview Estates, and a Mr. Wheeler down the road was pretty well flooded out, by the whole situation. And the people down the ditch lost their water. And it ' s just like, too that ditch does need at different times chemicals to kill the weeds in it and these children get in it and swim in it on my don ' t property and I just happen to see it, then that' s aproblem too. And it' s just to the point if when you put a 560 acre dairy farm bounded on three sides by houses and traffic, and traffic is going to go right through the middle of our farm, for the simple reason that Road 3 runs through (inaudible) . . . I 'm going to have a heck of a problem and I 'm going to have to spend money and time to protect myself . And I just don' t have either. And we've been here for well, 12 years . And we moved away from Adams County to live here, in this place, to get away from Hou- sing developments in that area because we realized in that area it was warranted. It was close to Denver. But I don' t feel that in Weld County that this hop-scotch housing is a warranted situation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Anyone else? I 'd like to have a show of hands now starting with the back row of all those people who are opposed to the development. All those people in the back row. If you' re opposed to the development, raise your hands. MR. JACOBUCCI : Raise your hands. CHAIRMAN BILLNGS : Second row? third row, next row, front row. I got two people over there at once I got to give you two votes . I got the other people here later. There are 29. Okay we have some staff people that they would like to get some comments from even though it' s information that will be passed -84- on to the Board that' s been researched by our engineering department. Drew, there are a few things I would like to have you make the Board aware of and copies for the Board to study at a later date. MR. SCHELTINGA: First I 'd like to address Mr. Ginsberg and Mr. Goodwin and tell them that last Friday our County Engineer resigned and I am not presently the County Engineer, and the Board has passed resolution giving me authority to run the operations of the Engineering Departments . However, I am not the County Engineer. And what I have reference to is a letter that was written by Mr. Straub, who, I think, Mr. Goodwin, you did talk to. And it was a memorandum to Gary Fortner on November 20, 1975 , and Mr. Goodwin did respond with a letter to Mr. Straub, of December 12 , 1975 . Mr. Straub' s letter had 15 points which needed clarification and Mr. Goodwin did respond and he cleared up the majority of these points . They, there are six which I have a question on, three of which are small details on the plan that I 'm sure that you and I can work out, don' t need to be discussed. There are three others that I think maybe we should bring up. The only point that you didn' t respond to was point No. 13 on Mr. Straub' s letter referring to serious dust problems, and of course I realize there is no way you could respond to that. But I did want to point out to the Board that Mr. Straub and the Engineering Departments received numerous requests on dust problems and I 'm sure he would have made this point to the Board. Some of the other questions , on item 12 , Mr. Straub made reference, let me just read what he wrote: "Storm water runoff from the site into existing ditches and barrow ditches will be increased. The impact of this additional runoff to the existing ditches should be investigated by the developer ' s consulting engineer and reported to Weld County and the ditch companies . " And I think probably the ditch companies , well let me bring up the other item, there was one other item, -85- Other items referring to lining the ditches which were indicated on the plans , that the developer would do. And Mr. Straub made reference to approval of the ditch company that this construction in the ditch was acceptable to them, and I don't know that the Engineering Department has received or the Planning Department has received any letters from ditch companies okaying these ditch linings and culverts in ditches and I think possibly that' s a very important point. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : I think some of these things have been brought up; in discussing the culverts and this Board will certainly be concerned in not impeding the flow of the water within those ditches. I think Mr. Dinner and the ditch companies are aware of that because of the questions that have been brought up. MR. SCHELTINGA: Well, these wereconcerns that were in Mr. Straub' s letter. I think that I should bring . . .though he ' s not here. Like I mentioned, the other points were small points and I 'm not going to, I 'm sure that Mr. Goodwin and I can work out, and I do want to get in touch with you. The other thing I want to bring up is that last Thursday the Planning Department received a copy of a report entitled, "Supplementary Drain Information" Was this drawn by your company MR. GOODWIN: Yes. MR. SCHELTINGA: Because I didn' t notice that it was signed. I did want to read to the Board, Mr. Goodwin, did you prepare this report or was it MR. GOODWIN : Yes, I did. MR. SCHELTINGA: I did want to read a part of this -86- report, If I may, Mr. Goodwin. Under subheading of Special Traffic Areas . And it reads : Sheet flows , across , all right, I 'm sorry, sheet flows across the developed lots could result in problemq if the finished floor elevations are at gray the lots lying below the Erie Coal Creek Ditch might pose special problems to the south bank of the ditch grade during a major storm. There ' s no feasible way to protect if or when this might occur since it depends on the stability, erosion, and maintenance conditions . It is therefore recommended that all finished floor elevations be a minimum of 18 inches above the original ground at the highest corner of the house. Additionally, lots 1-7 should not be allowed to have basements , and have their finished floor elevation a minimum of 24 inches above original ground at the highest corner. This is for both drainage and septic tank consideration. And I did want it recognized that Parkland Estate ' s did, indeed, acknowledge that there are some problems with the ditches . CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Okay, the Board would also like to have copies of that document, Drew. MR. SCHELTINGA: I don' t want to bring up any other points at this time. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : And I think probably in that list there and what we've heard today we can evaluate those other points. At this time I 'd like to ask for comments from Tom Honn and Gary Fortner of the Planning Staff , Planning Director. MR. FORTNER: Mr. Commissioner, I believe we' ll go over the recommendations that have been transmitted from the Planning Commission, and then try to respond, in those instances , in case there' s things that need to be cleared up . -87- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : You have 15 minutes , 16 minutes. MR. HONN : " Resolution of Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Moved by Chuck Carlson that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it therefore resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the following be reco- mmended to the Board of County Commissioners: That the appli- cation of ParkLand Estates Associates for the final plat of Parkland !Estates be denied until such time as the following changes, modifications , and/or determinations have been accom- plished. 1. The title insurance policy being updated so that clarification of title to the land is accomplished and that responsibilities for maintenance of common areas in the opment may be assigned upon approval of the final plat by the Board of County Commissioners . 2 . The proposed restrictive covenants being clarified so that the relationship between Parkland Associates and Parkland Inc. is established. Such clarification is necessary in order to determine what indivi- duals , agency, association and/or corporation is to be res- ponsible through time for the installation, operation, and maintenance of common facilities such as the airfield, commonly owned tracts and the proposed water system. 3. The following changes being made in the proposed restrictive covenants for the property: a. Covenant concerning subdivision of land in the development being deleted or revised to reflect the State Division of Water Resources requirements and the requirements of Weld County Subdivision Regulations. b. That the section on land use restrictions and limitations require complaints with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. c. That the sections referencing the use of signs and the keeping of livestock and pets be subject to compliance with Weld County Regulations . d. The addition of a restriction on use of water for yard irrigation to reflect the requiements of the State Division of Water Resources. 4 . That a determination be made as to how the developer will satisfy the requirements of Section 8-15A of -88- • • the Weld County Subdivision Regulations . The Planning Com- mission recommends that such requirement be met in accordance with Section 8-15A. (3) of the Weld County Subdivision Regu- lations which states : 'In lieu of land there may be required a payment to the County in an amount equal to the market value at the time of the Final Plat submission of the required acreage as determined according to Section 8-15-B. Such value shall be determined by a competent land appraiser chosen jointly by the Board and the subdivider. The cash collected shall be deposited in an escrow account to be expended for parks at a later date. ' 5 . That action be taken to insure that the intent and requirements of Section 8 . 12 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations is met. Section 8 . 12 states the following: 'Existing irrigation ditches shall be incor- porated within the subdivision plan in a manner such that their function is not impaired. The ditches shall be pro- tected from encroachment and may be fenced in a manner accep- table to the ditch company. ' Fencing is to be located on both sides of the ditch for the entire length of the ditch. A survey showing the actual ditch position is to be made prior to submission to the Board of County Commissioners . It is proposed by the Planning Commission that within ten days after the Planning Commission Resolution is filed with the Board of County Commissioners with reference to this app- lication, that representatives of Parkland Estates and the ditch companies involved meet in joint session at a place and on a date and time to be established by the Board of County Commissioners. It is further recommended that the County Com- missioners attend this meeting to hear the concerns of the interested parties and to determine whether or not these parties can reach any agreements relative to the problems under consideration. If no agreement is possible between the parties involved at this meeting, the following action should ensue : Each party involved will submit to the Board of County Commissioners statements concerning their position with refer- ence to the problems under consideration. These statements -89- would include those items which are felt by each of the parties involved to be actions which they are willing to pursue to resolve the problems , as well as statements indicating their disagreements with the requests and/or demands of the other parties involved. These statements of position would be sub- mitted to the Board of County Commissioners with a view to providing such information as may be necessary for the Board to reach a final decision, as to what requirements will be necessary for the developer to satisfy prior to approval of the proposed final plat. Motion was seocnded by J. Ben Nix, voted for passage Ronald Heitman, J. Ben Nix, Chuck Carlson; against Harry Ashley and Jim Graham. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Pretty good, Tom. MR. FORTNER: Okay, with reference to the conditions that were listed I think that a number of things need to be clari- fied. On items 1 and 2 are major problems with the deeds and records of ownership that you have on the property. And the delay in that transaction had been not missed, the individuals who title is transferred as trustees of Parkland Associates. Mr. Ginsberg gives me today an updated paper on title insur- ance policy and I 'm referring that to the County Attorney' s office for their verification of that. If that' s in order, that question will be cleared up. And our main concern was the availability of the possibility for maintenance in common areas and other improvements within the subdivision are made , we had to know who was in charge. And item No. 3 , this is a point which has already been brought up, with reference to the statement on resubdivision in the covenants . And, as it now states , in the copy I have, "No lot owner may resubdivide his property until after June 6 , 2053 , and then only if Weld County authorities, and State Division of Water Resources and any other respective successors are assured that water facilities and sewer facilities are sufficient to serve the land. And I think I would add to that, and that such resubdivision be -90- • • also under Weld County Subdivision Regulations . Think we should consider more than just the sewer and water facilities in the resubdivision procedure. I do think that needs to be added to the covenants . MR. GINSBERG: No problem. MR. FORTNER: On item B that, the section on land use and restrictions required, and limitations required by compliance with Weld County Zoning Ordinance. There were several items here and I think there were a few items under C and D. First, the section on signs. We requested that it be stipulated that even with the signs allowed under the covenants also be reference to Weld County Regulations in terms of signs and that, and placement of signs. And it has been added under item 13-K (inaudible) Weld County Regulations . Another problem we had was with reference to was with live- stock and pets . This is on 16 , item C, which states that more than three major animals may be allowed by the ACC, pro- vided that in their opinion the animals will be cared for and will not constitute a nuisance of any kind, to any part of the balance of the community. We had some problems with that. I think it misleads people in thinking that in all cases they can have more than three animals as long as the ACC approves it. In one specific case under the regulations , if you've got four or more adult dogs of a certain age, you have a kennel and are required to use it, which means you have to go beyond the ACC in order to use this . (inaudible) So I think to that should be added that in such cases that these animals also meet the restrictions and requirements of Weld County regula- tions. There was a revision also with reference to raising livestock for commercial gain. In the first set of covenants we had, it indicated that it might be allowed. In this one it says it is disallowed. So that the raising of livestock for commercial gain is disallowed since this is primarily a residential community. The second sentence in that particular -91- item seemed to apply, in the first draft of the covenants , but it doesn' t seem to be consistent in the rewrite. It continges that such practice will not be basis for exceeding the normal limit of three animals in the judgment of the ACC. The increase in animals would result in a nuisance to the neighboring lots only. I think that needs to be clarified a little bit. The wording ' s not consistent. They have added under item D, the restriction on using water, and I think get down some wording that would agrees, something to the effect that irrigation of lawns , gardens, or other such areas shall be restricted to an area not to exceed 10, 000 square feet per lot, which is consistent with the water available to the owners on a per-lot basis . This is also requested by the State Engineer ' s Office that one or two operate with water that is available to the subdivision, is allocated to the subdivision, that any outside water would have to be limited to 10 , 000 square feet, and should not cover the entire lots as they are proposed now. The rest of the requirements , No. 4 , that is consistent with the position that the County has taken over the past year or so with reference to dedication of lands for open space and parks . And this is has been the attitude , more or less, up to now that it' s best if the County have funds in lieu of actual lands dedication because of the many problems involved. There was a recommen- dation of the Planning wmmission that the required acreage be paid in fee rather than accepting that land for dedicational purposes. Number 5 I think we have gone over many of the problems involving the ditches this afternoon, and I think we have a list, at this time, of things that need to be solved, which the Commissioners are ready to address . In the last instance, the proposed meeting between the ditch company and the applicant, this was a proposal by the Planning Commission but since that time has been decided against by the Board, and we ' re up to the point in time we are right now. There was one other item that I think should be looked at and that is in -92- terms of the improvements agreement, which was dated August 5 of ' 75 , with reference to the improvements agreement providing the facilities in the subdivision. The improvements agreement as it exists now and as it was dated on August 5 , 1975 , includes street grading, street base, street paving, curbs , gutters , and culverts, survey and street monuments , and street main signs. Some of the conversation we 've had this afternoon, it seems that it would be logical to include in this improvements agree- ment such things as we 've talked about this afternoon--outside water supply storage, water mains, fire hydrants ,fencing requirements and ditch improvements--which are also listed under improvements of the ditch. We are not taking into account the time this was consummated. Beyond that, we have basically a list of conditions that the Commissioners have indicated today during this hearing that they would like to be requiring if the plat would be approved. CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Thank you, Gary. Tom, I 'd like to have you refer back to where a recommendation of the Planning Commission that this Board meet with the ditch company and Parkland to resolve any problems that may still exist. I 'd like to have you read that back to me please. MR. HONN : Okay, you want the section on the Planning Commission' s CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : The Planning Commission made a reco- mmendation, I believe it was , yes, made a recommendation that this Board set a date for a meeting with the ditch company and the developer, I think that was the words , the terms used. MR. HONN: Okay, this was under item No. 5 listed on the Planning Commission' s resolution CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Got a date there? MR. HONN: The resolution that I just read was dated -93- • • December 22 , 1975 . "It is proposed by the Planning Commission that within ten days after, " (is that what you meant? Okay. It comes under No. 5 , which quoted the section 8 . 12 out of the subdivision Regulations about existing irrigation ditches and then the statement on fencing to be located on a survey showing the location prior to submission and then it goes into and states, "it is proposed by the Planning Commission that within ten days after the Planning Commission Resolution is filed with the Board of County Commissioners, with reference to this application, that representatives of Parkland Estates and the ditch companies involved meet in joint session at a place and on a date and time to be established by the Board of County Commissioners. It is further recommended that the County Commissioners attend this meeting to hear the concerns of the interested parties and to determine whether or not these parties can reach any agreements relative to the problems under consideration. If no agreement is possible between the parties involved at this meeting, the following action should ensue : Each party . . . " CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : That' s far enough. Well, you can go ahead, just for informational item. The rest of the Board may wish to hear the rest of it. Go ahead. MR. BONN : "Each party involved will submit to the Board of County Commissioners statements concerning their position with reference to the problems under consideration. These statements would include those items which are felt by each of the parties involved to be actions which they are willing to pursue to resolve the problems, as well as statements indi- cating their disagreements with the requests and/or demands of the other parties involved. These statements of position would be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners with a view to providing such information as may be necessary for the Board to reach a final decision, as to what requirements will be necessary for the developer to satisfy prior to approval of the proposed final plat. " -94- CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Thank you, Tom. Are there any questions of the Board by Planning Staff? On the item just read, I think you' ll note it recommends that this Board do a specific thing at a specific time. Unless the Board feels different, I think it becomes a decision that this Board will have to make, whether it is necessary to meet with the ditch company, Mr. Dinner, or Parkland Estates in this area. I know there ' s been a great deal of discussion about the irrigation system today and satisfying the needs of the ditch company and the developer meeting those requirements, and I think the Board is going to need to study all of its notes and information before, and then determine whether such a meeting may be necessary. And Gary, I would like to have your staff supply this Board with a list of those items which you've just discussed, as I have asked Drew to supply the Board with that other list. I think because of all the information that has been presented here today, both information bringing up to date past action by a previous Board to better familiarize new commissioners with Parkland Estates and this application. The Chair would recommend to the Board, at this time , we take this under advisement and the Chair will at that time set a specific work session for us within a week or so based on our schedule that we can profess our own thoughts and feelings that we 've writt3n. down. So at this time , the Chair ' s only recommending that we take this under advisement. The Chair will take the perogative of approving Parkland Estates final plat or denying Parkland Estates final plat, laying this over for further considbation and study by this Board. MR. JACOBUCCI : I so move it, that we MR. MOSER: Take it under advisement MR. JACOBUCCI : Take it under advisement MR. MOSER: I second that. -95- • • CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : Motion by Mr. Jacobucci and second by Mr. Moser that the Board take this under advisement for further study. Clerk, please call the roll . MRS. ORDWAY: Norman Carlson? MR. CARLSON : Aye. MRS. ORDWAY: Victor Jacobucci? MR. JACOBUCCI : Aye . MRS. ORDWAY: Roy Moser? MR. MOSER: Yes . MRS. ORDWAY: Mrs. Steinmark? MRS . Steinmark: Yes . MRS. ORDWAY: Chairman Billings : CHAIRMAN BILLINGS: Yes . Chair would certainly like to thank all the participants today in discussing a very important issue, I think. I ' ll get to you in a second, Jake, don' t forget. I appreciate the integrity that all of you presented here today. It becomes a difficult position for this Board to agree on items such as this and carry out the dialogue that was carried out today and the Board would like to express those comments. Mr. Jacobucci. MR. JACOBUCCI : I would like to say that I don' t think we should take too long. I think that CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : No, I have indicated that this will be as soon as I can schedule it, and that might very well -96- • • be this week or next week. We do have a great many meetings and stuff coming up but this is going to have a high priority. Did you want to make comment? MR. GINSBERG: Yes , just one statement for the record. I have to do it, and that is let the record reflect that the Board did not give us an opportunity nor suggest that we put on rebuttal to any matters made here , and as such, CHAIRMAN BILLINGS : The Board is not adjourned yet and I have not made those commetns . Okay? MR. GINSBERG: Okay. CHAIRMAN BILIINGS: Are there any other comments by the Board of County Commissioners . There, the chair will give the perogative to legal counsel, all three legal counsels , to in writing present to this Board any comments , any feelings they have about the discussion today. We will not deny any- body the right to rebuttal , but since the hour is late , and I did say six o ' clock, and I 'm going to miss it by three minutes, that we will not deny any legal counsel, or the town of Erie, or Parkland Estates , or those interested parties represented by Mr. Dinner to immediately supply us with that information on paper. Is there any other information to come before this Board? If not, the Chair declares this adjourned. -97- Hello