HomeMy WebLinkAbout20132769.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Mark Lawley, at 1:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, and Tiffane Johnson, Department of Planning
Services; Don Carroll and Jennifer Petrik, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of
Health; Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the September 3, 2013 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Jason
Maxey, Seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR13-0029
RONALD HULSTROM
TIFFANE JOHNSON
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A 130 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT
LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -2502; PART S2NW4 SECTION 22, TIN, R68W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
EAST AND AJDACENT TO CR 7; APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET SOUTH OF
ERIE PARKWAY (CR 8).
• Tiffane Johnson, Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a continuance of this
case indefinitely as they are still trying to negotiate a co -location requirement. Staff is in support of this
request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of this case. No one wished to speak.
• Motion: Continue Case USR13-0029 indefinitely and refer the case back to the Planning
Department, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR13-0039
LEE LARSON
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (AUTOMOBILE REPAIR) PROVIDED THAT
THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED
SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO
ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE
A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT A REC EXEMPT RE -5022; PART E2SE4 SECTION 30, T4N, R66W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO HWY 60; APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET
NORTH OF CR 40.
• Tiffane Johnson, Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a continuance of this
case to the October 15, 2013 Planning Commission hearing to allow the applicant time to address mineral
owner notification.
6 mmarl ca i'arv3 t3%3
1
2013-2769
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of this case. No one wished to speak.
Motion: Continue Case USR13-0039 to the October 15, 2013 Planning Commission hearing,
Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0032
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE 115 kV
TRANSMISSION EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILES) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL), R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTAL) AND 1-3 (INDUSTRIAL)
ZONE DISTRICTS
THE PREFERRED ROUTE COMMENCES AT THE MONFORT SUBSTATION
LOCATED IN THE NE4 OF SECTION 33, T6N, R65W AND HEADS TO THE
MIDDLE OF THE SE4 OF SECTION 33 THEN CONTINUES WEST ALONG
THE S2 OF SECTION 33 AND TERMINATES AT THE LUCERNE GAS PLANT
EXPANSION IN THE S2 OF SECTION 32, T6N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EAST C STREET; 0.5 MILES WEST OF
CR 43; SOUTH OF CR 64.5; EAST OF NORTH 6TH AVENUE.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0032, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. This case was continued from the August 6, 2013 Planning Commission at the
request of the applicant to speak with the concerned landowners. Resulting from the discussion and
negotiations with the surrounding landowners affected by the preferred route, the applicants are
requesting an amendment to the preferred route which is outlined as Route A. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, noted that not all of the Planning Commissioners were available at the
August 6, 2013 hearing and encouraged those absent to review the minutes. He added that he asked
staff to make a full presentation for the benefit of the members who were not here.
For the record, Commissioner Maxey noted that he drove the routes prior to the hearing today.
Don Carroll, Public Works, reported on the required Flood Hazard Development Permits, Right -of -
Way Crossing Permits, tracking control, and existing and future right-of-way.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Derek Holscher, Public Service Company of Colorado, 1800 Larimer Street, Suite 400, Denver,
Colorado, stated that they are proposing 2.5 miles of new single 115kV transmission line from the existing
Monfort Substation to the DCP Midstream Lucerne Plant expansion. This is to serve the electrical needs
of the DCP Plant. The anticipated in-service date for the transmission line project is October 2014.
Mr. Holscher noted that at the August 6, 2013 Planning Commission hearing there were two landowners
in opposition to the original preferred route because it interfered with their future center pivot irrigation
plans. Therefore they requested to continue this application until further discussions could be held with
those landowners. Through further discussion with the landowners and site studies, the parties agreed to
amend the preferred route, which is presented at today's hearing.
Commissioner Lawley asked if they are confident that they will acquire all the necessary easements. Mr.
Holscher replied that they are confident they will have all easements in place.
2
• The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Dennis Hoshiko, 1811 38th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado stated that he was one of the landowners who
were greatly impacted by the original preferred route. He said that after discussions with the applicants
they agreed that the amendment to Route A would be the best use for all parties. He noted that they did
not enter into any negotiations regarding the value of the land and asked for mercy from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Wailes asked what specifically Mr. Hoshiko is requesting the Planning Commission to give
mercy on. Mr. Hoshiko asked for another continuance so that they could have an opportunity to look at
the offer and negotiate with the applicants.
Commissioner Maxey stated that although the line is there the property owner would still be able to farm
underneath it so he asked Mr. Hoshiko to consider that in his negotiations.
Commissioner Smock noted that at the August 6th hearing Mr. Hoshiko brought up the concern regarding
aerial spraying and asked if that has been resolved. Mr. Hoshiko said that there is still a concern with
aerial spraying since these lines will hinder that.
Mr. Yatabe recommended not continuing this hearing based on the negotiation of a price for land. He
added that the information you have before you on the land case is the criteria that you make a
determination from.
In response to Commissioner Maxey's inquiry, Mr. Hoshiko said that the benefits of installing the line
underground would be the aesthetic impact as well as for aerial spraying.
• Mr. Holscher said that they intend to have fair negotiations with the landowners as imminent domain
or condemnation is always a last resort. He understands that the appraisal will be ready in the next few
days and they will be in contact with the landowners.
Mr. Holscher said that typically they like to get the route established and then work on the negotiations.
He added that when the surveys are complete they would be happy to work with the landowners on the
placement of the poles.
Mr. Holscher stated that as far as agricultural operations go within the transmission line corridor the
landowners are able to farm underneath the lines it is just the collocations where it will be taken out of
production. In response to Commissioner Jemiola's inquiry, Mr. Holscher believes that the aerial spraying
will be not be as affected as it would have been set up with the original preferred route that bisected the
land.
Commissioner Jemiola asked the applicant if they believe this is in compliance with the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan and the Weld County Right to Farm. Mr. Holscher said that Public Works has
requested that the Right to Farm Statement be added to the plat and they have agreed to include that.
He added that they have acted in good faith in establishing a route that work with these landowners and
they seem to be on the same page with the route that was chosen.
Commissioner Smock asked if there is any further consideration other than financial for not going
underground. Mr. Holscher said that the cost is definitely an issue; however liability is also an issue if
there would be some kind of fault within the line it takes much more time to isolate that problem and to get
it fixed. Additionally, the right-of-way needed for underground could vary between 50 and 75 feet.
• Mr. Yatabe emphasized that for those Commissioners who were not at the August 6th meeting to
review those minutes so that they fully understand what was discussed at the last meeting.
3
On behalf of Public Works, Mr. Ogle suggested making changes to the staff report specifically amending
Conditions of Approval 2.G.7 and 2.G.9. Additionally, he suggested deleting Development Standards 3, 9
and 12.
The Chair called a recess at 2:54 pm and reconvened the hearing at 3:07 pm.
Commissioner Jemiola stated that he believes that they need to follow the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan and preserve the prime agricultural farm land and the farmer's ability to farm,
including spraying and cultivation. Unless accommodations can be made to allow the farmer to continue
those practices he believes it is in conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the Right to
Farm Act and would like to see this line underground.
Commissioner Elliott said that he has seen crop dusters dance around the lines and farming can continue
around the poles.
Commissioner Sparrow said if agricultural is our concern the landowner may lose up to 2 acres for the
poles and the rest he can continue to farm. Commissioner Berryman said it is not their position to say
what the amount is going to be because there is a process for that and they need to follow that process.
Do they have to stay outside of the future right-of-way. Mr. Yatabe said that once the right-of-way is
dedicated then they do have to stay outside of the right of way. The Chair said that the discussion would
be between the applicant and Mr. Hoshiko.
Commissioner Hansford said that in his neighborhood he has poles and lines going everywhere and has
seen those crop dusters work around those lines as well as the farmers working around the poles. He
feels that underground may be a better way to go but also has concerns with regard to the depth it may
be buried, land erosion, and the chance of it getting dug up.
Commissioner Smock said that Weld County is an agricultural county and does not want to lose sight of
that. She added that she believes Public Service Company has made some good steps here with
working with the landowners in establishing this revised route.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 2.G.7 as stated by staff, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded
by Nick Berryman.
Motion passed unanimously.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 2.G.9 as stated by staff, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by
Nick Berryman.
Motion passed unanimously.
Motion: Motion to delete Development Standards 3, 9, and 12, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by
Benjamin Hansford.
Motion passed 8-1 with Jordan Jemiola casting a no vote.
Commissioner Maxey asked Mr. Holscher to explain the development over underground lines. Mr.
Holscher said that the underground lines typically have pull vaults that are set up every so often and they
would also be an above ground structure that the farmer would have to go around. It also puts the
concrete encasement at risk during farming operations if there is erosion.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR13-0032 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Moved by Bret Elliott, Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
4
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman.
No: Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock.
Commissioner Smock said that she thinks some of the rights of the farmers are being taken away.
Commissioner Wailes wished to thank the applicants and the landowners for getting together and coming
up with a compromise that will work for everyone. He believes that the Right to Farm is not being
impacted here. Some of the practices may have to change but added that they are minimal in
consideration.
Commissioner Sparrow recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that good negotiations are
well underway and the landowners are satisfied before approval.
Commissioner Jemiola said that it is inconsistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Section 22-2-20 Agricultural Goals and Policies and the Weld County Right to Farm Act. He added that
he doesn't appreciate being put in a position to take someone's private property for a private use.
Commissioner Maxey thanked the applicants and the landowners for coming into an agreement with
regard to the preferred route. He believes the farming practices can still continue. Additionally, he
believes that Public Service Company of Colorado has demonstrated today by proposing an amendment
to the route that they will put their best foot forward to negotiate properly with the landowners.
Commissioner Elliot said that he is a big proponent of farming but believes that the impact is minimal.
Commissioner Berryman said that he personally does not like the aesthetic look of it but believes that
farming can still continue. He said that Public Service Company of Colorado made reasonable efforts to
make the least impact possible with the preferred route.
Commissioner Lawley said that everyone is aware of the condemnation process that can happen and
believes that the negotiation process can and does work. He encouraged the applicant to work with the
affected landowners and ensure that they are adequately compensated.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR13-0042
AKA ENERGY GROUP
CHRIS GATHMAN
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT (FKA USR-866) FOR MINERAL RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES INCLUDING AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND
SERVICE FACILITY (EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING GAS PROCESSING
FACILITY) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT C OF RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4508; LOCATED IN PART OF THE
NW4 OF SECTION 32, T4N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 40; APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES WEST
OF CR 29.
For the record, Commissioner Maxey noted that he drove by the site today.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0042, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Jennifer Petrik, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site. She requested adding a Condition of Approval 1.J.9 to read "Reference on the
plat for the improvements on Highway 85 and County Road 29 and County Road 40 as outlined in the US
85 Access Control Plan 1-76 to WCR 80 December 1999".
5
• Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
• Steve Szabo, 13472 CR 40, stated that they plan to expand the plant.
Commissioner Maxey asked why the existing access can't be utilized for both facilities and why another
needs to be installed. Mr. Szabo said that it would be for an emergency access.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 1.J.9 as stated by staff, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by
Benjamin Hansford.
Motion passed unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
0" Motion: Forward Case USR13-0042 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark
Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR13-0041
UNITED SURFACE AND MINERALS LLC; C/O SELECT ENERGY SERVICES
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
INCLUDING OIL AND GAS SUPPORT FACILITY (CLASS II OILFIELD WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITY - SALTWATER INJECTION FACILITY AND WATER
RECYCLING AND A WATER SUPPLY & STORAGE UPLOAD FACILITY AND
TRUCK TANKER WASHOUT FACILITY) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT
W2 SECTION 35, T8N, R60W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 88 SECTION LINE; EAST OF AND
ADJACENT TO CR 105.
For the record, Commissioner Maxey noted that he drove by the site today.
• Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0041, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
• Don Carroll, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
• Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
• Jim Goddard, Select Energy Services, 3031 1st Avenue, Greeley, Colorado said that they are
proposing a Class II Water Disposal facility with future recycling of the water on location.
6
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR13-0041 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark
Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
CASE NUMBER: MET13-0002
APPLICANT: EATON AREA PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE
PLANNER: MICHELLE MARTIN
REQUEST: A SERVICE PLAN FOR A PARK AND RECREATION SPECIAL DISTRICT
LEGAL: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 36,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH P. M., COUNTY
OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36 AND ASSUMING THE
WEST LINE OF SAID SW1/4 AS BEARING NORTH 03 DEGREES 54
MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST, BEING A GRID BEARING OF THE
COLORADO STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE,
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983/92, A DISTANCE OF 2664.11 FEET
WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE
THERETO FROM SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER THE SOUTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36 BEARS NORTH 88
DEGREES 37 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 2891.80
FEET; THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 25 SECONDS
EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 2583.78 FEET TO A
POINT 80 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES
TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SW1/4; THENCE NORTH 88
DEGREES 42 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST ALONG A LINE 80 FEET
SOUTHERLY OF AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SW1/4 A DISTANCE OF 1628.17 FEET TO THE WEST
LINE OF NORTHWEST SUBDIVISION THIRD FILING (NSTF) AS
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13; 1977 IN BOOK 808 AS RECEPTION
NUMBER 1730237 OF THE RECORDS OF THE WELD COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER (WCCR); THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 23
MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
NSTF AND THE WEST LINE OF CENTENNIAL SUBDIVISION AS
RECORDED OCTOBER 20, 1992 IN BOOK 1355 AS RECEPTION
NUMBER 02307384 OF THE RECORDS OF THE WCCR A DISTANCE
OF 2570.63 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SW1/4; THENCE
SOUTH 88 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 1866.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO.
LOCATION: COEXTENSIVE WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WELD COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT RE -2.
The Chair called a recess at 4:09 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:18 pm.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, presented Case MET13-0002, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application.
7
Commissioner Sparrow asked how many square miles this district covers. Ms. Martin stated that it covers
230 square miles.
Don Warden, County Finance Director, said that this district is asking for 3.924 mill debt service over
a 25 year period and 3 mils for operations and added that the 25 years is reasonable as far as the debt
service is concerned. The feasibility of this is really very dependent upon the fact that 74 percent of the
assessed value is oil and gas. He cautioned that oil and gas has a lot of volatility either by price or by
production and added that with the 25 year period with what is going on in the county right now it is a
reasonable assumption to assume that that assessed value will hold during that 25 year period. Mr.
Warden stated that he would like to leave the caveat open that if there was a movement of large property
owners to exclude their surface and mineral owners they would need to review the financial feasibility of
this.
Commissioner Smock clarified if the landowners can exclude their surface and mineral rights as well. Mr.
Yatabe said that there is an ability with special districts for owners of both surface estate and the mineral
rights to petition for exclusion. The burden is on the applicant to come before the Board of County
Commissioners to prove the exclusion of the property is not in the best interest of the special district.
Mr. Yatabe explained that if a parcel is 40 acres or more in size with agricultural zoning that parcel is
automatically excluded. This does not include subsurface mineral rights. He emphasized that this
mineral interest notice is not discussed in the state statute. He added that if you have a 40 acre parcel
with a residence on that then it would not be taxed separately; however if it was on a smaller parcel then
it would be taxed.
In response to Commissioner Jemiola's inquiry, Ms. Martin said that it is approximately 20 miles from the
farthest point of the school district to the Town of Eaton.
Randy Miller, Superintendent of RE -2 School District, 1165 (inaudible) Road, stated that 3,385
notices were sent out to the district. He added that the bonding company is estimating $3.50 per month
for property worth $100,000 in value.
They had a company do a survey of the school district buildings and how close we are at capacity. He
added that if they were going to expand what would be the best possible move to expansion. From the
results from this survey they have identified an area west of Eaton. The School district said that it made
sense to purchase the 100 acres for future school growth with the proposed recreational center on
approximately 30 acres of the site.
Mr. Miller said that one of the issues is that the facilities at the school are used all day long and the
recreation facility would allow the school district to utilize the facility. After sending a survey out to the
community, they felt that this recreation facility is needed for more than just sports and found that they
would like to have rooms that would accommodate meetings, weddings, etc. They intend to have this on
the ballot for vote in May.
Commissioner Jemiola asked what the population of Eaton is.
Scott Moser, Mayor of Eaton, 100 Walnut Ave, Eaton, Colorado, said that the 2010 census showed 4,500
in the Town of Eaton with the proposed district serving 8,300 people. Commissioner Jemiola showed
9,600 for the school district.
Commissioner Jemiola said that the Greeley recreation center is 7.5 miles from Eaton and said that would
be closer than the 20 miles from the furthest point of the school district to the Town of Eaton. Mr. Jemiola
added that he doesn't think that this proposed facility can service any more adequately than what is
already being serviced. Mr. Moser said that these people are already coming to Town and use the
recreation facilities and programs. He added that the current recreation facilities consist of a multi -use
room that is shared with the police department. Mr. Moser said that they would like to accommodate the
youth service clubs, meetings and weddings that are needed. Mr. Miller said that the kids are already in
8
Eaton and go into a recreation program after school and it would make sense that it would be located in
Town.
Commissioner Maxey asked if there was a petition drive to see the interest for this within the school
district. Mr. Miller replied no.
Commissioner Lawley said that surveys were sent out and asked who that included. Mr. Miller said that
he would defer to the recreation committee to answer that. Mr. Moser added that there was a facebook
page set up for this for people to comment.
Commissioner Smock said that according to her calculations the surveys show a response of less than
3% and asked what they thought of it. Mr. Miller said that historically they just don't have the community
response.
Commissioner Hansford asked if there is any transportation for any of those people from the farthest point
in the district to the facility. Mr. Moser said that the Town of Eaton does not provide transportation. Mr.
Moser said that to centrally locate the facility would not be feasible.
Commissioner Wailes said that through the school district and the municipality you have the power to
construct this facility through your own mechanisms and asked why are you seeking to form a special
district rather than just building it for the Town of Eaton. Mr. Moser said that want to offer it for people
outside of the town limits because they have so many people that come in and utilize those programs.
Mr. Miller said that they may be going to a vote in the next 5 years for a new school and they can only
have so much debt. Mr. Wailes understood the debt limit and asked why the Town of Eaton doesn't
pursue this. Mr. Moser said that they would never be able to build this with just the tax dollars that come
in from Eaton.
" The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Greg Bell, Town Attorney for Severance and Ault, said that he sent in a response to a referral. He said
that Eaton and Severance have a long working history together however the Severance Board of
Trustees were chagrined to find out that a significant portion of eastern Severance is included in this
district and nobody had talked to them at all. Severance has indicated some desire to have its own
recreation district in its boundaries. The Board has not directed him at this point to have this land
excluded from the service plan but they just have not had this communication with the proposed district.
Commissioner Sparrow asked how far Severance is from Eaton. Mr. Bell said that it would be about 4 or
5 miles and added that this facility would be equal distance to the Windsor facility.
Jenny Kennedy, 3213 Grandview Drive, stated that she lives between Greeley and Eaton. She is
concerned that as a homeowner she is opening up herself to financial risk with a mil level of 6.94 but
authorizing up to 50 mils. She supports the idea but is concerned with the financial impact. She lives
equal distance between Greeley and Eaton but the appeal to her is that her kids attend the schools in
Eaton and would be going there.
l* Kathy French, 38020 CR 45, stated that she lives 6 miles northeast of Eaton and 5 miles northwest
of Galeton. She is concerned that she just received notice on Saturday for the hearing today and doesn't
believe that there was adequate notice to the patrons of the district. She commented that there are
currently boys and girls clubs that use the Galeton facilities. She believes it takes more studies and
interest. She does not feel that it is fair to put the whole 6.94 mils on the back of the landowners. She
added that 30 acres is a lot of land to designate for a recreation district.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if she feels the existing recreation facilities are close enough and adequate
to meet her needs. Ms. French said that she thinks they are but understands that they are pushed to the
limit.
9
Commissioner Maxey asked what her thoughts are on it going to a vote of the people. Ms. French said
that should have been done in the beginning and feels that there are a lot more answers that need to be
given.
Pat Kindvall, 38012 CR 47, Eaton, Colorado stated that she has worked at the Galeton School so
unless that school closes the buses do not take the kids to Eaton. She wonders how many families
could economically bring their kids into the facility because their parents work. She added that they have
had some after school programs within the last 2 years in Galeton as well. Ms. Kindvall asked if there
was a deadline for land to be exempted. Mr. Yatabe said that the request for land to be excluded needs
to be into the County 10 days prior to the County Commissioner meeting.
• Duane Truax, 645 Red Tail Drive, stated that he is a Town Trustee and also serves on the
Recreation Board and is a parent of 2 children who have used the Greeley Recreation Program. He said
that although the Greeley Center is 7 miles away it is not convenient for him to bring his kids into Greeley
to use. There are enough kids in their district to support this proposed facility.
Commissioner Smock asked who will take on the operation of this facility. Mr. Truax said that the
Recreation Board will handle the operation of the facility.
Juliana Coalson, 35735 CR 59, stated that she is on the Board of Education and is a parent as well.
With regard to the Board of Education she said that it was unanimous to support this District and added
that it was closely looked at and they had lengthy discussions. As a parent from the eastern portion of
the district, she said that access to these facilities in Town will be great. She said that cancelled practices
and double booking is an issue because of the limited facilities. She said most times her 7th grader is up
early for practice before school and added that this facility would be a tremendous benefit for parents.
The Chair called a recess at 6:16 pm and reconvened the hearing at 6:26 pm
• Jamie Riggs, 323 Park Avenue, Eaton, Colorado stated that she has witnessed growth and a lot of
change in Eaton. She supports the recreation district and believes the Eaton area has the opportunity to
establish this in an efficient way. She said that although the Greeley recreation center is over 7 miles
away you cannot get there in 15 to 20 minutes. She added that she doesn't have 30 minutes to travel
one way for her kids to be involved in activities.
• Kevin Ross, Town Board Member of Eaton, said that he feels this project is worthy. He also has
children that are active in sports. He said that they have enough kids to support this facility and added
that they don't have anything in place right now for the senior citizens to have dinners and congregate
and believes that this facility will give Eaton a place to hold graduations, weddings, etc. He sees this as a
most efficient way for tax dollars and meeting the needs of the community.
Commissioner Maxey struggles with how he can justify someone to pay a permanent tax that may never
use this facility and asked for his opinion. Mr. Ross said that it is a fair question and said that some may
never use that facility but then again some may never use the fire department and hospital. Therefore he
looks at it as an intergovernmental agreement between the School District and the Town.
ir The Chair asked the applicant to address the questions and concerns from the public comments.
Mr. Moser said that in reference to any grant applications they cannot apply for grants until this district is
established. He added that they see a tremendous need for this facility to serve their citizens need.
Mr. Miller said that communication could have been done differently but they are looking for a May ballot
so that they can hold public meetings and have time to answer more questions.
Commissioner Maxey asked about the difference of 7 to 50 mils and asked about putting a ceiling on that.
Sam Holmberg, 800 (inaudible) Drive, Eaton, Colorado, stated that he is part of the finance subcommittee
of the recreation district and added that there is a full bond amortization schedule in the service plan. The
10
50 mils is a state statute limit on the total levy. It doesn't mean that this will go up to that as the vote will
actually determine the mil levy.
Commissioner Elliott asked why the letters went out so late. Mr. Holmberg said that according to state
statute there are legal restrictions on when they can send notices out to the public. He added that there
was a large ad in the (inaudible) newspaper.
Commissioner Wailes asked if there will be a use fee to use the facility. Mr. Moser replied yes and added
that they went to several facilities to look at their models.
Motion: Forward Case MET13-0002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Bret Elliott.
Included in Commissioner Jemiola's motion, he stated that he doesn't believe the recreation center will
adequately service folks to the north and that there are sufficient opportunities such as a swimming pool
and softball and recreation director and other programs available to the citizens of Eaton. He added that
it is a great idea if Eaton wanted to do something like this in their Town.
Commissioner Elliott said that if Eaton wants a recreation center then they should look at something less
ambitious. He supports recreation but feels that this is a grab trying to get somebody else to pay for what
you want.
Commissioner Sparrow is concerned that there is enough of the population in Eaton to pass this but
everyone in the district would be taxed.
Commissioner Wailes said that he has always been a fan of the recreation districts because they can
provide a value to a community. He added that he would like to see a recreation district established and
trust built within the community with the donations coming forward.
Commissioner Maxey said that he is struggling with charging everyone a tax when they might not have
any benefit from it. He believes in a sense of community and added that if it was in his community he
would use that facility. Additionally, he believes this would spur economic development. In conclusion,
he believes this should be brought to a vote of the people.
Commissioner Berryman said that it comes down to if the service plan is adequate and if it demonstrates
a need for the facility and believes that it comes down to a vote of the people.
Commissioner Smock said that this has been very well thought out but is concerned with the long term of
this taxing district.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 3, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott, Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley.
No: Jason Maxey, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. Mr.
Truax appreciated the vote and the time this took.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 7:19 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
} Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
t tfiJ 1 y Date: 2013.09.23 10:10:43 -06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
11
Hello