HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111165 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Moved by Robert Grand, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1776
APPLICANT: Beverly Ensley, c/o Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(195 foot cellular tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-4494; located in Part of the W2SE4 of Section 31,T9N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 98 and approximately'/:mile east of CR 13.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section
23-2-260 of the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance
with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any
other applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Section 22-2-20.1 A.Goal 9. States: "Reduce potential conflicts between varying
land uses in the conversion of traditional agricultural lands to other land uses."
• The proposed tower facility is located on a vacant parcel of land in a rural area.
Three residences are located to the west of the site with the nearest residence
being approximately 550-feet from the proposed tower site. Electrical
Transmission lines are located approximately 1 mile to the east of the tower. The
tower will not be lighted and will generate very little traffic (it is an unmanned
facility).
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural) Zone District. Section 23-3-40.L allows for Telecommunication
Antenna Towers as a Use by Special Review in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with
the existing surrounding land uses. The surrounding area is rural in character.
The nearest residence is located approximately 550 feet to the west of the tower
site. A Use By Special Review Permit for a Roping Arena (USR-977) is located
approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed tower site.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with
future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning
and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County
Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the
adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. The site is not located within a 3-
mile referral area with any municipality. The site is located within the 3-mile
referral area for Larimer County. No referral response has been received from
• Larimer County. 2011-1165
Resolution USR-1776
Beverly Ensley, do Viaero Wireless
Page 2
• E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 -- The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be
required to adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program.
(Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required
to adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 --The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to
conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use.
The proposed site is designated as "other" per the 1979 Soil Conservation
Service Important Farmlands of Weld County Map.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County
Code), Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards ensure that there are adequate
provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the
neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by
the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral
entities.
• The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All pages of plat shall be labeled USR-1776. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The CR 98 Section Line is 60-feet of unmaintained County right-of-way.
There is presently a 60-foot right-of-way. Pursuant to the definition of
setback in the Weld County Zoning (23-1-90), the required setback is
measured from the future right-of-way line. (Department of Public Works)
3. The reception #for the CR 98 non-exclusive license agreement shall be
indicated on the plat. (Departments of Public Works and Planning
Services)
4. All existing utilities (including gas lines) shall be indicated on the plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of
Public Works as stated in their referral response dated March 15, 2011. The
• applicant must enter into a non-exclusive license agreement with the County to
utilize the WCR 98 section line right-of-way for access. Written evidence that the
non-exclusive license agreement has been accepted by the Board of County
Resolution USR-1776
Beverly Ensley, do Viaero Wireless
Page 3
• Commissioners shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit three (3) paper copies of the plat for preliminary
approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services'
Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-
260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be
submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners
resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department
of Planning Services)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital
copy of this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn
(Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and
Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4).
(Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be sent to mapsa.co.weld.co.us.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to release of building permits:
• A. Building permits shall be obtained prior to constructing the facility. A plan review is
required for each building or structure for which a building permit is required. Two
complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Include a Code
Analysis Data sheet for the Weld County Building Department for each structure that
requires a permit. Submittal plans shall include a floor plan showing the specific uses
of each area for the building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado Licensed
Architect or Engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time
of permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County:
2006 International Building Code; 2006 International Mechanical Code; 2006
International Plumbing Code; 2006 International Fuel Gas Code; 2006 International
Energy Code; 2003 ICC ANSI 117.1 Accessibility Code; 2008 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. All building plans shall be submitted to the Nunn Fire Protection District for review
and approval prior to issue of building permits. (Department of Building
Inspection)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be
issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Bill Hall.
•
Resolution USR-1776
Beverly Ensley, do Viaero Wireless
Page 4
• VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Alexander Zauder
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Jason Maxey
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on May 3, 2011.
• Dated the 3r°of May, 2011.
�
4 ViO LAN uxy�' '
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Viaero Wireless
•
USR-1776
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(195-foot self supporting wireless communication tower
and related accessory buildings/structures) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (Department
of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a
manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include
those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes
Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive
dust,fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
• 6. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
7. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential
Zone as delineated in 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
8. Adequate toilet facilities (portable toilets) and handwashing units shall be provided during
construction of the facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking during construction of the project. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
10. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the State Underground and Above Ground
Storage Tank Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
(Department of Planning Services)
12. Building permits shall be obtained prior to constructing the facility. A plan review is required
for each building or structure for which a building permit is required. Two complete sets of
plans are required when applying for each permit. Include a Code Analysis Data sheet for
the Weld County Building Department for each structure that requires a permit. Submittal
plans shall include a floor plan showing the specific uses of each area for the building. Plans
• shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado Licensed Architect or Engineer. (Department of
Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1776
Beverly Ensley, do Viaero Wireless
Page 6
13. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of
permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2006
International Building Code; 2006 International Mechanical Code; 2006 International
Plumbing Code; 2006 International Fuel Gas Code; 2006 International Energy Code; 2003
ICC ANSI 117.1 Accessibility Code; 2008 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
14. All building plans shall be submitted to the Nunn Fire Prevention District for review and
approval prior to issue of building permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
15. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner
that it will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property
damage of the type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increase, diversions,
concentration and/or unplanned ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
16. Pursuant to Chapter 15,Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on
the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the
applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. All vegetation,
other than grasses, needs to be maintained at a maximum height of 12 inches until the area
is completely developed. (Department of Public Works)
17. Utilize the existing access to the site. (Department of Public Works)
18. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design
Standards of Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
• 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation
Standards of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
20. If the Use by Special Review has not commenced within three (3) years from the date of
approval or is discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years, it shall be presumed
inactive or abandoned. The County shall initiate an administrative hearing to consider
whether to grant an extension of time to commence the use or revoke the use. If the use is
revoked, it shall be necessary to follow the procedures and requirements of this Division in
order to reestablish any subsequent Use by Right or Use by Special Review. Upon the
determination that the use has been abandoned, the facility owner has ninety (90) days to
re-use the facility or transfer the facility to another owner who will re-use it. Evidence of such
shall be provided, in writing, to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
21. Collocation of other antenna by other service providers shall be permitted on the tower.
(Department of Planning Services)
22. Upon termination of the use of the telecommunication antenna tower, the building, antenna
structure, and associated equipment shall be removed and the premises restored to its
original condition.
23. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public
Works, and Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any
• reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld
County regulations.
Resolution USR-1776
Beverly Ensley, do Viaero Wireless
Page 7
• 24. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal
agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
25. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the
foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from
the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an
amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such
changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall
be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services.
26. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards
may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
•
•
S- 3- lI
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday, May 3, 2011
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin,and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll
and Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the April 5, 2011 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Bill Hall. Motion carried.
• CASE NUMBER: USR-1772
APPLICANT: Pecan Pipeline, Inc.
PLANNER: Tom Parka
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support Facility(offices, storage yard and warehouse) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2NE4 of Section 26,T12N, R63W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 71; north of and adjacent to CR 136.5.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff is recommending a continuance of this case until the June
7, 2011 Planning Commission hearing to address legal notification. He added that there is some additional
information that is required of the applicant to submit.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved to continue Case USR-1772 to the June 7, 2011 Planning Commission hearing,
seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1776
APPLICANT: Beverly Ensley, c/o Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(195 foot cellular tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-4494; located in Part of the W2SE4 of Section 31, T9N, R67W of the
• 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 98 and approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 13.
1
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the surrounding area is rural in character. The nearest
• residence is located approximately 550 feet to the west of the tower. A Roping Arena, permitted under USR-
977 is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed tower site. There are additional homes to
the east of the site along the section line for County Road 15 approximately%mile to one mile away from this
site.
Ten referral agencies reviewed the application; six referral comments were received and either indicated no
concerns or are addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No referral responses
were received from the Federal Communications Commission, Larimer County, Colorado Division of Water
Resources and the Nunn Fire Protection District. The site is not located within the three-mile referral area of
any municipality.
There were responses received from a surrounding property owner who owns property to the southeast of the
tower site. The residence is approximately % mile from the proposed tower site. One of the concerns
mentioned was that the applicant should provide evidence of review of other towers for co-location and
whether the proposed tower will meet FCC health limits for radiation. Mr. Gathman stated that the applicant
did provide a response to these questions. There is an existing broadcast tower approximately 1.3 miles
south of this site; however the applicant has indicated that co-location is not possible on this tower due to
safety performance and interference issues. This tower is an AM Radio Station Tower. The applicant has
made attempts to contact this tower facility and he has had conversations with them. They have not provided
a letter of co-location; however he has indicated that they have already been told verbally that co-location on
that tower is not possible.
The applicant also indicated that radiation generated by cell towers is minimal. This was information provided
from the FCC and other agencies in an email provided to staff and to the surrounding property owner.
There was an additional letter from this property owner that was just received late last night, dated May 2,
2011 that goes through several items including that the applicant failed to present documentation and
• substantial evidence that co-location of the proposed telecommunications equipment on the nearby broadcast
tower is not economically and technically feasible. Mr. Gathman stated that the applicant can address their
conversations with the other tower.
The proposed site of the telecommunications tower is not protective of the visual environment of the County.
The tower is located to the east of an existing ridge line. There are houses to the west of the ridge going
toward Larimer County so the tower is partially obscured by the ridge line. The homes that are further to the
east would see the tower above the ridge line; however about 25%of the tower would still be below the ridge
line. Therefore part of the tower would still be obscured by the ridge line.
Another assertion in the letter is that the applicant failed to submit documentation that the proposed tower will
not emit radiation that will adversely affect human health. A referral for this case was provided to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and no response has been received. Additionally, the applicant has
provided a number of materials to staff and the neighbor in response to this assertion.
In regard to the photo simulations the applicant did not submit accurate photorealistic renderings
demonstrating the true impact to the facility and the surrounding visual environment. Mr.Gathman stated that
he will go through some visual slides of the photo simulations that the applicant provided at the end of the
presentation.
Another item listed in the letter states that the Department of Planning Services failed to give notice of the May
3, 2011 public hearing to those persons listed in the application as owners of property located within 500 feet
of the parcel under consideration. This case was continued at the April 5, 2011 hearing due to notification
issues; however those notification issues related to sign postings, not of notifications by mail. A notification
was provided prior to the April 5,2011 hearing. Property owners within 500 feet were notified by mail and this
case was brought up at the April 5,2011 hearing;therefore there was not a requirement to renotify by mail of
this hearing. Staff did go out to the site again and posted two signs where the actual vicinity of the tower
• location would be proposed. Additionally,two signs were posted at the intersection of the two nearest County
maintained roads which is County Road 13 and County Road 98 and there are photos of that.
2
• The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of the application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health,stated that permanent water and sewer are not required. Portable toilets,
handwashing and bottled water can be used during construction. A propane tank will be onsite for the backup
generator.
Based on the concerns regarding radiation, Ms. Light stated that she contacted the State Health Department
and they directed her to the FCC website. She added that she went through some documents on the website,
specifically regarding human exposure to radio frequency fields. In summary what she read is that the farther
you are from the antenna it dissipates. She added that it is a line of sight, so you would have to be 195 feet up
right on top of the antenna to get the exposure levels that are going to harm you. She stated that they also
have categorically exclusions for local governments and it will tell you if it is excluded based on the information
given. If it is excluded then that means that the emissions from it should not exceed the FCC limits. She
indicated that she filled out the information and it turned out that this is a categorically excluded tower. Based
on what research she did, there shouldn't be any danger because of the height of where the antenna is going
to be.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the applicants will be using an existing access along that section line,
which is not a maintained County road right-of-way. Therefore they will need to enter into a non-exclusive
license agreement with the County that will allow the applicant to use that right-of-way with the understanding
that their use is not exclusive and that the County will not be responsible for maintenance of that access. Ms.
Hansen stated that the applicant has met all their requirements.
Henry Jacobsen, Viaero Wireless, commented that they are proposing the construction of a 195 foot tower.
Mr. Jacobsen said that at the last meeting he was somewhat critical of a surrounding property owner's
submittal and added that he regrets the words that he had used. He wished to submit a written apology
• regarding his comments at the last hearing.
Commissioner Maxey asked the applicant to speak more about co-location. Mr. Jacobsen said that the
references provided by the objection had to do with low power AM Radio stations. He added that he spoke
with the Director of the existing tower at great length and it was in the Director's opinion that the tower would
not be suitable for co-location.
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 he read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1776, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1777
APPLICANT: Dewain Shapely Trust
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
• Telecommunication Antenna Tower(250 foot cellular tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 of Section 25, T10N, R57W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
3
4/6/
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 101h Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen, Department of
Public Works; Mary Evett, Department of Health; Lee Morrison, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem,
Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the March 15,2011 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
The Chair amended the agenda and moved Case USR-1776 to the first item on the agenda.
CASE NUMBER: p y 1
APPLICANT: eloi810 mat
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(195 foot cellular tower)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-4494;located in Part of the W2SE4 of Section 31,T9N,R67W ofthe6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 96 and approximately''/:mile east of CR 13.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff is requesting that USR-1776 be continued to address sign
notification. There were two signs posted at the property; however they were posted on property which is off
of a County right-of-way and not off of a County maintained right-of-way. Therefore another set of signs need
to be posted at the nearest publicly maintained right-of-way. The next scheduled hearing date that this case
could be heard is May 3, 2011.
Mark Lawley moved to continue USR-1776 to the May 3, 2011 Planning Commission hearing, seconded by
Alexander Zauder.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Henry Jacobsen, represents Viaero Wireless, 1350 West 6th St, Loveland, CO, stated that he has an issue
with the manner in which the objection was raised. The letter that caused this continuance was received at
1:00 am this morning and the person who objected to it is a resident to the east of the proposed tower site
approximately%miles. In his opinion, the objector has been disingenuous as he waited until the morning of
the hearing to raise these objections expecting the Planning Commission and others to be thrown into some
kind of turmoil before they had a chance to address the issue itself.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that he had spent time with the particular individual six months ago and took pictures
1
from his patio which was used in the photo simulation. In addition, he offered him to contact him with any
questions, objections, or problems he had with the application. This morning, Mr. Jacobsen received a 22
page letter addressing a number of items trying to find some form of objection that might cause this to be
delayed. The proposed tower site is quite remote. There are only two or three homes that would be affected
by this tower as far as the view shed. Even though the letter of the law might say that we have to post the site,
every person that would be directly affected was personally contacted by himself or by the County. He
questioned the necessity of the continuance given that all the parties were contacted. Most of the objections
in his letter he addressed with him both professionally and promptly, such as radio frequency safety. He
asked the Planning Commission to think seriously about this continuance as a nuisance suit in as much as all
of the people affected have been contacted.
Commissioner Hall asked the County Attorney if the notification given was proper. Lee Morrison, County
Attorney, indicated that there could be a reasonable argument made that notice was not adequate. He added
that the issue for the applicant is if they want to pursue this in light of the fact that there appears to be a
legitimate argument, not necessarily a clear violation, of the notice requirements.
Mr. Morrison asked if the objector was here. Mr. Gathman said that the objector is not here as he couldn't
make it.
The Chair reminded the Planning Commission that there was a motion to continue Case USR-1776 to the May
3, 2011 and asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1773
APPLICANT: Ken Wolf
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for any Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (flooring business), provided that the
property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots part of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivision in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-4953;Part SW4 of Section 7,T3N,R6SW of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; 0.5 miles north of CR 34.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the property is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement
area but does lie within the three mile referral area for the Town of Mead, Boulder County, and the City of
Longmont. The Town of Mead and Bounder County did not respond to the referral request.
Surrounding property to the south and west are single family residential units within Summit Peak Estates.
The property to the north and east are in agricultural production. One letter with comments was received from
a surrounding property owner with concerns about a commercial strip development at this site and a decrease
in property value. Given the minimal impact to the proposed business, it is the opinion of the Department of
Planning Services that the use is compatible to surrounding land uses.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case;four agencies offered comments,some with specific conditions.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health,stated that water is provided by Longs Peak Water District. Documentation
was received from Longs Peak Water District that the existing water tap is adequate to serve the business.
There is an existing home on the property and is served by a septic system sized for three bedrooms. There
is an office in the home which is used by the employees. There are also drivers and installers that come to the
site which must have access to potable water,toilets and hand wash facilities. The existing system will require
2
Hello