The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20111174 IkI s, ANAOAHro Pi- rROLEU'N CUHPORA'IOiN S March 11. 2011 Via E-Mail Henry Jacobsen 1350 West 6th Street Loveland, Colorado 80537 Henry.Jacobsen@viaero.com Re: Viaero Wireless Special Use Permit and Site Specific Development Plan Township 9 North, Range 67 West Section 31: portion of the W/2SE/4 Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Jacobsen This letter is written on behalf of Anadarko E&P Company LP and Anadarko Land Corp. ("Anadarko Entities") with respect to your request for a waiver concerning notice of an application for a site specific development plan and special review permit that has been filed by Viaero Wireless with Weld County ("County) for an approximate 46.22 acre parcel of property located in the W/2SE/4 of Section 31, Township 9 North, Range 67 West ("Property"). The Anadarko Entities own all the minerals that underlie the Property. This letter constitutes a waiver by the Anadarko Entities as the mineral interest owners to the receipt of timely notice of a hearing scheduled to be held on April 5, 2011 before the Planning Commission for Weld County pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 24-65.5-103, 30-28-133, and 31-23-215 ("Notice") as follows: 1. The Anadarko Entities waive timely notice pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-102(2) of the April 5 hearing. 2. Notice is waived only to the extent that the application applies to the Property so that Notice is not waived for subsequent applications for development that include other or additional property for which the Anadarko Entities or Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, a company affiliated with the Anadarko Entities, own minerals or oil and gas leasehold interests. EXHIBIT 2011-1174 • • MAIN :7+:>.!12N.:•1•00 I i)y9 'UI-.I I :_y1.)�I I I. 11111!1• I):'.:1� _.:1.31•0•21);! ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION ri1 BC., Irl))•.•C•1: .•1; I.ti eitl).1'):u)v Henry Jacobsen March 11, 2011 Page Two The Anadarko Entities understand that Viaero Wireless intends to provide this letter to the County as evidence of the waiver by the Anadarko Entities to timely notice of the April 5, 2011 hearing. Very truly yours, Andrew Voelker 4111 cc: Don Ballard. Molly Buchanan, Esq. Chris Gathmann/Weld County • Chris Gathman orom: Chris Gathman ent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:41 AM To: 'Jim Woodward' Subject: RE: USR-1776 Attachments: Application.pdf; image003.png Dear Mr. Woodward, Sorry for the delay. Here are the application materials for USR-1776. Comments from outside referral agencies are not due back for this case until March 14th. If you wish to make any comments on this case,you can forward them to my e- mail address. Anything you send to me will become part of the record and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.This case has been scheduled for a hearing at this point and the earliest this case could be heard would be April (though with our hearing schedules it will most likely be heard in May). Once the hearing is scheduled you will receive notification in the mail of the hearing date. Additionally, upon scheduling this case for hearings, referral comments received for this case will be scanned in and will be on our website at: httn://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanningZonina/PlanningDeoartment/index.html. I have attached the application to this e-mail.As this is a big attachment—I will send maps... involved with this application in a separate e-mail. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner Ill Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext.3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 W E t• . r,Cs?7 NI Y u Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Jim Woodward f mailto:jbw(afrii.com1 Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:24 PM `Oo: Chris Gathman EXHIBIT Subject: USR-1776 t-Y - C Hello Mr. Gathman, 1 I am in receipt of the postcard from your office regarding Use by Special Review case number USR-1776. Would you please provide me with a list of all filings, applications, letters, emails, maps, and other records related to this case umber that are currently in the custody of Weld County Planning Services, and whether all such records are available in electronic format? Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-402-7679 1• 2 • Chris Gathman �From: Chris Gathman ent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:47 AM To: 'Jim Woodward' Subject: RE: USR-1776 Attachments: Site map -1.pdf; Sitre Map.pdf; image002.png Here is the map (site plan) in regards to the USR-1776 application. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley CO.80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext. 3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 I 4 4 2 Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Jim Woodward fmailto:ibw©frii.coml Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:24 PM To: Chris Gathman Subject: USR-1776 Hello Mr. Gathman, I am in receipt of the postcard from your office regarding Use by Special Review case number USR-1776. Would you please provide me with a list of all filings, applications, letters, emails, maps, and other records related to this case number that are currently in the custody of Weld County Planning Services, and whether all such records are available in electronic format? Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-402-7679 1• 1 a Chris Gathman iiirom: Jim Woodward [jbw@frii.com] ent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:58 PM o: Chris Gathman Cc: Diane Beckman; Trevor Jiricek Subject: RE: USR-1776 Attachments: image001.png Mr. Gathman, I have reviewed the documents for USR-1776 that are available on the Department's website. I will be submitting comments prior to the Planning Commission's April 5 hearing. What is the deadline for written public comments, and should comments be addressed to staff, the Planning Commission, or both? Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, I would like to inspect and obtain copies of the following public records. Please send electronic copies to my email address,jbw@frii.com. 1. Attachments to the application that are not included in the PDF file available on the Department's website. This would appear to include Attachments 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14,and 16. 2. Certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Numbers assigned by the County Assessor of the owners of property(the surface estate) within five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application. 3. Determination by the Department that the application is complete and has been accepted for review. 1. Determination by the Department that third-party expert review will or will not be required, including supporting findings and data. Issues for potential review would include whether existing towers in the area are le unsuitable for co-location,and whether the proposed tower will comply with the FCC's human health limits for maximum permissible exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Please contact me if you have any questions. Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-402-7679 From: Chris Gathman Jmailto:cgathman@co.weld.co.usl Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:47 AM To:Jim Woodward Subject: RE: USR-1776 Here is the map (site plan) in regards to the USR-1776 application. Sincerely, Chris Gathman EXHIBIT D canner III eld County Department of Planning Services //� TT 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 l0 •- ) 1 Chris Gathman From: Jim Woodward [jbw@frii.com] nt: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:03 PM o: Chris Gathman Subject: RE: USR-1776 Addendums Attachments: image001.png Thanks Chris. I appreciate the prompt response. Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington,CO 80549 970-402-7679 From: Chris Gathman fmailto:cgathman@co.weld.co.usl Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:01 PM To:Jim Woodward Subject: FW: USR-1776 Addendums Dear Mr. Woodward, The earlier you can submit your letter the better— but you can submit a letter up to the date of the hearing. I would recommend sending the letter via an e-mail attachment or by faxing it in to our office.You can address the letter to the Planning Commissioners/Board of County Commissioners.You also have the option of submitting the letter at the fanning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners hearing if you attend in person. Here are the attachments you requested along with the completeness review comments (including responses regarding co-location and FCC Environmental Compliance form).Viaero came in with the materials requested in the 7-day completeness review comments—so we went ahead and set up the case. The Department of Planning Services did not require a 3"`party review of this application. To my knowledge—the Department of Planning Services has never required a 3`d party review of a telecommunication tower application. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner Ill Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext. 3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 184i al, tEXHIBIT 1f.`LiaCfiN'Y /_ u 1 Chris Gathman From: Henry O. Jacobsen [Henry.Jacobsen@viaero.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:23 AM o: jbw@frii.com Cc: Chris Gathman Subject: Wellingto Tower Application Jim, Chris Gathman forwarded your email as a courtesy. Let me address some of the items you listed. 1. Chris has electronic copies of the attachments and will send them to you. If he has difficulties in this regard, I committed to personally bringing you a full set. 2 . I provided a certified list of names, addresses and parcel numbers prepared by the Assessor's office, as well as the mineral rights holder(Anadarko), per County requirements. 3.The application was found to be complete, else the planning meeting would not have been scheduled. 4.Third party review was not required (it rarely is). Additionally, I am a professional engineer in multiple states, including Colorado, and I personally prepared the application. In some jurisdictions, this mitigates referral to a third party for expert review. Our tower requirement is based on microwave path viability between Ault and the proposed site, microwave connectivity from the proposed site to the Owl Canyon area, and an appropriate footprint for cell service to the west in our licensed service area. Based on all FCC-registered towers, as well as a thorough drive-around (since not all towers get registered even though they should), I can affirm that there are no towers appropriate for collocation that meet these criteria. As to human and health limits, this is a non-issue on cell towers.There is so much evidence to this effect that • Congress, in writing the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, expressly forbade any jurisdiction from denying a cell tower on the basis of radio frequency exposure. Modern digital cell phones operate on much lower power levels than the old analog sets. Typical received measured power levels at the set vary from 0.00000001 to 0.0000000000001 watts/sq cm of power. (Compare this to microwave ovens,operating at approximately the same frequency,that are "safely allowed" to radiate up to 0.005 watts/sq cm.) What is of more concern is the use of cellular handsets, radiating up to half a milliwatt (0.005 watts) of RF right next to the brain.The danger of this is inconclusive, but is subject to ongoing studies. In this regard there is actually a benefit to having a tower in proximity, as handsets will reduce output power the closer they are to a tower. If you want to read more, I suggest you look at the webpages for the Health Physics organization,which is a non-partisan group dedicated to RF health issues. (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation).Similar material can be found at the American Cancer Society, FCC, WHO (World Health Organization)and IEEE web sites. If you wish, I would be willing to come to you home and go through the application with you. Regards, H Henry Jacobsen, PE Engineering/Site Acquisition Specialist Viaero Wireless 1350 West 6th St Loveland CO 80537 (970)467-0555 EXHIBIT • 1 Chris Gathman From: Henry D. Jacobsen [Henry.Jacobsen@viaero.com] ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:39 PM o: Chris Gathman Subject: FW: Wellingto Tower Application Attachments: 20090202 Cell Tower Safety.doc FYI. Info to Jim Woodward Henry Jacobsen,PE Engineering/Site Acquisition Specialist Viaero Wireless 1350 West 6th St Loveland CO 80537 (970)467-0555 From: HenryD. Jacobsen Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:36 PM To: Jim Woodward Subject: RE: Wellingto Tower Application See letter below and the attached article I wrote on the subject of RF safety for a similar application in Alamosa County. As for the Jacor tower, it is a high-power broadcast tower. The tower itself is used to broadcast signal at many tens of thousands of watts of radiated power. It is more precisely described as a "mast radiator". Broadcast wers such as these could never be used for cellular collocate for a wide variety of reasons... safety, erformance, interference, etc. Conversely, cellular towers are mechanical support structures with antennas (for cellular service) and dishes (for microwave) suspended from the tower. As a design note, cellular towers are generally not constructed in near proximity to broadcast towers due to interference issues. The strong broadcast signal can induce unwanted interference into the cellular equipment. h Date: April 15, 2OO9 To: Distribution Re: RF Safety with Respect to the Proposed Cell Tower at 5319 South Highway 17 Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use Applications for the referenced cell tower were approved by the Alamosa County Board of Commissioners on March 25, 2O09. As a condition of approval, Viaero was directed to provide reference material pertaining to RF (radio frequency) safety and cell towers to land owners in proximity to the proposed cell tower. The attached articles are taken from a number of credible sources: EXHIBIT • Federal Communications Commission l0 c http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html 1 American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.asp • Health Physics Society (Specialists in Radiation Safety) http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q79.html World Health Organization http://who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Professional Society/Standards Body) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iell/51/10800/00499768.pdf?temp=x I am also enclosing a brief article which I wrote that summaries the issues discussed in a more lengthy manner in the above web sites. All of these articles reach the same conclusions: due to the nature of radio waves at the frequencies used by cell phones, the signal is rapidly dissipated through the atmosphere and represent no health hazard to the near community. I mention in passing that much of the cellular service is provided through the old UHF television channels, which have been discontinued for television service and re-allocated by the FCC for cellular telephone. Thus, cell phones operate at frequencies that have existed in our environment for nearly 60 years, but at a much lower power level than used for television services. If you have additional questions or concerns on RF health, please feel free to contact me as indicated below. 5espectfully yours, Henry Jacobsen, PE henry.jacobsen@viaero.com (970) 467-0555 Henry Jacobsen, PE Engineering/Site Acquisition Specialist Viaero Wireless 1350 West 6th St Loveland CO 80537 (970)467-0555 From: Jim Woodward [jbw@frii.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:36 AM To: Henry D. Jacobsen Cc: cgathman@co.weld.co.us Subject: RE: Wellingto Tower Application Mr. Jacobsen, �hank you for your responses. Since my knowledge of microwaves is limited, would you please provide citations of any pers published in peer-reviewed journals that address human health risks from microwave radiation? 2 • James B. Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 Phone (970) 897-3029 Fax (970) 897-3021 I bw(a frif.cmn Sent via email April 4, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Planning Commission Weld County, Colorado 915 10th Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Proposed Special Review Permit Number USR-1776 Dear Commissioners: • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Weld County Planning Department's recommendation to issue a Special Review Permit(Permit Number: USR-1776) for NE Colorado Cellular, Inc.'s (d/b/a Viaero Wireless) proposed telecommunications tower in northwestern Weld County. As discussed herein, the permit cannot be legally issued as proposed due to the applicant's failure to comply with Article 2, Division 4 and Article 4, Division 9 of the Weld County Zoning Code ("Code"). At a minimum, substantial additional information is required to demonstrate compliance with the Code and for the County and stakeholders to make a rational assessment of the proposal. In addition, notification of the public and potentially affected property owners has been materially deficient and has not been in compliance with the Code. Regarding the proposed Special Review Permit, I make the following comments. Applicant failed to present documentation and substantial evidence that co-location on a nearby broadcast antenna tower is not economically and technically feasible, and that the applicant's desired geographic area cannot be served by co-locating on the existing tower. • The purpose of Article 4, Division 9 of the Weld County Zoning Code is to: EXHIBIT 1 Co. 11 • ...accommodate the increasing wireless communication needs of County residents, businesses and visitors while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and visual environment of the County... Section 23-4-800 promotes protection of the visual environment by: Reducing the number of towers needed to serve the County by requiring facilities to be placed on existing structures wherever possible and requiring co-location of Commercial Tower providers on existing and new towers. Section 23-4-810 establishes the order of preference for new tower facilities and requires the presentation of substantial evidence that a more-preferred facility is not feasible: The order of preference for new permanent Commercial Tower facilities is (from most preferred to least preferred and based on economic and technical feasibility): A. Co-location on existing Commercial Tower or broadcast antenna towers. B. Attached antennas. C. Concealed(Stealth) antennas. D. Antenna towers. New Commercial Tower facilities must use the most-preferred facility type where economically and technically feasible. A lesser-preferred facility type • is allowed only if the applicant presents substantial evidence to show it will have a lesser visual impact than the use of more preferred facilities and that the applicant's desired geographic area cannot be served by using more-preferred facilities. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9) Section 23-4-820, Subsection E includes the following requirement for documentation: In addition to meeting the Special Use Review standards set forth in Article II, Division 5 of this Chapter, the applicant shall submit documentation addressing the following standards: 1. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower. The applicant acknowledges the existence of a nearby broadcast antenna tower. The 647-foot Jacor Broadcasting tower(Registration No. 10241 1) is located only 1.3 miles south of the applicant's proposed site (Exhibit 1). However, the application asserts that the tower"is unsuitable for cellular collocation", and that "there is no existing TELECOMMUNICATION • 2 • ANTENNA TOWER"that provides a microwave link to Ault, the Owl Canyon area, and downtown Loveland. The applicant provides no evidence supporting the assertion that co-location on the Jacor tower is economically and technically infeasible. No information is provided on the technical aspects of wireless/AM tower co-location, nor does the applicant mention that major wireless carriers have successfully accomplished such co-location. (See http±hvww.lbagroup.com,/am-tower- col local ion.php.) To comply with Section 23-4-810, the Applicant must provide sufficient data supporting its conclusion that the Jacor tower is economically and technically unsuitable for co-location. Applicant failed to submit documentation that the proposed tower will not emit radiation that will adversely affect human health. Section 23-4-820, Subsection E of the Weld County Code includes the following requirement: • In addition to meeting the Special Use Review standards set forth in Article II, Division 5 of this Chapter, the applicant shall submit documentation addressing the following standards: 6. The proposed tower shall not emit radiation that will adversely affect human health. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted guidelines and procedures for evaluating environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields, including microwave and cellular frequencies. The guidelines incorporate limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) in terms of electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies between 300kHz and 100 GHz. According to the application, the proposed tower would transmit at 1960 MHz, which falls within the range regulated by the FCC. Under FCC rules, certain wireless telecommunications facilities are"categorically excluded" from routine evaluation for compliance with MPE limits. The FCC publication, "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance", includes a checklist to guide permit applicants and local government • 3 • officials in making a determination of categorical exclusion. Detailed technical information regarding RF issues can be found in the FCC publication, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." There is no evidence in the record that the applicant or County staff have made a determination of categorical exclusion. In fact, the applicant failed to submit any documentation that would allow the County and stakeholders to determine if the proposed tower would or would not be categorically excluded pursuant to FCC rules. If a proposed facility is not categorically excluded, an evaluation of potential exposure must be conducted to determine whether the proposed facility complies with FCC guidelines. Rather than provide the documentation required by Sec. 23-4-820, the applicant simply"affirmed" that the proposed tower will operate "per FCC rules and industry best practices." Applicant did not submit accurate photo-realistic renderings demonstrating the true impact of the facility on the surrounding visual environment. • Section 23-4-870 of the Weld County Code requires applications for a USR permit for commercial tower facilities to include photo simulations of the proposed project: Sec. 23-4-870. Application. A. Application Contents. In addition to requirements outlined in Article II, Divisions 3 through 5 of this Chapter, applications for administrative or Special Use Review approval of proposed Commercial Tower facilities, and additions or modifications to existing facilities, must include the following: 4. Photo-realistic renderings (photosyms) of the site after construction, demonstrating the true impact of the facility on the surrounding visual environment. The Department of Planning Services may request photo-realistic renderings of the site from specific vantage points. In an implicit acknowledgement of the relatively high population density west of the proposed site, the applicant points out that the lower 25% of the tower and all associated buildings will be obscured by a bluff directly west of the proposed tower. However, the applicant failed to submit a photo simulation looking from west to east. • 4 Likewise, no photo simulation was submitted looking south to north, even though several residences exist to the south of the proposed site. The only photo simulation submitted by the applicant is one looking from east to west (Exhibit 2). The base photo for the rendering was taken by Mr. Henry Jacobsen. It was taken from my patio during a meeting with Mr. Jacobsen. The photograph was apparently taken using a wide angle lens or setting. The effect of this wide angle lens or setting is to make distant objects look smaller. In this particular photograph, the Wayne Wolfe residence and simulated tower appear much smaller than they would look with the naked eye. In contrast, a photograph taken with a 35mm digital SLR camera with a zoom lens set at roughly 43mm more closely approximates the view of the proposed tower site by the naked eye. In this photograph (Exhibit 3),the Wolfe residence is approximately 50% larger than it appears in the applicant's rendering. • The simulated tower in the applicant's rendering is significantly smaller than it would look by the naked eye. Therefore, the applicant's east to west photo simulation does not comply with the Code's requirement to demonstrate the true impact of the proposed tower facility on the surrounding visual environment. In addition, since there are a significant number of residences to the west and south of the proposed site that would be potentially impacted by the proposed tower, County staff should require photo simulations from these vantage points as well. Signs notifying property owners of the proposed Special Review Permit were not properly posted. Section 23-2-260 of the Weld County Code addresses application requirements for Use by Special Review permits, including requirements for notification signs: Sec. 23-2-260. Application requirements. B. The following general information shall be submitted: • 5 • 11. A sign shall be posted for the applicant on the property under consideration for a Use by Special Review permit. The sign shall be posted adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way. In the event the property under consideration is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, one (1) sign shall be posted in the most prominent place on the property and a second sign posted at the point at which the driveway(access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way. The sign shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and evidenced with a photograph. The sign will include the following information: a. Use by Special Review number. b. Date, time and place of public hearing. c. Location and telephone number of the public office where additional information may be obtained. d. The applicant's name. e. Size of parcel of land. f. Type of request. The Code requires that a sign notifying property owners and the general public of the USR hearing be posted"adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way." If the property under consideration is not adjacent to such a ROW, two signs must be posted. One sign must be posted in the most prominent place on the property, and the second sign must be "posted • at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of- way." The property under consideration in this USR proceeding is not adjacent to a publicly maintained ROW. The closest publicly maintained road is the intersection of Weld County Roads 13 and 98. The intersection is approximately a half mile west of the southwest corner of the subject property. The access drive for the subject property is a narrow dirt road that is located in the WCR 98 right-of-way. Pursuant to the Code, a sign should have been posted at this intersection. I travel through this intersection several times per week, and I affirm that no sign has been posted since the permit application was submitted. On April 2, three days before the hearing, I took several photographs of the intersection to document the lack of a sign (Exhibit 4). • 6 • A sign was posted on the subject property. However,because of high winds and lightweight construction, the sign no longer remains on the property. Photographs taken on April 2 show the location of the missing sign(Exhibit 5)and the wire support that previously held the sign (Exhibit 6). Compliance with the sign notification requirements must be demonstrated before the County can legally consider approval of the proposed Special Review Permit. The Planning Department's website contains materially inaccurate information regarding the location of the property under consideration. The County's Department of Planning Services maintains a web page for Current Planning Cases (http:l-www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanningZoninglPlanningDepartmcnt/indcx.hunl). Under the profile for Case Number USR-1776 there is a description of the location of the subject property: . North of and adjacent to CR 98 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 23. (Exhibit 7) The Department's Land Use Application Summary Sheet contains the correct location description: North of and adjacent to CR 98 and approximately %2 mile east of CR 13. (Exhibit 8) The location shown on the Department's web page is over four miles away from the subject property. This information is erroneous and misleading, and may have served to exclude some members of the public from participating in the USR process. Applicant failed to submit all supporting documents required under Section 23-2-260 of the Weld County Code. Section 23-2-260 of the Code requires an applicant for a Special Review Permit to submit certain supporting documents as part of the application unless the Director of Planning Services makes a 7 • written determination that specific documents are unnecessary. Upon information and belief, the Department has provided me with all documents submitted by the applicant as well as all internal Department documents related to this case that are public records. On February 19, I submitted a request for all records related to the case. On March 27, I submitted a request for all attachments to the USR application. No document was produced evidencing a determination by the Director that any required documents pursuant to Section 23-2-260 were deemed unnecessary. Upon information and belief, the applicant failed to submit the following supporting documents required under Section 23-2-260 - A statement explaining how the proposed tower will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. - An affidavit listing the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land being considered. - A certificate from the County Treasurer showing no delinquent taxes for the parcel area. • - A copy of an agreement with the mineral owners associated with the subject property. Such agreement shall stipulate that the oil and gas activities on the subject property have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site, OR shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners on the subject property. - Reclamation procedures to be employed as stages of the operation are phased out or upon cessation of the Use by Special Review activity. - A description of the proposed fire protection measures. - A plot plan showing all utility easements or rights-of-way for telephone, gas, electric, water and sewer lines within a two-hundred-foot radius of the boundaries of the Use by Special Review area, as well as within the area itself. - A plot plan showing the location of any flood hazard, geologic hazard or mineral resource areas within a two-hundred-foot radius of the boundaries of the Use by Special Review area, as well as within the area itself. - Copy of the deed or legal instrument by which the applicant obtained an interest in the • property under consideration. 8 • - A soil report of the site prepared by the Natural Resource Conservation Service or by a soils engineer or scientist. In those instances when the soil report indicates the existence of moderate or severe soil limitations for the USES proposed, the applicant shall detail the methods to be employed to mitigate the limitations. Given the extensive amount of data and information that was not submitted by the applicant, as well as the deficient public notification, I hereby request that the proposed USR application be tabled until such time as the applicant submits the required information, the Department and stakeholders have an opportunity to conduct an adequate review and assessment of the proposal, and there is ample time granted for public comments. Lastly, I hereby incorporate by reference all public comments submitted on Case No. USR-1776, to the extent these comments address issues or detail facts or evidence not included herein. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions regarding these comments. • Respectfully submitted, /s/James B. Woodward • 9 295 1111111111111111111 111111 111111 11111 111 IIIII IIII IIII 3210295 08/18/2004 01:45P Weld County, CO • 1 of 1 R 8.00 D 4.00 Steve Moreno Clerk&Recorder PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED THIS DEED is made by Rebecca Koehler,attorney in fact for Nancy Rohleder as Personal Representative of the Estate of Violet Jones a/k/a Violet P.Jones,deceased,Grantor,to Donald R. Lee and Sandra Lee,Grantees,whose legal address is: 7160 Henry Street,Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 of the County of Weld,State of Colorado. WHEREAS,the decedent died on the date of April 28,2004 and Grantor was duly appointed Personal Representative of said Estate by the Superior Court in and for the Maricopa County, State of Arizona, Probate No. PI32004-090408, on the date of May 14,2004,and is now qualified and acting in said capacity. NOW THEREFORE,pursuant to the powers conferred upon Grantor by the Arizona Probate Code,Grantor does hereby sell and convey unto Grantee in joint tenancy, for and in consideration of Forty Thousand and no/100 ($40,000.00)Dollars the following described real property situate in the County of Weld, State of Colorado: Lot 4 Block 58 Aristocrat Ranchettes Weld County,Colorado This deed given in full satisfaction and discharge of that certain Purchase Agreement between Lawrence and Violet Jones and Vernon and Geraldine Stewart dated 4/26/91. • Also known by street and number as: 7160 Henry Street, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Assessor's schedule or parcel number: 130927417001 With all appurtenances. As used hereiin,the singular includes the plural and the plural the singular. Executed kn'iC ec—,2 , 2004 /27,e4--14--&6 Reb cca Koehle , atorney in fact for Nancy Rohleder, Personal Representative of the Estate of Violet Jones a/k/a Violet P. Jones,Deceased STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF WELD • ) • / ✓aiy _ The foregoing i • • r = , ; ;owledged before me this 7#a day of dare,2004 by Rebecca Koehler,atto AI', Rohleder as Personal Representative of the Estate of Violet Jones a/k/a Vi; .nes, - - Witness my hand :c 6cial My commission ex • • a= ` ✓,f1.:" • MyCpnrlrbnExproslvva35 otary Public Chris Gathman iiirom: Chris Gathman ent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:00 AM EXHIBIT o: 'Jim Woodward' Subject: RE: USR-1776 1 6 1 Attachments: photos& photo sims.pdf; FW: Wellingto Tower Application Dear Mr.Woodward, The new hearing date for the Planning Commission is Tuesday, May 3rd at 1:30 PM (118 10th Street, Greeley).The Board of County Commissioners hearing date will be Wednesday, May 18th at 10 AM (918 10th Street, Greeley). I plan to post signs on the property and at the intersection of CR 13 and CR 98 next week. Mr.Jacobson has provided some more photo sims(see attached scanned in photos). Documentation has been provided from Mr.Jacobson (from the FCC website and other documentation) re: cellular tower radiation levels.Additionally, a copy of this application has been provided to the FCC. No response has been received from the FCC. This information was provided to you on 3/29/11. I spoke with Mr.Jacobson--he indicated he would get a letter from the JACOR tower provider re:the inability to technically,economically co-locate. I will follow up with him. In regards to the application items: Sow is the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses—Cellular Towers require additional questions/criteria to be answered beyond a standard Use by Special Review Permit. One of these criteria is—The Telecommunication Antenna Tower shall have the least practicable adverse visual impact on the environment (which is typically the biggest compatibility concern with cellular towers).—The applicant provided a more detailed response to this question. The application information on the website has been changed to reflect the correct location (County Road 98 and County Road 23). An affidavit of mineral owners and lessees has been provided and a response was received from the mineral interests (indicated no concerns) prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Reclamation procedures—the applicant has indicated that all tower related improvements would be removed upon cease of use of the tower.Staff is also recommending a development standard (that will be noted on the plat)—that the tower improvements shall be removed upon cease of use. Fire Protection Measures—We sent a copy of this application to the Nunn Fire Protection District to see if they had any recommendations/issues regarding fire protection. No referral response has been received. The plot plan submitted by the applicant indicates the location of telephone service but does not indicate other utilities (such as the gas line)—staff will add a condition that any existing utilities that are not indicated be added to the plat. 5his site is not located within (or within 200 feet of) a flood hazard area,geologic hazard area or mineral resource area. The applicant (Viaero) has obtained permission from the existing property owner(Beverly Ensley)to apply for a special use permit. Viaero has indicated in the application their intent to purchase this property. 1 An application was sent to and a referral response (with an attached soil classification map) was received from the West Greeley Soil Conservation District indicating no comments/issues. set me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner Ill Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO. 80631 Ph: (970)353-6100 ext.3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 1441 .:911 W E LQ.�'.C O U N 7 Y U Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return 9-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Jim Woodward fmailto:jbw@frii.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:47 PM To: Chris Gathman Cc: Imorrisoraco.weld.co.us Subject: USR-1776 Hi Chris, I have a few questions concerning USR-1776: 1. Has a new hearing date before the Planning Commission been set? 2. Have there been any communications between the applicant and the Department regarding completeness and sufficiency of the application since April 4? 3. When does a Special Review Permit approved by the BOCC become effective? Thanks for your help with this matter. Jim m Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington,CO 80549 2 • James B. Woodward 47897 Weld County Road 15 P.O. Box 599 Wellington, Colorado 80549 Phone: 970-402-7679 jbw@frii.com April 24, 2011 Sent via email (PDF) attachment Bruce T. Barker, Esq. County Attorney Weld County Colorado 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 Phone: 970-336-7235 • Subject: Colorado Open Records Act Request Dear Mr. Barker: Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. 24-72-200, et seq., please make the following public records pertaining to Current Planning Case Number USR-1776 available for inspection and copying: 1. Letter from Clear Channel Communications regarding co-location of microwave and cellular equipment on its Jacor antenna tower. 2. Affidavits of mineral owners and lessees. 3. Responses from mineral interests. 4. Copy of revised plat. 5. All emails between Henry Jacobsen and the Weld County Planning Department that have not been posted on the Department's website. 6. Audio recording of the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Please respond to this request by email, and where possible, please provide all responsive records in electronic format. Electronic files can be sent to jbw@frii.com. If you choose to deny access to any of these records, please provide a statement • explaining the grounds for denial and citing the statute(s) under which access is denied. EXHIBIT 6. 7 • On April 17, 2011, I sent an email to Chris Gathman (Planning Department) and Diane Beckman(County Attorney's office)that included a CORA request for substantially the same public records. I have received no response to the request. As a result, I have been unable to review these records and prepare my comments on Case Number USR-1776. If you have any questions about this request, please call me at 970-402-7679. Respectfully submitted, /s/James B. Woodward • • Chris Gathman Orom: Jim Woodward [jbw@frii.com] ent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:30 PM o: Trevor Jiricek; Bruce Barker Cc: Diane Beckman; Chris Gathman Subject: RE: CORA request Thanks Trevor. I wondered if the April 17 email was never received. Chris has been good about responding in a timely manner, so when the 3-day CORA response period went by I thought that was odd. Next time I will call to confirm receipt. Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington,CO 80549 970-402-7679 .............. From:Trevor Jiricek fmailto:tiiricek@co.weld.co.usl Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 8:12 AM To:Jim Woodward; Bruce Barker Cc: Diane Beckman; Chris Gathman Subject: RE:CORA request Jim, We will process your request. Neither Chris nor Diane received the email you indicated that you sent on April 17, 2011. ive us a couple of days...hope all is well. Trevor Jiricek Director Department of Planning& Environmental Health Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley,Colorado 80631 Email: tiiricek@co.weld.co.us Office ti:970-353-6100, Extension 2214 Fax U: 970-304-6498 I _ W E C.0..(C'O U N Y u Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Srom:Jim Woodward fmailto:ibw@frii.coml Sent: Sunday,April 24, 2011 11:42 PM EXHIBIT To: Bruce Barker 1 Cc:Trevor Jiricek; Diane Beckman Subject: CORA request •ello Mr. Barker, Please see attached Colorado Open Records Act request. Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-402-7679 • • 2 Chris Gathman rom: Jim Woodward Ubw@frii.com] ent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:33 PM o: Chris Gathman Subject: FW: USR-1776 Attachments: image001.png Chris, I am resending the April 17 email that wasn't delivered. No response necessary. Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-402-7679 From:Jim Woodward [mailto:jbw@frii.com] Sent:Sunday,April 17, 2011 11:39 PM To: 'Chris Gathman' Cc: 'dbeckman@co.weld.co.us' Subject: RE: USR-1776 Hi Chris, shank you for your detailed responses to my inquiries. After reviewing your responses and additional documents, I still maintain that the application does not conform to the Weld County Code, and I will be providing additional comments prior to the May 3 Planning Commission meeting. My comments will address issues previously raised as well as new concerns. Would you please provide me with electronic copies of the following public records, pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act: 1. Letter from Clear Channel/Jacor regarding co-location. 2. Affidavit of mineral owners and lessees. 3. Responses from mineral interests. 4. Copy of revised plat. 5. Emails between Henry Jacobsen and the Weld County Planning Department (not including emails already provided.) I also have a couple of questions: 1. How soon is the plat recorded after approval by the BOCC? 2. Did the County make an audio recording of the April 5 Planning Commission meeting? Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these requests. EXHIBIT 0egards, Jim lo. L i Chris Gathman Orom: Jim Woodward Ubw@frii.com] ent: Monday, May 02, 2011 10:37 AM o: Chris Gathman Subject: USR-1776 Hi Chris, Would you please send me any documents related to USR-1776 that have not previously been provided in response to my earlier requests, including any documents you receive or create prior to tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting? Thanks, Jim Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 970-402-7679 • EXHIBIT • I -_7 1 • Karen Wolff P.O.Box 599 Wellington,CO 80549 May 2,2011 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Planning and Building Department 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley,CO 80631 Re: Application for Cell Tower USR 1776 Dear Commissioners: I'm writing concerning the statements Henry Jacobsen made at the April 5`h hearing, concerning the cell tower project referred to above. I respectfully request that this letter be read at the May 3rd,2011 hearing as I am unable to attend in person. I am Jim Woodward's wife. During the April 5,2011 hearing Mr.Jacobsen indicated that he was offended by the manner in which our objections to the cell tower were raised,that we were disingenuous and gaming the system,that he had spent time on our patio and took photos from our • home. I would like to present another view to what he conveyed. We were notified by the original location property owner(the Brinks property directly west of our home)on October 17,2010 that she was likely going to sell her property to a cell tower company. We responded within hours that we would like to talk to her about purchasing her property as an alternative to the cell tower company contract. As a result of that,she contacted us on Tuesday moming October 19th and indicated she was driving out to look at the property.We hoped to be able to discuss the purchase offer with her. I personally drove home from work on short notice to pursue that opportunity. Upon her arrival,Mr.Jacobsen emerged from the vehicle. He had personally driven her to the property and our home,without our knowledge. He was friendly,chatting amiably with us and admiring the view. I was distressed and incredibly frustrated that he arrived unannounced and we could not have a frank conversation with the landowner,without Mr.Jacobsen there. We did not invite him to our property. He did not request to visit us. He showed up unannounced,with an attitude that he could charm us into agreeing to the • EXHIBIT in. kf Weld County Planning Commission 5/2/2011 Page 2 of 2 • project. Only basic manners and our previous connections with the landowner prevented me from asking him to leave. As we discussed with the landowner that we were serious about purchasing her property,Mr.Jacobsen,without any permission or explanation, stood and began taking various pictures of the view from our home.We had no idea why he was taking photos;we were focused on trying to have a conversation with the landowner about purchasing her property,in front of the competing party.This was disconcerting in itself. I actually moved to sit on our patio wall so he would not have an obstructed horizon view in his photos,while we conversed with the landowner. Beyond that it was very disturbing to experience his uninvited presence to our home when we were actively pursuing purchasing the land to protect our view. Yes,at that meeting he assured us that radio waves were not harmful,that the view would be minimally impacted and that he would be happy to work through this with us. I think you can understand that this would be a difficult circumstance for us to be in,with no preparation or notice to respond to his assurances about the project. Later on the day of his unexpected visit,we received a copy of his use of the unauthorized photos from our home. The photo was unrealistic,if not ridiculous. The tower was barely discernable in the photo;our neighbor's home was barely discernable. This was not and is not reflective of the realistic view from our home. To say I was furious would be an understatement. He had come to our home,uninvited,took photos without our permission and then used them against us. I find it offensive and ironic that Mr.Jacobsen would accuse my husband or me of being disingenuous,gaming any system or behaving objectionably. The reality in this rural area is that a 195 foot tower will have a significant impact on the view from more than 2-3 homes. There are four homes to the south of us whose view will be significantly impacted. There are seven homes to the east of us who will also have a clear view of the tower between themselves and the mountain ranges we all love. None of these homeowners have been notified and this project would affect them in a • material way.The tower would be located directly adjacent to a hill which my family and other friends use for recreation with children—biking,sledding and hiking.Having this type of tower near this hill will significantly affect the experience we love living in this area. I ask that you consider there are other valid perspectives to the view you are receiving from Mr.Jacobsen. We are open to discussing possible solutions with the company. However,due to our previous interactions with Mr.Jacobsen,we are not interested in discussing this further with him. Thank you for your consideration. Karen A.W • Chris Gathman From: Chris Gathman •Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 1:51 PM To: 'Jim Woodward' Subject: RE: USR-1776 Attachments: image002.png Dear Jim, I provided copies of the documents that you requested last week with the exception of the JACOR(Clear Channel) collocation letter. I have not received a letter to this date. Kris Ranslem and myself provided information/responses to your earlier requests of 3/27 and in your letter received via e-mail on 4/5. As you have probably already seen -the current staff recommendation is located on the county website: http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanningZoning/PlanningDepartment/index.html#1776 Other than the e-mail and letter provided by yourself and your wife—I have so far received no additional documents. If any additional information comes in--I will forward it to you. Let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Chris Gathman Planner III OWeld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley CO.80631 Ph:(970)353-6100 ext. 3537 Fax:(970)304-6498 w E l�O 'CO U N u Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Jim Woodward f mailto:jbwafrii.coml Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 10:37 AM EXHIBIT To: Chris Gathman Subject: USR-1776 6. b Hi Chris, Ilikould you please send me any documents related to USR-1776 that have not previously been provided in response to my earlier requests, including any documents you receive or create prior to tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting? 1 • James B. Woodward P.O. Box 599 Wellington, CO 80549 Phone (970) 897-3029 Fax (970) 897-3021 jhw(a,frii.com Sent via email May 2, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Planning Commission Weld County, Colorado 915 10`h Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Proposed Special Review Permit Number USR-1776 Dear Commissioners: • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Weld County Planning Department's recommendation to issue a Special Review Permit (Permit Number: USR-1776) for a proposed telecommunications tower in northwestern Weld County. I incorporate by reference my comments of April 4, 2011 as well as any other comments submitted to the extent these comments address issues or detail facts or evidence not included herein. As discussed herein and in my previous comments, the permit cannot be legally issued as proposed due to the applicant's failure to comply with Article 2, Division 4, and Article 4, Division 9 of the Weld County Zoning Code ("Code"). 1. Applicant failed to present documentation and substantial evidence that co-location of the proposed telecommunications equipment on a nearby broadcast antenna tower is not economically and technically feasible, and that the applicant's desired geographic area cannot be served by co-locating on the existing tower. My previous comments addressed the fact that the Code requires an applicant to submit documentation that "existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower." As of May 2, 2011, the applicant had not submitted • such documentation. EXHIBIT 1 6. P • 2. The proposed site of the telecommunications tower is not protective of the visual environment of the County. The purpose of Article 4, Division 9 of the Weld County Zoning Code is to: ...accommodate the increasing wireless communication needs of County residents, businesses and visitors while protecting the public health, safety, general welfare and visual environment of the County... The applicant asserts that the proposed tower site is remote and would not impact the views from neighboring residences. However, the 195-foot tower would be located only a few hundred feet due east of the Wayne Wolfe residence and roughly 2,000 feet west and a few hundred feet north of the Woodward/Wolff residence. Furthermore, there are over a dozen residences within a one- mile radius of the proposed site that would be visually impacted by the proposed tower. Furthermore, the proposed tower would not"accommodate the increasing wireless communication needs of County residents", since the purpose of the tower is to provide cell phone service to residents of Larimer County, not Weld County. • 3. Applicant failed to submit documentation that the proposed tower will not emit radiation that will adversely affect human health. As I noted in earlier comments, the Code is clear regarding the requirement that an applicant shall submit documentation that a proposed telecommunications tower shall not emit radiation that will adversely affect human health. However, the applicant submitted absolutely no documentary evidence in this regard, and simply"affirmed"that the proposed telecommunications tower would operate within all FCC and industry safety guidelines. The applicant goes on to cite federal law prohibiting local governments from denying a permit application for reasons of radiation and health, "provided this condition is met". But how can County officials and potentially affected neighbors judge whether the condition is met? We should not have to rely on vague assurances from the applicant. The Code requires documentation, and the permit application is incomplete without it. 4. Applicant did not submit accurate photo-realistic renderings demonstrating the true impact of the facility on the surrounding visual environment. • 2 • While the applicant did submit additional photo simulations in response to my comments and a related request by the Planning Department, the simulations still exhibit perspective distortion, making the proposed tower look smaller than it would with the naked eye. In addition, the location of the tower appears to have moved to the north. There are now two purported photo- realistic renderings in the administrative record that show the tower in two distinct locations. In addition, although there are four residences located south/southeast and within one mile of the proposed tower site, the applicant has not submitted a rendering from that vantage point. 5. From the various documents in the administrative record, it is unclear who the applicant is in Case Number USR-1776. The application lists two names as applicants: Viaero Wireless, which is a trade name rather than a legal entity, and Henry Jacobsen, an individual who works for NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. The applicant's address is apparently the home address of Mr. Jacobsen. Adding further confusion, the Planning Department's website and the document"Weld County Referral—February 14, 2011" list the applicant as "Beverly Ensley, c/o Viaero Wireless". Ms. Ensley is the current • landowner who has contracted to sell her property to NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. Based on the permit application and Planning Department documents, it is unclear to whom a permit would be issued and which individual or legal entity would hold the related vested property right—Ms. Ensley, Mr. Jacobsen, Viaero Wireless, or NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. 6. The Department of Planning Services failed to give notice of the May 3, 2011 public hearing date to those persons listed in the application as owners of property located within five hundred (500) feet of the parcel under consideration, pursuant to Section 23- 2-210.B.2 of the Weld County Code. The Planning Department gave written, mailed notice to property owners of the April 5, 2011 public hearing on Case Number USR-1776. Prior to the April 5 meeting, public comments were submitted raising several concerns and legal issues with respect to the permit application and notification requirements. Consequently, the case was continued and not heard at the April meeting. The case was later placed on the agenda of the May 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. In spite of the fact that the Code requires written notice of a public hearing on a Use by Special Review permit application, no mailed notice was given of the May 3 public hearing. • 3 • Since a complete application has not been submitted, the identity of the applicant is unclear, and public notice requirements have not been met, I hereby request that the Planning Commission deny the application. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions regarding these comments. Respectfully submitted, /s/James B. Woodward • 4 • May 3, 2011 Chris Gatham Weld County Planning Greeley, Colorado Dear Chris; I was forwarded a letter sent to Henry Jacobsen from Karen Wolff regarding a cell tower and was surprised at the tone and content. I feel compelled to tell you that it does not reflect how a meeting went. When Jacobson approached us about buying a 30-acre lot, we were hesitant as it was my dream to build a home there. We camped out there once and at night one could see the lights of both Greeley and Fort Collins. Reality intervened and after considering our age, our health, and the potential good use, we agreed. However, because we had sold the Wolff/Woodward family the 80 acres to the east, and we've always been on good terms, I did want to contact and inform them. While driving over the site with Henry Jacobson and my husband , we stopped at the Wolff/Woodward home to introduce them to Jacobson and explain the tower. They were cordial, we sat on their patio and I took photos of Karen Wolff and the view of the mountains, and Jacobson took photos of the view, and said he would photo-crop a • photo to show what the tower would look like. It was a lovely day in October. Later, Wolff/Woodward indicated they did not want a tower straight west of them and would like to buy our land. Not wanting to leave Jacobson empty-handed, I said we would do so but only if Bev Enslie agreed to sell her 80 acres as an alternate site. Enslie had also bought from us many years ago. She agreed, Wolff/Woodward agreed, Jacobson's company agreed, and I thought everyone was happy. Therefore it was with great surprise when I ran into Bev Enslie at a Fort Collins shop a week or so ago and she said Wolff/Woodward had protested the tower. I hate to get into the middle of something I thought was so friendly and agreeable to all, but did want to relate my memory of the meeting. I have offered to buy the 30 acres back from Wolff/Woodward if the Enslie site is considered as bad as the first site, but they declined. Please call or email if you have any questions. Rose Brinks PO Box 710 Laporte, CO 80535 970-221-4261 Rosebrinks@gmail.com EXHIBIT • I 67. a 1350 West 6th Street Loveland CO 80537 May 3, 2011 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Planning Department To Whom It May Concern: I apologize if anything I said in the April 5th Planning Commission Meeting offended landowners in the vicinity of the tower we propose to build under Application USR-1776. Respectfully, Henry Jacobsen ehall Cc: Jim Woodward/Karen Wolff PO Box 599 Wellington CO 80549 EXHIBIT Hello