HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111141 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 Parko
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,do 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
eanntr.ui'e aTi m o/ I ��
5-1(c- 02oIt jot
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 1/2 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 'A 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
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to State Hwy 71; north of and adjacent to CR 112.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicant has applied for a Telecommunication Antenna
Tower(250-foot tall cellular tower) in the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
The proposed tower facility is located on a parcel of land in a rural area. The nearest residence (which is
the property owner) is approximately 1,300-feet from the proposed tower site. The tower will be lighted
and will generate very little traffic as it is an unmanned facility. The surrounding area is rural in character,
primarily rangeland.
The site is not located within a three-mile referral area with any municipality.
Planning staff is recommending approval of the application along with the attached conditions of approval
and development standards.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that permanent water and sewer are not required since there are no
employees. She added that they have no concerns with this case.
Don Carroll, Public Works,stated that the access is from State Highway 71 at County Road 112 and requires
a minimum 20 foot clear zone. Staff has asked the applicant to contact the State regarding the access since
they have jurisdiction over Highway 71.
Kelly Harrison,Verizon Wireless, stated that they are proposing to construct a 250 foot self-support or lattice
tower in the southeast corner of the property. It will be lighted and there will be a small equipment building at
the base of the tower.
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 she read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that she is in agreement.
Jason Maxey moved that Case USR-1777, 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 Nick Berryman.
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 following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1102
APPLICANT: L.G. Everist
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
for a Mineral Resource Development including Open Pit Mining and Materials
Processing (sand, gravel and stone), including concrete and asphalt recycling
and a concrete and asphalt batch plant facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 32,T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 15; south of and adjacent to CR 26.75;west of and
adjacent to CR 17.
Roy Spitzer recused himself on this case since the Firm he works for has contracts with L.G. Everist.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the application proposes to extract the mineral resource, specifically
309 acres, within the boundary. According to the Weld County Sand and Gravel Resources Map dated July
1975, the northern part of the property is classified as Fl Floodplain Deposits which are relatively clean and
4
sound. The application materials indicate that approximately 28 to 32 feet of resource underneath the 5 to 6
foot layer of overburden will be extracted from the property.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding properties which include agricultural lands, limited rural
residential and multiple mineral resource development facilities. Lands to the north lie within the St. Vrain
Creek floodplain. Also to the north is land owned by the Town of Firestone yet not annexed into the Town.
This land was associated with the Firestone Trail Alignment. Land northeast of the property on County Road
28 is permitted with a Ready Mix facility, under USR-1343. Land to the east is the Town of Firestone as part
of the Heitzelman Pit annexed recently in May 2010. Lands to the south remain as agricultural operations. To
the west is the Nelson Mining Resource Pit and Asphalt Specialties permitted under USR-1529.
Twenty-nine referral agencies reviewed the case; eight agencies offered comments, some with specific
conditions. No letters of concern or phone calls have been received regarding this application.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the conditions of approval and development
standards will address the concerns raised by referral agencies; therefore staff is recommending approval of
the application.
Mr. Ogle stated that staff is requesting to delete Condition of Approval 1.H as it is addressed in the
Development Standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that potable water will be provided by Central Weld County Water
District. The previous USR permit approved the use of portable toilets and is repeated in Development
Standard 11. The applicants have met all the conditions and staff has no concerns with this request.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that thy applicants are using an existing access onto County Road 15
which they have paved. An amended Road Maintenance Agreement has been requested. No additional off-
site improvements are needed; however they would like to bring it to the current standards and ensure that the
haul routes are maintained. A portion of the site is within the FEMA mapped 100 year floodplain and added
that the applicant has indicated that they are having floodplain mapping done. It appears that that mapping
may take the site completely out of the floodplain. FEMA is the only entity that can change the floodplain so
we will need to receive approval from them.
Steve O'Brien, Environment Inc., representing L.G. Everist (LGE), stated that that they are expanding the
existing mine. He added that L.G. Everist operates a mine to the west of this facility and the plan is that as
that mine is shut down it will transition into this mine. He expects the transition to take place in the next 5
years.
Mr. O'Brien stated that they have a floodplain study and the preliminary indication is that there is no longer
floodplain on the property. When reclamation takes place, originally it was going to be left as an open pit sand
and gravel with groundwater exposed. The plans have been designed to put liners in it now so that it will be a
sealed area. They (LGE) haven't called it a reservoir/storage area mainly because of the length of time it
takes to develop the mine and also LGEhaven't put it on the market to sell the water storage at this point. At
this point the approved plan at the State is to line the pits so there is no exposed groundwater.
Commissioner Hall asked what the issue is with The Town of Firestone. Mr. O'Brien said that Firestone has
requested an additional 20 feet of right-of-way that along County Roads 26 and 17 L.G. Everist doesn't feel
they should have to give them for the realignment or the Firestone Trail. He added that there is open
discussion as to this point, but it happened as such a late hour that there is nothing resolved at this time.
Dave Lindsey, Town of Firestone, 151 Grant Ave, Firestone, CO, commented that Firestone doesn't have
objections to the application. He added that they sent some comments to Weld County Planning Staff
addressing the rights-of-way that were mentioned. In 1998 the Town of Firestone purchased about 12.5 miles
of the old Dent Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad, a portion of that used to run through this site. There are
several gaps in the property's that the railroad conveyed to them. One of those gaps is on this site. As
indicated a letter was sent to L.G. Everist on Friday and there hasn't been much opportunity for them to look
through the letter but Mr. Lindsay commented that they hope to meet with them prior to the Board of County
5
Commissioner hearing. He added that they are proposing to consider a land swap along County Roads 26.75
and 17 that would give them the ability to get the trail around the operation and widen County Road 26 which
would include the trail in the public right-of-way. Mr. Lindsay reiterated that they are not opposed to the
application; however they are trying to negotiate the route for the trail.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.H as stated, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grand asked the applicant if they feel that a resolution can be accomplished. Lynn Mayer
Shultz, L.G. Everist, 7321 E. 88'"Ave, Henderson, CO, indicated that they anticipate a resolution.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement noting that
Development Standards 27-31 regarding the floodplain may be removed upon determination from FEMA.
Robert Grand moved that Case AmUSR-1102 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended 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;AlexanderZauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1780
APPLICANT: Petroleum Development Corporation
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(100 foot communication tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-4988; located in the NW4 of Section 21,T4nN R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17; approximately 750 feet south of CR 44.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this request is for a 100 foot self-supporting communication
tower. This application request is to extend the height of the communication tower from 70 feet to 100 feet.
Petroleum Development Corporation was approved for a 70 foot communication tower in this location under a
zoning permit (ZPTT-0001) in 2010.
The surrounding area is residential in character to the west and immediately to the south. Agricultural land is
located to the north and east. The nearest residence is located approximately 400 feet to the southwest of the
tower site while an existing subdivision is located approximately 600 to 700 feet to the west across County
Road 17. There are existing improvements, a residence and outbuildings located on the site as well as oil and
gas wells. The site is immediately surrounded by the town limits for the Town of Johnstown.
Twelve referrals were sent out and seven agencies returned comments and either indicated no concerns or
are addressed through the conditions of approval and development standards.
No referral responses were received from the Federal Communications Commission, FM,Town of Berthoud,
and the Johnstown Fire Protection District. It is located within the three-mile referral areas for the Towns of
Berthoud, Johnstown and Milliken. Milliken indicated no conflict with their interests and no referral response
was received from Berthoud. The Town of Johnstown, in their referral response dated March 22, 2011,
indicated the location of the tower appeared to be optimal in regard to setbacks and screening; however they
also requested that an opaque fence of sufficient height be installed to screen the ground improvements.
Johnstown also indicated that they require towers located in Town to have an earth tone color. Given that this
6
property is located immediately adjacent to Johnstown municipal limits, staff has proposed a development
standard requiring the tower to be painted an earth tone color. Additionally, there is a condition of approval
that the applicant attempt to address the referral requirements of the Town of Johnstown.
A letter of objection was received from a surrounding property owner dated April 20, 2011. Concerns listed
included negative impacts on property values, potential negative impacts on TV reception and wireless internet
connection, lack of landscaping on the site creating an unsightly situation,and exacerbating flooding condition.
The letter also mentions questions on what the height of the antenna would be on the tower.
The proposed tower is located in an area that maximizes distance from the nearby residences while being
screened by existing trees and buildings on the property. Existing improvements are oil and gas production
facilities, tank batteries on site which are already installed and are a use by right in the agricultural zone
district.
Mr. Gathman stated that he received a phone call today from gentlemen, Tom Marone, who owns land
immediately east and north of this site. He indicated that they have received preliminary plat approval for a
residential subdivision on this adjacent property. There is a platted subdivision in process on that site;
however they still have to go through the Final Plat process. Mr. Marone indicated that he was concerned
about property value impacts and would like to see the applicant provide some more information on how the
tower would look on the ground.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that permanent water and sewer is not required because it is an
unmanned facility. According to FCC requirements, a free-standing tower above 30 feet in height is unlikely
to cause exposure in excess of the FCC guidelines; therefore this proposed tower is not a health concern.
Staff has no concerns with this request.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the applicant is using an existing access from County Road 17 which
is under Johnstown's jurisdiction. Staff has no concerns with this request.
Mac Neuman, Lonetree Energy Associates, representing Petroleum Development Corp,commented that this
additional 30 feet would enhance the backbone of their automation system. There are a number of wells on
the automation system and this tower would enable more wells to be put on the system.
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-1780, 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 called a recess at 2:37 pm and reconvened at 2:46 pm.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER; AmUSR-1075
APPLICANT: R.M. Hiner Construction Company, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
7
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
for Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing (sand, gravel and stone), an
Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plant,for an Oil Field Business, more specifically
defined as an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility—Pipeline and Roust-a-
bout; and a private commercial recreational facility(water skiing lake and
primitive campsite for water skiing members) along with commercial hunting
(hunting on a fee basis) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2NE4 of Section 36, T6N, R66W and the South 120 acres of the NW4 of
Section 31,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64, "O"Street; East of and adjacent to North 25th
Avenue.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the site is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement area
(IGA) but does lie within the three mile referral area for the City of Greeley. The City of Greeley returned a
referral indicating that the proposed use is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and is immediately
adjacent to the municipal city limits. One of their concerns relates to the City's 2060 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Section LU8.A7 River Corridor. As it relates to this Section, Greeley Planning encourages the
applicant to contact the Colorado Division of Wildlife in particular as it relates to the hunting activities. For the
record,the Division of Wildlife did not return a referral response indicating a conflict with their interests for this
application.
Greeley Planning also had concerns with the proposal as it relates to the City's Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Section EN1.A2. The Policy states that uses should maintain and enhance the Poudre River
Trail and Corridor for natural resource and habitat preservation as well as for educational use and enjoyment
by the public in an appropriate manner. The City added that the applicant should note that the prevailing uses
along the Poudre Trail are non-motorized in nature. Accordingly, motorized boating activities are not
consistent with uses and further could damage sensitive shorelines. For the record,the applicant has utilized
this location since 1995 for six primitive campsites and the ski lake component and the ongoing mineral
resource development activities.
Surrounding properties include development within the North Weld County Business Park,which is within the
City limits for Greeley. Land to the east of the site is utilized for Weld County Public Works. Lands to the
south include the Cache La Poudre River, Bucklen Equipment Company, and Weld County Public Works.
Lands to the west are the Esponola Subdivision.
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed the case; eight agencies offered comments,some with specific conditions
which have been incorporated into the staff recommendation. Staff did not receive any letters or telephone
calls concerning this application.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the conditions of approval and development
standards will address the concerns raised by referral agencies;therefore staff is recommending approval of
the application.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by North Weld County Water District. Staff is
requesting that the applicant provide documentation from the Water District that the existing tap is sufficient
for the commercial operations. Portable toilets will be provided for the recreation facility which includes the
hunters and the campers. The use of portable toilets was approved under the original USR and is included in
Development Standard 12. The self-contained RV's will be required to dump their wastes in an approved off-
site facility. Employees and drivers for the mining batch plant operations must have access to potable water,
handwashing and toilets facilities. There are three existing septic systems on the property. Restrooms must
be made available for employee use. Depending on which system they will utilize it will need to be evaluated
by an engineer to determine if it is adequate for residence of the homes and the employees. Portable toilets
and bottled water may be used at the working face of the mine. The applicant will need to submit Air Permits
and Stormwater Discharge Permits for the asphalt and concrete batch plants and the mining operation. Noise
will be restricted to levels allowed in the light industrial zone.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that the main access is from North 23rd Avenue, which is paved. The
secondary access is from a private road for the Sheriff's Department utilized for emergency access to the
8
facility. He added that they are requesting the applicant to use the main access because with the secondary
access they are coming off County property to access their own property and it is a safety concern with all the
County related traffic and walking trail.
Clay Kimmi, Public Works, stated that there are some floodplain concerns and has asked the applicant to
keep all camping sites and overnight parking of RV's or camp trailers outside of the floodplain. The camp
trailers are not anchored down and pose a floatation hazard that could get tangled up in the bridges and cause
flooding in other areas. Staff has no concerns with the day usage of the lakes. Mr. Kimmi stated that they
have asked the applicant that if they are proposing any portable boat docks that they comply with FEMA's
National Flood Insurance Program Regulations by anchoring them with an engineered design. In addition,
when the mining is complete,the applicant will need to complete a Letter of Map Revision to show FEMA what
the impact of the gravel mining operation has been on the floodplain.
Jim Arnold, 3030 S Williams, Denver CO, stated that in regard to hunting they shoot back onto the property
itself. There are six commercial hunting blinds onsite. He added that no issues or problems have occurred
with the hunting component.
Commissioner Grand expressed that he is not comfortable with the way it is written in the USR permit
indicating that hunting is allowed within the entire USR boundary. Mr.Arnold said that there is a professional
guide with the clients at all times. Mr. Grand requested that Staff create some language identifying the hunting
blinds on the map.
Mr.Arnold said that the east gate has been in use since 1995 under the original permit and added that it is the
closest point of access for ambulances, Sheriff patrol and emergency personnel. He added that they would
prefer to keep that access point. Mr. Carroll stated that there is no problem with emergency access. He
added that there is a lot of vehicle and foot traffic and would prefer them to use the paved main access point
for their clients and mining operation.
Mr. Arnold indicated that they have been accessing from the east gate to avoid mining traffic from the North
23rd Avenue. He added that it was granted under the original USR permit. Mr. Carroll stated that they are
coming across Weld County property to get to their property.
Commissioner Maxey stated that the applicant said that he had access under the original USR permit and
asked if there was an easement to access this property. Mr. Carroll said that they are not denying access;
however they are asking to use it for emergency purposes only. Mr. Carroll said that the applicant would need
to provide evidence on the easement.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Ogle suggested graphically showing the six shooting positions and the array of where the shots will go
as they go back onto the site on the plat map. In addition, we can add a Development Standard which
states"The only firearms discharged on the property shall be shotguns. All shooting shall be directed to
the interior of the property." Commissioner Holton directed Mr. Ogle to create language as such and
include it prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated that
the plat map delineation should be a condition of approval and the language should be included in a
development standard. The Chair recommended that these be placed in the staff report prior to the Board
of County Commissioner hearing.
Commissioner Holton said that if there is an easement with regard to the gated entrance it should be produced
before the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Mr. Arnold said that he has held his campers off to a total of six for the last month and half. He has been
operating for the last nine years with 20 campers. He requested to begin operating with additional campers
this weekend. Mr. Barker stated that it would not be his recommendation to the County Commissioners to go
after the violation of the USR while this amendment is pending. He added that no enforcement action will be
made prior to May 25, 2011.
9
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement with the
exception of the North 23r°Avenue access.
Robert Grand moved that Case AmUSR-1102, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
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 with comment; Bill Hall, yes with comment; Alexander
Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Hall commented that this use has operated for several years and has maintained the same
intensity.
Commissioner Grand echoed Mr. Hall's comments.
The Chair read the last case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1778
APPLICANT: Ed Orr
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility(water skiing lake and campsite for water skiing members,
along with commercial hunting on a fee basis) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4NW4; Part S2NW4; N2SW4; NW4SE4 of Section 31,T6N,
R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 62.25; East of and adjacent to CR 25.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that Mr. Roth,who is the leasee of the property, is currently operating on
site without the appropriate land use permits and has not addressed the conditions of approval or prepared a
plat for recording, thereby demonstrating compliance with the future Board of County Commissioners
Resolution, if approved. Staff has indicated to Mr. Roth the potential pitfalls associated this action. Mr. Ogle
stated that Mr. Roth is here today and will request the Planning Commission to consider a 60-day continuance
so that he may conduct some sort of study.
The property is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement area; however it is located within the three-
mile referral area for the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor. The City of Greeley, in their referral dated
April 7, 2011, stated concerns with the floodway, 100 year and 500 year floodplains,the proximity to the lake
and hunting activities in or near the proximity of a known bald eagle nesting area, damage to sensitive
shorelines and the proximity of low-intensity Poudre River and the Poudre Trail and the Poudre Learning
Center to the more intensive uses associated with this recreational facility. The Town of Windsor, in their
referral dated April 8,2011,stated concerns with the floodplain and floodway located onsite and the adequacy
of safety precautions for users of the Poudre Trail during the hunting season.
The property under review was formerly mined for mineral resource for the acquisitionsof sands,gravels, and
stones by others and has been reclaimed. The use of the land is limited as three-quarters of the site, as this
area lies within the floodway and floodplain of the Cache la Poudre River.
The proposed recreational facility will be located on reclaimed lands within the Poudre River Corridor. There
are three ponds known as the Sebring Reservoir that will be utilized as part of the facility. All primitive
campsites and associated parking of vehicles, trailers and associated set equipment are located south of
these lakes outside of the FEMA designated floodway and floodplain boundary. The undeveloped site has
cattle grazing onsite during certain periods of the year including today. As previously stated by referral, there
is an active breeding bald eagle nest located within the River Corridor which has been present for several
10
years. Referrals from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW)state
that breeding bald eagles occupy territories areas they will typically defend against intrusion by other eagles in
addition to the active nest. Territory may include one or more alternative nests, nests built or maintained by
eagles but not used for nesting in any given year. The Eagle Act prohibits removal or destruction of both
active and alternate bald eagle nests. Bald eagles exhibit high nest activity,fidelity, and nesting territories are
often used year after year. The bald eagle continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act even
though it has been d-listed on the Endangered Species Act.
The site boundaries are approximately 50 feet from the nearest residence which is immediately south of and
adjacent to County Road 62.25. It is approximately 1500 feet to the west of the River Run at Poudre River
Ranch and the Poudre River Ranch Subdivision. Hall-Irwin and Aggregate Industries have active mineral
resource development operations north and northeast respectively. Lafarge has recently permitted a mineral
resource development facility north and northwest of the River Corridor. Poudre Trail is to the south,adjacent
to County Road 62.25 and the Poudre Learning Center is located immediately adjacent to the east.
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed this case; eleven agencies offered comments, some with specific
conditions that have been incorporated into the staff recommendation.
Four telephone calls were received from referral agencies and interested parties in regard to the proposal.
The Department of Planning Services received a non-solicited referral from Suzanne Linner, Colorado Field
Supervisor and a follow-up phone call from Peter Plage with the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife
Services concerning the existing active and documented bald eagle nest located south of the South Platte
River. Their comments were based on the authority conferred by this agency, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918 as amended in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, also as amended.
Kathy Parker with Central Colorado Water Conservancy District contacted the Planning office by telephone
with concerns of shore erosion, water quality, invasive species and their ability to adjust water levels for
augmentation both with acceptance of water from the Jones Ditch and Poudre River and the drawdown of
stored waters in the three water bodies identified as Sebring Reservoir.
Brandon Muller with CDOW contacted the office and stated that there is an active breeding of bald eagle on
premises and stated that a referral would be forthcoming. That referral was received on April 8, 2011.
Representatives from the Poudre River Learning Center contacted the office on numerous occasions in an
effort to gain an understanding of the planning process and how to enable their voice to be heard. Staff has
received numerous letters of concern with the application. Mr. Ogle indicated that he received six letters that
are a part of a packet of information that Mr. Barker has.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the conditions of approval and development
standards will address the concerns raised by referral agencies; therefore staff is recommending approval of
this application.
Commissioner Maxey asked if staff is supporting the request for a continuance. Mr. Ogle replied that staff is
not in support of it since Mr. Roth is currently onsite operating without an appropriate land use permit.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health,commented that the applicant stated that portable toilets will be available
in each campsite; however since it is not a temporary or seasonal use permanent water and sewage disposal
are required. Most of the RV's are probably self-contained for sewage and Development Standard 9 requires
RV's to dispose of sewage in an approved off-site facility. The Dust Abatement Plan consists of low speed
limits.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 62.25 is a local gravel road requiring 60 feet of right-of-
way at build out. In November 2008 there were 140 vehicles on that road. The applicant will be using the
existing access; however staff will review it to ensure that there is an adequate turning radius for boats and
trucks to get in and out of the facility. The applicant will be required to make sure that the gate is far enough
back off the roadway so that the truck and trailer can pull completely off of the roadway before stopping to
open the gate. Portions of the site are located in the floodplain and floodway;therefore no camping is allowed
11
in the floodplain or floodway due to potential loss of life. There is no parking or leaving campers unattended in
the floodplain or floodway. Boat ramps will need to be anchored with an engineered design so that it won't
flood downstream and take out bridges.
Jim Roth, 22150 CR 41, LaSalle, CO, said that he has a letter from the previous landowner stating that the
eagles came onsite after they had been using the lakes for waterskiing. There is a recommended buffer zone
that U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife have but it also says that any prior use that was going on is still
going to be allowed. Mr. Roth commented that with the hunters donations to the eagles and their flight they
have donated a lot of money to get the eagles to the point of where they are now. There are over 10,000
breeding pairs now in the lower 48 states. Unfortunately, we have overlap with humans and the eagles but
fortunately, the eagles have not abandoned their nests.
Commissioner Holton asked if Mr. Roth could submit the letter he just spoke of. Mr. Roth submitted the letter
as evidence and added that it is from the landowner establishing the fact that the property was used prior to
the eagles coming onsite.
Mr. Roth commented that the eagles have adapted quite well to the population. They have no desire to
change that. He added that the ones there now have been raised with all the activity surrounding it. There
have been approximately 20 eaglets and the activity has not seemed to affect them.
Commissioner Berryman asked how many campers and hunters are expected to be out there. Mr. Roth said
that the lease reads 25 campsites along the south edge of the lakes. The hunting has been going on for four
years now and added that it tells him they have done a good job of being in compliance with the Poudre
Learning Center because they think it is just going to start and it has been going on for four years. He added
that they have been very respectful of the Poudre Learning Center as they have created a good buffer zone to
keep from disturbing them. He believes a hunter's education program would be a good thing to give the kids
who are fearful of hunting an education.
Commissioner Ehrlich stated that according to the lease the request is for 25 campsites and understands that
the site has been operating for the last four years. He asked how many sites are projected for the season as
the intensity of the use is changing as to what was done previously. Mr. Roth said that they have had 20 to 23
campers. Mr. Ehrlich asked if the intensity has changed at all. Mr. Roth replied that it has stayed consistent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Judy Firestein, 30951 CR 27, expressed that she would like to share a petition that was started to voice
opposition to this proposal. In the last 48 hours over 500 signatures have been collected online and they are
being added as we speak. She submitted the petition as evidence.
Ms. Firestein commented that people care about this area and care about the bald eagle,the Poudre Trail and
the Poudre Learning Center. As people signed the petition you will note that there are many comments and
she wished to share a few of those comments by reading them into record.
Karen Trusler, Superintendent of Schools RE-4 Windsor-Severance School District, commented that two
letters were submitted on their behalf. Usually the letter of impact relates to impact of school buildings,
facilities and student growth. This will have no impact on them; however when it was brought to their attention
that the proposal is adjacent to the Poudre Learning Center it was important for her to emphasize student
safety. She was not aware that hunting has been occurring for the last four years.
Robert J. Kahn, 7721 Poudre River Rd, commented that he agrees with everything that has been said
previous to him. He is a homeowner in Poudre River Ranch and feels that he wants to represent the
homeowners of the Subdivision. He is worried about the traffic, noise, safety, and pollution from the proposal.
They care for the enjoyment of the area and are worried about the crowds, the trail and the green space.
Another concern is the assessment value on their homes. The impact of the economy has been hard and is
worried that there may be an increase of sales if this proposal is granted.
William Hoyt, 1226 38th Ave, stated that he is the secretary of the Board of the Poudre Learning Center. He
12
commented that it is a non-profit Colorado Educational Foundation registered with the State of Colorado. His
involvement in this project has been more than 15 years as an educator at the University of Northern
Colorado. He added that they train a lot of science teachers at that site every year. He added that they would
like to maintain the integrity of the Poudre Learning Center for the students going through training. He
believes that this proposal may threaten the future of that use.
Commissioner Grand asked if the Poudre Learning Center has ever complained about the use in the last four
years. Mr. Hoyt replied that he has not made any formal complaints but wished to defer that question to the
Director of the Poudre Learning Center.
Commissioner Maxey asked when the training of the students takes place during the year. Mr. Hoyt said that
interns and others work on research projects 365 days of the year. He added that most of the students are
there during the academic year. Commissioner Hall asked if the students ever complained of any problems.
Mr. Hoyt said that the students have complained to him regarding the motor boats and the noise and boat
wakes.
Ray Tschillard, Director of Poudre Learning Center, handed out his comments to the Planning Commission.
In the application it was said that the site to the east of the site under review was a facility with an old school
house. He added that it is much, much more than an old school house. It has come to be the premier facility
for outdoor education, interdisciplinary education and learning with a focus on not only science by history,
economics, stewardship, and aesthetics of the Cache la Poudre River in Northeastern Colorado.
The Poudre Learning Center develops and offers interdisciplinary education aimed at reinforcing concepts in
all our schools. The schools involved are the Eaton, Johnstown-Milliken, Greeley-Evans and Windsor-
Severance School Districts. Areas of concerns outlined in the handout include:
• Destruction of wildlife habitat, key wildlife nurseries and wildlife viewing opportunities and impact to
the bald eagle nesting location;
• Degradation of Sebring Reservoir's East Lake's eastern shore line which is owned and operated by
the Poudre Learning Center
• Introduction of aquatic nuisance species to the Sebring Reservoir Augmentation system would
completely shut down the operation. Mr. Tschillard commented that typically an inspector inspects
the boats; however the application suggests that the inspection will be done by the manager who has
been in violation in the last four years.
• The proposed RV operation is directly incompatible with the existing and future uses of the existing
Poudre Learning Center property.
Mr. Tschillard stated that that for the past two years they have complained to the Division of Wildlife repeatedly
under the assumption that they had a land use permit.
He added that nearly 14,000 visitors come to the Center each year. He added that they are open to the public
sunrise to sunset.
Mr. Tschillard pointed out that the School Districts are very concerned about security. He indicated that they
have not seen any vandalism on their site; however it has been reported that there is an increased amount of
trash and loud noises coming from the subject property.
Mr. Tschillard stated that the eagle has been there since 1993 and there have only been a few people that
have had the opportunity to observe this. The historic use of the lake by boats has been very infrequent. He
added that the primary use of the lake by the Hall family was in July and August, which has not been the
nesting season for the bald eagle. Mr. Hall's use was always private with no overnight camping and no
hunting allowed.
The Poudre Learning Center has been paid for by community members and not the School Districts. It is a
crown jewel and this is a place for people to stop and visit. Mr.Tschillard requested that this application not be
approved.
13
Randy Ray, Interim manager for Central Colorado Water Conservancy District,commented that they provide
replacement supply for irrigation wells in Adams, Morgan and Weld Counties. This facility is one of the first
lime gravel storage vessels used to store water for augmentation purposes. The District purchased an
easement to store water in this vessel; therefore the water belongs to the District. They have junior water
rights to fill the facility. Each of the lakes are connected by a 24-inch interconnect pipes.
Mr. Ray stated that he started his employment with the District in 1993 and this facility was his first to operate.
He added that the eagle nest has been there since 1993. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District
Board of Directors approved a letter that was submitted to Mr. Ogle outlining some concerns including safety,
not only for the children and the staff at the Learning Center but also for the Central Colorado Water
Conservancy District employees. They have an easement that travels around the perimeter of each of the
reservoirs and very often they have to be at the site. He added that there has been no communication
regarding safety for his men. Another concern is the degradation of the shorelines and the slurry walls. There
has been severe erosion to existing shorelines and that wouldn't have taken place if there were no boat
wakes. Mr. Ray stated that the District has spent$40,000 repairing the erosion to the shorelines. Another
concern is the introduction of species as these can get attached to the interconnect pipes and pump station
and can cause a lot of damage. In conclusion, Mr. Ray stated that the Central Colorado Water Conservancy
District is in opposition to the approval of this request.
Kim Lawrence, attorney for Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, 355 Eastman Park Dr, Windsor,
CO, commented that the lake started excavations prior to 1991 and believes that the Hall family used it at that
time for their private boating as he was allowed on the lake for one time. However because of insurance
concerns the Hall family decided they could only use if for their private use. As far as intensity of use it went
from one family in July and August to 20 families and he added that the application indicated 50 families could
be onsite.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the slurry wall is dug down into the dirt to bedrock and then a bentonite slurry mixture
is poured in it. It is important to have the dirt around it; however if the dirt is ever pulled away from that then
the wall will collapse. The slurry wall is set back from the shore at least 15 feet but if the water erodes the
shore away then it will expose the slurry wall and then you will have a breach. Mr. Lawrence submitted an
Easement Agreement and noted that the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District has the obligation by
the terms to keep the shore and lake in good working order. He referred to Page 4 Item A and stated that Mr.
Orr owns the recreation rights and that it cannot be inconsistent with the Easement granted. Mr. Lawrence
stated that they contend that boating with motor boats is an inconsistent use of the easement. He added that
they are not trying to prevent them from anything that the District agreed to but there is no clause that says
they have a right to motorized boating. He believes that the permit should be denied or at least limited so that
boating is not allowed. He added that the shores of these pits are not stable and there is a great risk with
vehicles parking close to the shore.
Included in the Easement, he noted that Central Colorado Water Conservancy District has no obligation to
maintain a certain water level. This water is used for augmentation which is released during the months of late
June,July and August. When this happens,there will be currents and eddies and if someone is swimming out
there they may get sucked through a culvert. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District is a governmental
entity. He added that they have insurance but they are immune from liability so someone will have to be
responsible and it will not be the District if this happens.
Central Colorado Water Conservancy District is obligated to maintain the property and therefore spray weeds
with chemicals. He added that is a safety concern as well since they don't understand where people will be
and what will be done to keep them away from the weeds.
Mr. Lawrence stated that on behalf of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District Board of Directors he
requested that this application be denied.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if the District has ever had to dump the water. Mr. Ray said that sometimes they
release as little as 2 to 3 cubic feet per second and sometimes it will be released up to 20 cubic feet per
second. He added that they also fill it at the same flow rate.
14
Commissioner Holton asked if the erosion has taken place in the last four years or since 1991. Mr. Ray said
that the erosion has increased in the last four years. Mr. Spitzer asked if the slurry wall has been exposed.
Mr. Ray replied that it has not been exposed yet.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked where the communication has been since the transfer of ownership took place.
He added that he is tired of policing these situations and asked why this hasn't been communicated four years
ago. Mr. Lawrence said that they were not consulted when transfer of ownership took place and added that
the relationship with Mr. Orr has not been very good. He commented that the District wasn't given notice of
the application and agreed that there has been a problem with communication; however they are left in a
position of asking that this be denied.
Joyce Ackerman 7603 Plateau Rd, Greeley, CO, commented that she is a homeowner of Poudre River
Ranch. In addition, she is a psychologist who has worked in this community for 30 years and is concerned
about the level of significant disruption and hostility issues that will happen in the community if this is
supported. She supports everything that everyone has said.
Charles Olmsteadt, professor of Environmental Studies at UNC, commented that this is a very valuable
resource of educating the members of the community. It appears as though its ability to that as effectively will
be impaired if this use is granted. He sympathizes with concerns of using any property we own privately as we
choose to. However the Planning Commission is charged with trying to maintain the best public interest and
encouraged them to encourage the applicant to pursue the best public interest as well by either working
collaboratively with the District or choosing on his own to voluntarily donate for a considerable tax benefit the
property to the Poudre Learning Center to extend their educational opportunities.
Gary McCabe, 7411 Poudre Vista Dr, commented that he was the first person at Poudre River Ranch and
added that it was a quiet and beautiful area along the Poudre River. Shortly after moving onto his property,
Mr. Orr moved his cattle onto his land and they roamed throughout his landscaped property. Mr. Orr started
drilling oil wells near his property and they operated all night long. He has heard the motor boats and lives a
distance from the facility. He said that this is not only a question of noise but of pollution and quality of life.
Paulette Weaver, 1725 12th Ave, Assistant Director of the Poudre Learning Center, agreed with most of the
comments made about how this project would be detrimental to the purpose of the Poudre Learning Center
and the Poudre Trail. There are not many places where people can get down to the river and really see and
feel what it is like. There is increasing public use of their property and they welcome that. In regard to
complaints to the use of the property as it was operating, Ms.Weaver stated that as soon as the trailers came
out this spring there were complaints and they were expressed to the County. They have been concerned
about the hunting when they know that kids are coming soon and again they have talked to the Division of
Wildlife. Ms. Weaver stated that she has photographs of the erosion along the shoreline prior to the District
placing shore socks to prevent further erosion.
Susan Matson, 6929 Poudre River Road#3, stated that Mr. Orr bought this property after the Poudre Trail had
been established and after the Poudre Learning Center was built and would have thought that he would have
understood that this was a sensitive area and maybe he would have shown that sensitivity and conducted
business in that way. Ms. Matson added that she doesn't feel that Mr. Orr and Mr. Roth don't understand the
value of this property to the people who live there or the significance of the area. She is concerned that they
have operated without a permit and how that will weigh in the decision made today.
The Chair called a recess at 5:01 pm and reconvened at 5:08 pm. The Chair asked the applicant to address
the concerns raised.
Mr. Roth stated that with regard to the erosion on the southwest corner of the east lake, that is the direction of
where the wind comes from and a lot of that erosion is done from the wind. The easement was granted to
give the recreational rights and the use of the lakes to the landowner. Mr. Roth indicated that he was not
aware of any equipment that has been out there to where the District spent that much time and money
repairing the shoreline.
Commissioner Hall asked what types of boats are used. Mr. Roth said that typical ski boats approximately 20
15
feet in length would be the biggest. He added that none of the exhausts have been modified to change the
noise level. He mentioned that a landowner commented that the music radios were too loud and added that
he has asked the people to tone down the noise.
Commissioner Maxey asked the applicant to speak about the invasive species and the concerns raised. Mr.
Roth said it is addressed by State law which reads that if you take a boat into a lake that is known for invasive
species it has been left to the boat owner to comply with the law. He added that it is a State law that boat
owners need to comply with.
Commissioner Berryman said that there are multiple interests with this project and he commented that they
are arguing about the intensity of use. He asked if they would be able to operate with a less intense use. Mr.
Roth said that 25 members would be needed to be worth operating. The application states that it could be up
to 50 members; however he doesn't intend to have that many. He said that they are trying not to have a
crowded situation and added that the weekends will have the most intense use.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked why there has been a breakdown of communication. Mr. Roth said that the way
he read the easement it gave them the boating rights, understanding that they didn't have rights to infringe on
what their interpretation of the easement was. He didn't realize that there was an argument with the surface
rights of the lakes. He indicated that they should have communicated.
Commissioner Lawley referred to the request of the continuance and asked why the applicant wants the
continuance. Mr. Roth said that the reason for the continuance is the abundance of late concerns surrounding
the eagle situation. He has done quite a bit of research lately and wanted time to prepare to be better
educated to bring truth of the matter in and not just emotions. He will set guidelines to keep people away from
the nests. He added that the campsites are over'/.mile from the eagle nests; however the boats are closer
than that and they haven't disturbed them in the past. He believes they can co-habitat.
Mr. Lawley said that the applicant was in front of the Planning Commission last year on a similar project on a
violation for operating without an appropriate land use permit. Knowing that when you came in front of us last
year that you needed a USR why didn't you come and get a USR prior to being turned in for a violation this
time. Mr. Roth said that he talked to the landowner when he leased it and added that he was misinformed that
a USR was in place.
Commissioner Grand agreed with Mr. Ehrlich on the communication issue. He added that it is very frustrating
to review a process that could have been facilitated a whole lot earlier with good communication. He asked if
in the four years of operating the property was there any dialogue at all with the Poudre Learning Center for
the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District about what you were doing. Mr. Roth said that as the leasee
he has not had any dialogue. He added that it was an oversight on his part. He said that no issues were
brought to his attention.
Commissioner Maxey asked Staff for an explanation on Development Standards 43 and 44. He said that
Development Standard 43 outlines the availability for water skiers from April 1 through September(labor day
Monday) unless it is substantiated by CDOW that the breeding pairs are present on site; however if the latter
happens then Development Standard 44 takes precedence which says that no one can be out there within the
buffer zone and it effectively shuts down the operation. Mr. Maxey asked who enforces that action and asked
the applicant if he is aware and understands the action of these development standards. Mr. Ogle said that
those are an advisory recommendation which came from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and CDOW in their referral
comments that they have stipulated setbacks from active nests. Mr. Maxey said that in Development
Standard 44 the key word is"recommended" and asked how it will be enforced. Mr. Ogle said that Brandon
Mueller is the CDOW liaison for this area and he regularly patrols that area and it is Mr. Ogle's guess that the
Poudre Learning Center people are cognizant of what is going on and will let him know the pairs are back and
ask them to make a determination. Mr. Roth said that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has known of
this nest and of the level of boating before and now and they have not taken action. He added that the boating
and recreation had been going on and the eagles chose to move in and have co-habitated since that time.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Barker for advisement regarding Development Standards 43 and 44 and how
a recommendation is used when these are rules they need to adhere to. Mr. Barker said that typically it is
16
enforced by"shall" and is not quite certain how it will be enforced.
Mark Lawley moved to delete "is recommended" from the last sentence in Development Standard 44,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried 8-1 with Bill Hall casting the nay vote.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Commissioner Holton clarified if the application states that this site could have up to 50 campers. Mr. Ogle
said that Mr. Orr is requesting 50 campsites; however Mr. Roth has leaseholds for up to 25 campsites. Each
campsite could have numerous people on it.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1778 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Motion died due to a lack of a second.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case USR-1778 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of denial, seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, yes with comment; Robert Grand, no with comment; Bill Hall,yes
with comment; Alexander Zauder, yes with comment; Jason Maxey, no with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes with
comment; Mark Lawley, yes with comment; Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman cited Section 23-2-20.A.3 regarding compatibility with surrounding and neighboring
uses. He doesn't contest the use per se but does vote denial based on the intensity of the use. He believes
that 50 campsites is in excess of what would be compatible with this site. In the future he could support a
lower number.
Commissioner Hall echoed Mr. Berryman's comments and added that the intensity of 50 campsites far
exceeds the compatibility. He reviewed the site and recommended that it was compatibility but did not know
that they were talking about 50 campsites. Mr. Hall added that he has witnessed several bald eagles co-
habitating with people.
Commissioner Zauder commented that he is voting for denial due to the intensive use of the facility.
Commissioner Grand commented that intensity of the use is an issue; however we need to remember to be
careful not to trample on individual rights no matter how good the cause.
Commissioner Maxey commented that he voted no to deny because of the easement documentation and
landowners rights as Mr. Grand said. He added that he is concerned about the application and the amount of
usage.
Commissioner Spitzer commented that he is in favor of the individual property rights but in this case there are
too many conflicts of interest and believes that there are compatibility issues with this site. He believes that
putting the burden of erosion to this extent on the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District won't hold up.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Section 22-5-30.A.2 Policy 1.2 Conflict, Section 22-5-20.C Goal 3, Section 23-2-
220.A.3.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he is a big proponent of private property rights; however he believes
that the intensity that the applicant intends to put on this particular property conflicts with surrounding uses.
Commissioner Holton cited Section 23-2-220.A.3. He added that this application was poorly put together and
added that they should have had the information presented from both sides today a long time ago. He also
agrees with Mr. Spitzer that the Water District should not be placed in the position where they have to repair
17
damage caused by boating. He added that he is a proponent as well for private property rights.
Meeting adjourned at 5:53 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
18
Hello