HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080316.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
-C-J
Robert Grand �=
Bill Hall w i _i
Mark Lawley —C
Roy Spitzer cn J'
Also Present: Tom Honn, Kim Ogle, Hannah Hippely, Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Roger Caruso,
Department of Planning Services; Richard Hastings, Don Carroll, David Snyder, Don Dunker, Department of
Public Works; Pam Smith, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney,and Donita May,Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 8,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Seconded
by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-468
APPLICANT: Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4, Section 14, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an Amended Special Review Permit
for Mineral Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Sport and
Service (Natural Gas Processing Facility and one or more microwave or
other communication transmission or relay towers over seventy(70)feet in
height in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 10; 1/4 mile east of CR 33.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. No Commissioners requested it be heard.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1353
APPLICANT: Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 14, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Mineral Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Sport
Services and one or more microwave or other communication transmission
or relay towers over seventy feet in height(120 foot Radio Tower)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22 and approximately 1 mile east of CR 31.
ilamfhu4/ea aye / 8-mod 2008-0316
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. No Commissioners requested it be heard.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1638
APPLICANT: Bartez LLC do Daniel Glantz
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B, RE-3875 being part of the NE4 of Section 17,T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone
District(truck parking, maintenance and office)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22 and approximately 1/4 mile east of State Hwy
85.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. No Commissioners requested it be heard.
Robert Grand moved the Consent Agenda 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. Nick Berryman seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: 2ndAMUSR-1405
APPLICANT: Aurora Dairy Corporation
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 of the SE4 and E2 of the NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a 98,000
square foot milk processing plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and approximately 1 mile east of CR
13.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, said 2ndAmUSR-1405 is an application by Aurora Dairy
Corporation,care of AGPROfessionals LLC,for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit
for a 98,000 square foot milk processing plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff December 5, 2007.
The property is located south of and adjacent to SH 66 and approximately one mile east of CR13.
The surrounding properties are all zoned agricultural. The majority of USRs in the area are for gravel mining
operations although there are others including a kennel, electric power lines, and sanitation facilities.
Twenty referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Fifteen responded and either stated that they did not have a
conflict with the use or expressed concerns that Staff has attempted to address through the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Planning Staff has recommended the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with storm water
management requirements.
2
At the last Planning Commission the applicant requested a continuance in order that they may address this
issue. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted which addresses the outstanding issues,however a
"Prior to the Board" hearing condition is recommended which states "The applicant shall submit a ditch
agreement for review and approval to the department of Public Works." Additionally Condition 1.G., page
three, should be changed to read "complete final site drainage report and plan".
Tom Holton asked for clarification of the change being made to Condition 1.G.
Doug Ochsner asked if the location as it currently exists is a working dairy. Ms. Hippely said there is one
working dairy adjacent to this facility but not on this property. This would be the only facility on the property
and it is a milk processing plant.
Tom Haren, AGPROfessionals, 4350 HWY 66, Longmont, CO, 80504, applicant's representative, said this
was originally permitted for six thousand animals on all of the combined Aurora property but the dairy has
been downsizing. With the milk plant in 2003, they received a USR for the plant that included twenty-five
hundred animals and the milk processing plant. In 2005 it was re-permitted for some minor changes. The
property for the milk plant as it currently exists is for one hundred and eighteen acres with a seventeen
hundred cow dairy USR. This request vacates any existing USR associated with the milk plant and through a
recorded exemption they are reducing the size of the parcel the milk plant is on (Lot A of RE-4654,
approximately nineteen acres). They concur with the Conditions of Approval and the language about the final
drainage report and plan. They have submitted a preliminary drainage plan and the concept is approved and
has been agreed upon with Public Works. If the USR is approved all the final engineering and design and
expense associated with that will be submitted. They are requesting expansion of the square footage to
ninety-eight thousand square feet. They have removed a substantial part of this property both with the old
Reynolds feedlot and vacating the dairy USRs. While it is not a part of this USR, the adjoining dairy permit
which was on the Consent Agenda last month, was down sizing that diary facility by two thirds. All of the
remaining area will be turned in to irrigated pasture. The driving force for this request is the need to add dry
storage and cold storage, not a significant increase in the processing ability of the plant. Currently the milk
plant has some trailers on site for transportation as well as for storage of cartons. They are shipping milk and
renting a facility off site in north Denver for cold storage. There is extra transportation occurring that would be
reduced initially by the addition of the dry and cold storage. There is an additional room for an automatic
pallatizer so the manual situation can be discontinued. Mr. Haren said he would be happy to answer any
questions.
Robert Grand asked what the additional employee load was to be. Mr. Haren said it would remain about the
same as their driving need was for cold and dry storage. Doug Ochsner asked about the size of the current
facility. Mr. Haren replied it is about half of the USR request or fifty thousand square feet.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health, had no additional comments. Don Dunker,Public Works,said there
were still details to work out with the applicant regarding drainage and they have submitted the preliminary
drainage report and he felt the concept was both functional and do-able, they just have a few more details to
work through. Mr. Dunker said he had talked to Gloria Hice at CDOT and they were agreeable to the phased
development as far as turn lane requirements at the facility as it will add additional traffic due to one hundred
or more semi trucks and CDOT will look at it as twenty percent of expansion is complete and will continue to
monitor the facility. Tom Holton asked if that addressed the email they had received January 3, 2008 from
CDOT. Ms. Hippely replied that it did and those requirements had been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton motioned to change item 1.G., page three, per Staff request. Second by Nick Berryman. Motion
carried.
Ms. Hippely addressed another change. This would become item Land would read, "Prior to the Board of
County Commission hearing the applicant shall submit a ditch agreement for review and approval to the
Department of Public Works." Their drainage report plans to discharge into the ditch and they want to make
3
sure that is allowed before they continue.
Tom Holton motioned to accept Staff recommendations as Ms. Hippely stated. Second by Mark Lawley.
Motion carried.
Tom Haren approached the microphone and said they agreed and concurred.
Robert Grand moved that Case 2AMUSR-1405 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. Nick Berryman seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1629
APPLICANT: A. Dale Slater Trust B
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 28, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(Electrical Substation), subject to
the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 28 and west of and adjacent to CR 7.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, said the applicant has applied for a Site Specific Development Plan
and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(Electrical Substation),
subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
Originally this case was heard on November 20, 2007 at which time Planning Commission recommended
continuance until today's date. The three signs announcing the Planning Commissioner's hearing were
posted November 1, 2007. Additional signs were posted January 4, 2008 by Planning Staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to CR 7 and north of and adjacent to CR 28 but the substation will be
located in the northwest corner of the site on approximately six acres.
The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of Boulder County,the City of Longmont,Town of
Firestone and Town of Mead. The Town of Mead in their referral dated October 10, 2007 states that United
Power and the Town of Mead has entered into discussion for annexation and development of a power station
on the proposed lot (Lot A of RE-4712). No response has been received by the Town of Firestone, City of
Longmont, and Boulder County.
The proposed facility will be compatible with surrounding land uses. While there are predominantly
agricultural uses in the area,the property to the north is located within the town limits of Mead as a residential
subdivision (Liberty Ranch). The property to the south is zoned PUD with Estate uses(Adler Estates). The
property to the east is proposed as a residential subdivision(Waterfront at Foster Creek).The applicants have
proposed a ten foot cedar fence around the entire property to screen the use from the surrounding residents.
Sixteen letters have been received over the last few months objecting to the proposed substation. The
majority of their concerns steam from compatibly, diminished property values, and health related concerns.
Seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case. Eleven responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
Nick Berryman inquired if the applicant owns adjacent land next to the proposed site. Ms. Martin replied the
entire site is one hundred and sixty acres and the substation would occupy only six acres of that area. They
4
are in the process of doing a Recorded Exemption in which that six acres would be subdivided off and owned
by United Power. Doug Ochsner asked the property lines be pointed out on the slide.
Dean Hubbuck, United Power, 500 Cooperative Way, Brighton, CO, Manager of Consumer Relations and
Electric Design, introduced those who had accompanied him today; Ruth Marx,Chief Operation Officer;Jason
Maxey,Joint Use and Right of Way Administrator; Don McDaniel, Engineering Supervisor;Dr. Robert Pearson
from CH2M Hill. United Power is an electrical cooperative founded in 1938 with headquarters in Brighton.
They serve seventeen cities in six counties, covering over eight hundred square miles. They currently serve
over sixty-four thousand meters and are one of the fastest growing co-ops in the United States.
What is a substation? It is a transition point from a transmission line to a distribution line. Distribution is what
they use to serve power to residents,commercial,and industrial business.They take one hundred and fifteen
thousand volts from the existing transmission line and step it down for distribution to twelve thousand four
hundred and seventy volts in a three phase system. It is a non-polluting site; low noise; they follow National
Electric Safety Codes they must maintain and follow; as well as reporting to the Environmental Protection
Agency and local and state entities.
How do you choose a site for a substation? It is not a random process;first they try to locate near load center
which is a geographic center near existing, forecasted and projected loads; and near existing transmission
lines. They try to find agreeable sellers. They look at technical feasibility and is it easy to get to;
environmental feasibility and is it in a one hundred year flood plain,wetlands, near a wildlife area. They look at
evaluated land use,which doesn't mean they always go into an ideal place. They look at aesthetics—what will
it look like and how to present it. Mr. Hubbuck reviewed the timeline for the project,which began in July 2001
and gave an overview of the steps involved in the process.They began having low voltage problems in June,
2007 and hoped to have a new substation in place by 2008 to take care of the power needs in the area.They
had been working with Mead Crossing for the proposed substation location but were informed by them they
were no longer interested in having a substation in the Business Park.At that time,they submitted the RE and
the USR to Weld County. They also met with Centex and informed them of their plans. They sent a
notification mailing to all of the residents in the Liberty Ranch area and conducted an open house for the
residents to discuss impacts and address concerns and discuss possible landscaping. The transmission line
has been in place for thirty-two years so they will not be making any additions to that structure,just tapping
into it. The site is six and one half acres and follows the irrigation ditch. The transmission easement is one
hundred feet. They would be putting in underground distribution. It will not be overhead lines.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on previous information regarding substation locations and if they were
based on existing transmission lines. Mr. Hubbuck replied they were.
Nick Berryman asked about the service territory. Mr. Hubbuck repeated that United Power serves seventeen
cities in six counties,covering over eight hundred square miles. They currently serve over sixty-four thousand
meters and are one of the fastest growing co-ops in the United States.
Robert Grand asked if it was fair to say that most of the folks here are in fact members of the United Power
cooperative. Mr. Hubbuck said they were. Mr. Grand then inquired about parcel seven and were they
acquiring the entire piece and why didn't they go further south away from residential development. Mr.
Hubbuck said they were acquiring about six and one half acres in the North West corner and did not go further
south because this site had an agreeable land owner. If they went further south they would have to add
transmission lines. He added that cost was not the primary concern but rather the overall impacts to the
mountainview. Mr. Grand asked if the land was basically flat. Mr. Hubbuck replied that it was not,there are
major contours. He continued with the three line layout in the substation,which does not mean much unless
you are an engineer. They were planning on ten foot opaque fencing with masonry corner columns. Planning
recommendation was eight feet so they are exceeding that by two feet. The grading plan shows they have
moved the substation —cutting twenty-two to twenty-four feet of soil on east side to hide the substation as
much as possible; on the northeast side they have lowered the land about fourteen to twenty feet as well;
northwest corner land slopes and they have discussed a berm that comes around northwest corner and wraps
down to the west to hide the substation as you drive CR 5 and enter the Liberty Ranch area. They are setting
the substation back eighty feet from center line as buffer with landscaping at some point. Mr. Grand asked
about the height of the substation above grade. Mr. Hubbuck said from twenty-three to forty feet,not including
cuts into the soil,so overall height would be around twenty feet. He then showed simulations onto actual area
5
photographs showing what the site would look like when complete.
Mr. Hubbuck introduced Dr. Robert Pearson,9193 S Jamaica St, Englewood,CO,to address health issues of
residents. Mr. Pearson said he was a PhD, not an MD, so his perspective was that of an engineer. Mr.
Pearson said: magnetic fields will be concentrated in the center of substation and the substation will not be
accessible to the public; existing transmission lines will continue to produce magnetic fields through their
operation; the National Academy of Science's study on health effects says no likelihood of injury from
magnetic fields at any facility from transmission lines and substations, from lights in this room, from the
projector at the front of the room;all of these things emit magnetic fields but exposure is not a health threat to
humans, animals or livestock. He offered to go into as much detail and depth as they wished.
Tom Holton inquired about the existing line and the EMF(electro-magnetic field)environment expectations.
Mr. Pearson replied the substations would not change the EMF environment because around the outside
fence of the substation there would be no magnetic fields except where those power lines go in to the
substation from the existing transmission line. The EMF will be concentrated at the center of the substation
property.
The Chair asked Public Works for their comments.
David Snyder, Public Works Department,said access is on CR 5.5,which is Mead's jurisdiction,and the right
of way they were requesting is actually fifty-five feet because they wanted to match Mead's cross section.
They are working on the drainage and grading road control plan and tracking so mud does not build United
Power on CR 5.5. The right of way requirement listed in the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval will need to be changed.
Doug Ochsner asked about drainage/environmental issues resulting from digging out twenty-three feet of soil.
Mr. Snyder said there should be no drainage issues if they have the right stability and demonstrate how the
grading plan will address slopes prior to obtaining their grading permit.
Mr. Snyder said the Department of Public Works was requesting a change to item seven to read, "a total of
one hundred and ten feet of right of way"and remove"strategic roadway"as they County's strategic roadway
will no longer go along that alignment,so it is just a collector per Mead's classification and should be classified
by the County as a collector.
Pam Smith, Environmental Health, reviewed construction requirements and routine maintenance people on
site and said that bottled water and portable toilets would be provided during construction.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Liz Alexander, president of Liberty Ranch HOA, expressed her opposition to the facility; displayed a map of
Liberty Ranch with the substation location; with the remainder of the subdivision plated; the substation is
extremely close to the existing homes; according to Ms. Alexander, Mr. Anderson had offered his southern
property and United Power declined to accept it; the present agreeable seller had asked the substation be
located as far away from their home as possible; two thirds of the homes within Liberty Ranch would be
effected by the substation location as would be the park site and proposed elementary school;and respectfully
asked the Planning Commission to decline the submittal.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms.Alexander to point out the current homes versus the plated homes on the map she
displayed.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney,asked for Ms.Alexander's map so it could be marked as an exhibit,especially
since this was the only hearing this application will receive as a facility of a public utility.
Ms. Alexander added that United Power had indicated they had offered to move the facility as far south as
possible within the six acre site and to include additional berming and landscaping but there would still be
considerable impact due to sliding the site one hundred feet.
David Foster,621 17`h St, Denver, CO 80213,land use attorney,represents Centex homes and Liberty Ranch
6
HOA. Entitlements on this property include four hundred three homes of which eighty are developed and thirty
have families;there is an elementary school site and a community park as well as a commercial site;to date
thirteen million dollars has been invested in infrastructure at the site which includes the development cost
incurred by Centex and the investments people have made in the purchase of their homes.
Mr. Foster continued that he has a good professional working relationship with United Power and it was
obviously awkward to discuss this"misstep"by them and certainly they(Planning Commission)are fighting an
eight hundred pound gorilla today. He encouraged the Commissioners to deny the application and
encouraged them to find an alternate location, many of which he could show them on the map. He
emphasized this application was for a special review, not a use by right and they cannot assume a special
review is automatic. To that end,Weld County Code identifies uses in zone districts and requires additional
consideration regarding compatibility with existing and planned land uses. Planning for a facility of this scale is
significant and Mr. Foster felt this showed a lack of planning. This was not an emergency and the burden of
proof is on the applicant to show need for the facility per Section 23-4-420 of the County Code.
The site is not within the Mead Comprehensive Plan. Two prior subdivision hearings were held for Liberty
Ranch and no mention of need for power was addressed in those hearings. He introduced into the record
referral comments from United Power for both of those reviews, dated January 29, 2004 and August, 2006,
however the hearing held two months ago at which time the BOCC approved the Waterfront project was far
more intriguing. Waterfront was a five hundred and eighty-seven acre project with eighteen hundred dwelling
units,one hundred thousand feet of commercial space and not one single United Power condition was placed
on the resolution approved by the BOCC November 14, 2007 and this property is within the United Power
service area identified by Mr. Hubbuck.
Mr. Foster reminded the Planning Commission they are the final decision makers in this application and any
decision they make must then be appealed directly in court. They must comply with Section 23-2-340.C.,
which states that a facilities plan is recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder as a result of the Planning
Commission decision. Why? Because this is a major facility and residents want to know what will potentially
be built next to them. The facilities plan that is recorded as a result of the Planning Commission decision
needs to comply with Section 23-2-380 to show a three mile vicinity around this facility and on the site plan
itself it must identify all of the uses and structures that are proposed within five hundred feet. There is also a
very specific requirement in the Code, Section 23-2-330.B.5.a., requiring notification be sent to Planning
Commissions within three miles, most notably the Town of Mead. Notice was sent to the Town, not the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Foster addressed impacts and said: United Power must meet all standards and review criteria in Section
23-2-400, they cannot pick and choose. He cited Section 23-2-400.B. regarding undue adverse effect to
existing and future development of the surrounding area as set forth in applicable master plans. The Mead
Comprehensive Plan shows that three hundred and sixty degrees around this entire proposed facility was
identified as medium density residential and that is the standard upon which this facility is to be reviewed.
The Code discusses compatibility and there are only two zone districts that allow for this facility, agricultural
and 1-3 allow for major facility of a public facility permit, residential is not included. If United Power had cited
the substation five years ago,then it might make sense but it is now in direct conflict with Mead's Comp Plan.
He then cited the United Power application and said they are not inherently compatible just because the area
will need the service and they are willing to provide it. He addressed County referrals received specifically the
one from Mead dated October 10, 2007 which states,"that United Power and the Town of Mead have entered
into discussions for annexation and development of a power station on the proposed lot", which does not
suggest compatibility.
Mr. Foster cited Section 23-2-400.C., "the design of the proposed facility mitigates negative impacts on the
surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible"and that if a major facility of this magnitude is built,which is
incompatible with residential development, the Planning Commission better be prepared to do something
massive in terms of mitigation. They have met with a landscape architect regarding viability of site but
concluded you can only put so much lipstick on a pig. No amount of landscaping would mitigate the impacts
they have identified and talked about today. He read aloud from item six of the application regarding
screening and landscaping and said the facility has been moved south a bit and they appreciate that effort, but
it is not enough. He addressed Staff mitigations/impacts and said saying it is so does not make it so, citing
Section 23-2-400.G., and thinks a reasonable alternative is to add one transmission line and move the
7
substation further south within that one hundred and sixty acres.
Mr. Foster asked the Planning Commission find a reasonable alternative today. He added that if the
agreeable seller then becomes not so agreeable, United Power should find another seller and move to the
next phase. This is not fair to the Liberty Ranch residents here today who have an existing property right,
versus United Power who is trying to seek approval for something to which they do not have an absolute right.
Mr. Foster addressed Nick Berryman's earlier question about site purchase and relocation and said he
appreciated his suggestion.
Keith Seris, 13643, Saddle Dr, Liberty Ranch Subdivision, expressed his concern and said: the entire
community is upset;their rights as landowners are being violated;they should have the right to choose where
to live; the power lines are obviously visible from CR 5; this will impact the resale of their homes; property
owners on west side who paid a premium price for their lots will have their view obstructed and have lost
money on their investment; had they known about the substation they would not have purchased in the area;
submitted article on power lines and property values; general public believes in health effects from
transmission lines,whether real or imaginary,and that would effect resale;there has been a ten percent drop
in home value, about thirty thousand dollars; inappropriate use of the property; they should have known the
substation would be built prior to property purchase and requested denial of the application.
Casey Medlock, Wrangler Way, resident of the southern most portion of the development, reiterated former
comments: they were living their dream and concerned about decreasing property value; spoke about
children in the area and their future; asked the Commissioners to take a look at Section 23-4-420 with
reference to public utility facilities and demonstrating a need for it; cited Section 23-2-150 to provide orderly
and harmonious development in the County and requested denial of the application.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Seris where he would like the substation to locate. Mr. Seris wanted it
moved to a location where the prospective property owners can choose to live next to it, know it will be there,
will have the expectation of reduced property value, and that there must be another alternative location
somewhere.
Recess.
John Knutson, 13692 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch resident addressed: property depreciation; health risks;
said it would be a major eyesore; and no mention of the proposed substation was disclosed at the time of the
purchase of his home.
Pate Nellington, 13733 Saddle Dr, Liberty Ranch resident said: this was her first home; she chose it for the
mountain view; an elementary school was proposed in the area and this could impact the health of the
children;did not feel United Power could construct a fence tall enough to hide the substation; had she known
about the proposed substation, she would have purchased elsewhere; cited decreased property value and
requested denial of the application.
Jerry Palaszewski, 13701 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch resident said: he did not envy the Commissioners;
asked audience members to stand if they lived in the Liberty Ranch subdivision and were affected by the
substation. The majority of the audience stood. He continued that it may be near the Town of Mead but this is
still a part of Weld County and even though this does not impact Weld County,just Liberty Ranch, he asked
that United Power please choose another location even if it does cost them additional money. Since
Lifebridge is in the United Power service area, that was a compelling reason to move substation. Mr.
Palaszewski wants the right to choose where to live and he would not have moved there had he known about
the substation. Commissioner Ochsner asked why he wouldn't live there if he had known. Mr. Palaszewski
replied there were many reasons but that as an electrician,whether proven or perceived, he believed there
were health risks associated with EMF (electric magnetic fields), that it presented a safety issue regarding
children and their proximity to the substation. He expressed dismay at the loss of his house value and
emphasized it was absolutely the right of choice to deny this application.
Beverly Tripon, 13361 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch resident said: she drove all over Colorado before
deciding to live at Liberty Ranch; her primary concern is health; the substation will be an eyesore; her home
8
value has been decreased and requested they please deny the application.
Don Delauder, 13681 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch resident agreed with his neighbors and requested denial
of application.
Barbara Page, 2229 Nicholas Dr, Johnstown, CO had previously considered the area but will not now. She
also suggested that the 24/7 security lights might present a problem for residents living closer to the
substation.
Joseph Roberts purchased in Liberty Ranch September, 2007 and agreed with the area residents'concerns
and requested denial of the application.
Jen Okkers, 13631 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch resident said: this was her future as well as an investment;
expressed concern for resident's health; and requested denial of the application.
Meg Lewis, 13662 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch agreed with her neighbors that this was a beautiful area in
which to live and surely there is other property that could be chosen for the site.
Eddie Baldispino, 13672 Wrangler Way, Liberty Ranch resident said he wants to grow old there and is
opposed to approval of the application.
Doug Ochsner asked if he thought moving the site south was an option. Mr. Baldispino asked why this
substation couldn't it go somewhere else where the prospective residents would have the option to choose to
live next to a substation?
The Chair asked if there was a representative from the Town of Mead. There was none. Public portion of the
meeting was closed.
Dean Hubbuck,applicant's representative,addressed the resident's concerns: there is no other space in that
area to fit the substation; if they had known five or ten years ago where growth would go they might have
chosen a different site; regarding NIMBY (not in my back yard), someone is always affected as everyone
wants power but not to see how the power gets to them; if this site is not approved a moratorium of building
will occur until they can find another location to provide power for the future.
Tom Holton asked how many other locations besides Mead Crossing had been considered. Mr. Hubbuck said
the first choice was Mead Crossing,then Liberty Ranch until they realized the development had already been
planned, then the Mead Business Park, and lastly the area on the east side of the waterfront up against I-25
but that land was acquired by CDOT for drainage. Even though they do have the right for condemnation it is
not a way to build relationships and they avoid it at all cost and find an agreeable land owner. He explained
that the lights are on motion sensors and will not be on 24/7 and when they do go off it sends out an alarm to
dispatch so they know something is going on within the substation.
Robert Grand asked regarding the January 29, 2004 letter from Mr. Meyer expressing the ability to provide
service and power, has there been any communication subsequent to that. Mr. Hubbuck said they routinely
receive what they call"will-serve letters"from residents for various financing aspects. If someone comes to
us for power, we work to do that, but there may be additional work involved regarding infrastructure and
substations, though the letter does not say that.
Nick Berryman asked about the Slater property and the flexibility to go further south. Mr. Hubbuck replied
they have an agreeable land owner, Mrs.Slater. To move south they lose that agreeable landowner and the
result is them same. It just moves who is then affected by that next move. They have gone as far south as
possible with an agreeable landowner as that is the only location Mrs. Slater has agreed to.
Pam Smith, Health Department,said she had just completed research online and shared that she did not find
any peer review articles or documentation showing significant health effects from EMF. A 1992 EPA study
called "EMF in Your Backyard", reviewed EMF of common household appliances at six inches. The results
found they were stronger than the typical EMF you would receive standing on the ground below or near a
substation. Most activity in the fields would be at the source and as you moved away the fields reduced to
9
what you find as normal background levels. Ms. Smith added that Trevor Jiricek, Environmental Health
Director, concurred with this information. The standard is two milligauss as a magnetic field level but that
does not mean that is a safety threshold. It is just a cut off point. Less than two is under exposure and more
than two is considered exposed. The typical American home has an average range of point nine milligauss.
At six inches a blender had thirty milligauss, a can opener had five hundred, a coffeemaker had four, a
hairdryer had one,a microwave had one hundred,and an electric oven was four. She did not find information
regarding cell phones. This was just some counter point information as they have no information or research
on significant health effects.
Robert Grand asked Bruce Barker, County Attorney,about the exact process for denial and how it relates to
issues in terms of Mead's Planning Commission and what options are available for disgruntled residents.
Mr. Barker replied that applications for major facilities of a public utility do not get heard by the Board of
County Commissioners,just the Planning Commission. Pursuant to the Home Rule Charter,every case can
be appealed to the BOCC. It could be that an appeal could be taken to the BOCC by either side and it would
be their decision whether they heard it, pursuant to the Charter. The Code does not require that. He added
that five or six years ago there was a statutory change that any power company regulated by the PUC has the
ability to go ahead and in certain circumstances appeal any denial by a local governmental entity to the PUC
for their review. Regarding proper notice to the Mead Planning Department, he took exception to the issue
proposed which was that sending notice to the Town does not constitute notice to the Planning Commission.
If that is the standard, then we have been doing it wrong for years. Typically when we send something to a
town for their Planning Commission to review, if it is not directly addressed to the Planning Commission,it has
gotten to them, as we have received responses from them in the past. Sending it to the town is sufficient for
notice purposes.
Tom Holton motioned to modify and amend item K.7., page six per Staff recommendation to reflect
"classification of the road as collector status"and the requirement of"one hundred and ten feet right of way".
Second by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair asked Staff if there were any other changes to the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. There were none.
The Chair asked Mr. Hubbuck if he had read and agreed with the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hubbuck replied that he had and they were in favor of them.
The Chair thanked the audience and the applicants for their participation in the process and said the Planning
Commission now had a very tough decision to make.
Robert Grand said he is a United Power customer in Keenesburg and they always been a good community
partner. Recognizing they have been trying to get the best value for the piece of property, he was concerned
because they were asking the folks in the community to absorb United Power cost savings as an impact to
their value of their homes. We realize we all need power but this puts an unfair burden on the residents in
terms of direct impact and could mean greater expense to all United Power customers for power but the direct
impact on these specific residents is unreasonable.
Mark Lawley said that obviously there is growth in this area of the County and that is something we are going
to have to address in the future. It is easy to throw out the word"condemnation"unless it is your land and as a
property owner he would not want a utility company to approach me and tell me my land was being
condemned,especially when there were alternative landowners in the area willing to negotiate in good faith for
my piece of property. He empathized with the people in the community but some substation was generating
power before they moved in and they reaped the benefits of that. Growth is a natural progression of new
development and will need to be addressed one way or another.
Tom Holton said he lives by a substation and huge power line and they are not that bad. He questioned the
site choice and added that as a businessman, he would have taken the easiest route and he does not think
this was the easiest route. He continued that this puts the Planning Commission in a bad position as he
knows power is needed in that area and a substation needs to be built but he was not in favor of this location.
10
Doug Ochsner said he was also concerned about the impacts of the substation. He felt that safety was not a
huge concern. Property values are a concern but perhaps that is where the subdivision and realtors need to
work together to educate residents regarding safety. He agreed with Tom Holton that this was a tough
position to be in.
Bruce Barker said any motion and findings need to make findings of fact that go on the record and cited
Section 23-2-400 of the Code. He did not see any specific standards in the Code that deals with property
values. The one that comes closest is in sub paragraph E. that deals with health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants. That is not defined in our Code and it is up to them to define that, but there is no specific criteria
in that section dealing with devaluation of properties. Also they need to look at Section 23-2-420 which deals
with the Town of Mead and again that is the criteria and they are making a findings of fact that goes on record
for both sides so it is important to follow those criteria.
Doug Ochsner asked if Section 23-2-400.B.would constitute value. Mr. Barker said it does not specific say
anything about adverse effect on property values. Robert Grand said the welfare of the residents was
significantly impacted and how do they define that. Mr. Barker said that was up to the Planning
Commissioners as to how they define that.
Nick Berryman said he supposed it could be reasonably expected there is a need for additional power in the
area and whether or not it has been proven at this point,they all recognize it needs to be there at some point.
His biggest concern was for the impact/effect on the Liberty Ranch subdivision but thought a need had been
demonstrated for this type of facility.
Recess.
The Chair asked for legal council regarding instructions for a motion and the voting process. Mr.Barker said
if the Planning Commission's recommendation was to deny, they should go on the record for every element
and criteria as to why the burden has not been made. If they vote for approval it is also best they go through
each element and criteria point by point for the record. It would be best they go through the criteria as he
preferred to have that on the record so there is no question as to whether the burden of proof has or has not
been met and the motion maker should go through all of the elements so the record is clear as to the specific
reasons for the motion. Additionally, if you echo those things, you can say that or can add any other
comments.
The Chair asked if Staff had received any new information during the recess. Mr. Barker said a member of
the audience had submitted additional information regarding EMF and it is the discretion of the Chair to accept
the information or not. The public portion of testimony has been closed and that was when information of that
sort is typically accepted. The Chair said he would accept the information submitted by David Foster, on
behalf of residents in the Liberty Ranch subdivision, and share it with the Commissioners prior to their vote.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1629, be denied. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
Robert Grand gave reasons for citing denial:
Section 23-2-400.C.,"The design of the proposed facility mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area
to the greatest extent feasible". Mr. Grand did not believe that had been explored to the fullest possibility.
Section 23-2-400.E., "to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County will be
protected, and to mitigate or minimize any potential adverse impacts from the proposed facility". Mr. Grand
did not think that had been adequately addressed.
Section 23-2-400.G., "All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed, and the
proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of the COUNTY and represents a balanced
use of resources in the affected area." Mr. Grand was not convinced that was true either.
The Chair called for discussion from the Commissioners prior to their vote.
Robert Grand said he felt there was a need for the power that was not the issue. He just didn't think these
11
people should not be singled out as opposed to the three points of the Code he mentioned. To him that was a
penalty and as citizens of the County they should look to the Planning Commission for consideration for their
welfare.
Doug Ochsner said he disagreed with Mr. Grand and cited Section 23-2-400.B., "The facility will not have an
undue adverse effect on existing and future development of the surroundings areas as set forth in applicable
MASTER PLANS." This proposal may have a small effect, but he did not see an undue adverse effect on
future development. He believed most of the concerns can be mitigated. Doug continued that the applicant
must show need for the facility and he thought they had. Growth in the area has been outlined and the need is
obvious with the various subdivisions, residences and businesses planned for the area.Section 23-2-400.E.,
paraphrasing that the applicant has greed to implement and reasonable measures deemed necessary to
ensure health, safety and welfare has shown health and safety of the residents are not an issue on this
substation. Section 23-2-400.G., he believed reasoning must be used and that a point on the map can't be
picked arbitrarily. Other locations had not worked out, United Power had a willing seller and no other
alternatives had arisen.
Nick Berryman cited Section 23-2-400.B.regarding"undo adverse effect"and wanted the Commissioners to
reach more of a consensus on how they define that language and its interpretation. We have an impact on
the Liberty Ranch subdivision. However, do those concerns of the residents meet the criteria for what we
would term an undue adverse effect on their property?
Tom Holton was uncomfortable with how they were doing the motion. He did not necessarily agree with the
first two sections, but did agree with the third and asked how they reconciled that.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said the way it was reconciled was through a vote and how he felt the items
had been addressed. Either you agree the burden of proof has been met or you disagree that the burden of
proof has been met. The motion is that in fact the burden of proof has not been met and that is really the
issue. Discussion is regarding that at the present time and they did not need to agree to all three. Resolution
would come through a vote on the motion.
Doug Ochsner asked that even if they disagreed with one point they could still vote for denial. Mr.Barker said
the standards are ones in which every criterion must be met, they can't pick and choose, and all need to be
proven.
Mark Lawley had question for the applicant. Mr. Barker said that was up to Chair if he could question the
applicant. Mr. Lawley wanted clarification as to whether the applicant had indicated they had exhausted all
other site options in the area. Mr.Ochsner said he recalled that United Power had exhausted all other options,
but it is now for the board to decide if they went far enough. Commissioner Berryman said the operative
words were"reasonable alternatives".
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, no; Robert Grand,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion passed for
approval of denial.
Mark Lawley commented,citing Section 23-2-400.G.,and believed there were other areas UP could look at or
should exhaust despite his views on condemnation. It was incumbent upon them to look at other landowners
for another site.
Doug Ochsner commented that he believed the applicant had proven Section 23-2-400, all items.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1637
APPLICANT: Margaret Russell/Longs Peak Water District
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B of RE-3784; being part of the SW4 of Section 7,T3N,R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Major
Facilities of Public Utilities or Public Agencies.
LOCATION: 1/4 mile north of CR 34 and west of and adjacent to CR 1.
12
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning,said the request is for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(two 1.5 million gallon water storage
tanks) in the A(Agricultural) District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted December 5, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The site is located % mile north of County Road 34 and east of and adjacent to County Road 1.
The surrounding property to the north,south,east and west are primarily single family homes with agricultural
use. There are thirteen property owners within five hundred feet of the property in question.
The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the Town of Mead and Larimer County. The
Town of Mead, in their referral dated November 7, 2007 stated that if the application is approved they would
like an executed annexation agreement to be part of this application. Larimer County, in their referral dated
November 27, 2007 stated that the proposal does not conflict with their boundaries.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this case. Twelve responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the conditions
of approval and development standards.
The Chair asked Mr. Caruso if the Planning Commission was the final venue for this application. He replied
they were.
Julie Cozad, Land Planning Manager for Tetra Tech, 1900 S Sunset St Ste 1 F, Longmont, CO, applicant's
representative, thanked County Staff for their assistance. She introduced Barry Dykes, Long Peaks Water
District; Ron Loose, Western States Land Services; Rich Christy, Tetra Tech Engineer.
Ms. Cozad gave an overview of the property location and location of the proposed water tanks. The property
is located east of WCR 1 between WCR 34 and 36 in Section 7,T3N, R68W. The USR site is 3.23 acres on
Lot B of RE-3784. The total parcel is 65.09 acres and owned by Margaret Russell.
In conjunction with the USR we have applied for a subdivision exemption which has been administratively
approved by Staff with conditions.The purpose of the SE is to create a parcel specifically for the purpose of
the water tanks. At such a time that the tanks may go away,the property would revert back to the underlying
owner (Russell). The plats for the SE and USR will be submitted to the Dept of Planning concurrently for
recording, per the Conditions of Approval.
Adjacent land uses include: primarily large lot residential and agricultural with a dairy adjacent to the east
large lot; Summit Peak Estates twelve lot PUD to the south; and a dairy.
The property is not within Mead or Longmont's UGB as defined by Weld County; IGA with Longmont, but no
IGA with Mead.
Current land use is agricultural pasture and residential. Margaret Russell continues to live on the sixty-five
acres and there have been numerous discussions and negotiations with her as well as many of the
landowners in the area regarding the overall project. Ron Loose can address any questions regarding the
easement negotiations.
Currently there is a one hundred foot restrictive covenant on the east side of the USR area which restricts
development including structures within that area.
Proposed land use for the USR is two 1.5 Million Gallon water tanks. The tanks were sited based on the
location of new waterlines, topography of the area and growth within the district. It is anticipated to start
construction on the first tank as soon as the conditions are met for the USR and SE and the plats are
recorded. Construction will take approximately 6 months. The second tank will be built as market conditions
13
indicate. Temporary restroom facilities, bottled water and hand washing facilities will be provided during the
construction phase as stipulated by the Dept of Health and Environment. The tanks will be painted an earth
tone shade. The disturbed portion of the site will be reseeded after construction per the referral from Kim
Ogle, Landscape Architect for Weld County. Access is from WCR 1 at its current location and will be an all-
weather access. The thirty foot easement is currently in place for utilities and access. It is anticipated that
Longs Peak employees may monitor the site and the tanks weekly,but there will not be an office or permanent
employee at the facility. The USR site will be fenced with six foot chain link and an additional twelve inches of
barbed wire with a gate at the entrance to the facility for security purposes. The facility meets Homeland
Security requirements.
It will be an unmanned facility so there will be no office or permanent employee facilities once tank is up and
running.
They have received a letter from Petroleum Development Corporation and will show the drill windows on the
USR plat. The USR area is not within any drill window. This addresses condition 1.A.
All of the other conditions of approval should be met fairly quickly, but we would like to extend the time to
record the plat to ninety days in case of any unanticipated issues that may arise. (COA #3 on the staff
recommendation)
We have worked with Staff and other referral agencies to design a project that meets or exceeds the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive plan and the applicable requirements for Special Use permits in the
Agricultural Zone District.
We believe that the water storage tanks will allow the Longs Peak Water District to provide water service
efficiently and effectively to all of the current and future district users.
We request that the Longs Peak Water District Use by Special Review be approved for these reasons
previously stated.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Cozad for specifics as to the tank construction and any specific government
requirements instituted since 9-11.
Barry Dykes,General Manager of Longs Peak Water,9875 Vermillion Rd, Longmont,CO,responded that the
tanks are not bullet proof, have been used for target practice, have gotten dents, but no penetration has
occurred so far.Security at the site is a fence with electronic monitoring to include cameras and alarms on the
hatches.
Ms. Cozad said the Sheriffs Department will meet with them regarding the security plan. Doug Ochsner
inquired where the water goes if these 1.5 million gallon tanks do leak.
David Snyder, Public Works, said they had no specific information on that but the water will just go where it
goes.
Mr. Dykes said that as dry as the ground is in that area if a tank were to rupture it would possibly run down as
far as CR 1,down the barrow ditch and dissipate, but it is treated,drinkable water and presents absolutely no
hazard.
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. Caruso, Department of Planning,requested a change to item six to read,"In accordance with Weld County
Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not be recorded within the required ninety
(90) days from the date the Planning Commission resolution was signed a $50.00 recording continuance
charge may be added for each additional 3 month period. (Department of Planning Services)
Tom Holton motioned to amend item six per Staff request. Second by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
14
Ms.Cozad asked for clarification if item number three should also read ninety days. Mr.Caruso agreed that it
should be changed to ninety days and BOCC deleted and Planning Commission inserted. Her other concern
was on Condition 1.1., "Lot A shall use the existing agricultural access point from County Road 1"as Lot A is
not a part of this USR so it could be stricken. Mr. Caruso said Lot A could be changed to"SE-1125 shall use
the existing access road". Ms. Cozad suggested placement on the SE plat rather than the USR plat.
Bruce Barker,County Attorney said if Lot A is changed to SE-1125 that will be consistent with what the SE will
reflect. The SE-1125 lot shall use the existing agricultural access road from CR 1, which is consistent with
what will occur on the SE-1125 lot.
Tom Holton motioned to amend item 1.1. to say, "The SE-1125 lot shall use the existing agricultural access
road from CR 1", and amend item three, page five to delete Board of County Commissioners and insert
Planning Commission, and change thirty days to ninety days. Second by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair asked Ms.Cozad, as applicant's representative, if she had read and agreed with the amendments
to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Ms. Cozad replied she did.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1637, be approved with the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Robert Grand
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1640
APPLICANT: Mario Calderon
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and B of RE-2914; Part of the NW4 of Section 5, T1 N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development plan and Special Use Permit for any use
permitted as a Use by Right, an ACCESSORY USE, or a Use by Special
Review in the COMMERCIAL or Industrial Zone Districts (Construction
Business & RV Storage), provided that the property is not a Lot in an
approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed
prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivision in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 15 and Y: mile south of State Highway 52.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning, said this is a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Use
Permit for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an ACCESSORY USE, or a Use by Special Review in the
COMMERCIAL or industrial zone districts, provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded
subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivision
plat or lots part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivision in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted December 5, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The site is located Y: mile south of State Highway 52 and east of and adjacent to CR 15; directly to the West
lays the City of Dacono.
The surrounding property to the north,south and east are primarily agricultural with single-family homes. The
Weld County Board of County Commissioners approved a vehicle storage and delivery business, USR-1130
directly to the north; oil and gas facilities are scattered to the north, south and east. There are seventy-six
property owners within five hundred feet of the property in questions and the closest home is roughly eighty
feet to the west;the Department of Planning Services has received signatures from thirty surrounding property
owners recommending approval of the application. The memo and attachments provided to the Planning
15
Commission include the signatures along with a letter from the applicant's representative to the City of Dacono
attempting to mitigate any concerns the municipality may have along with a memo from the City of Dacono
dated January 14, 2008 which states "If the Weld County Commission approves USR-1640 over the
objections of the City of Dacono, the conditions as set forth in the Weld County staff report are acceptable."
The referral from the City of Dacono November 29,2007 states that the property is located within the Dacono
planning area and designated as medium density residential in the City's Comprehensive Plan and is not
compatible with their long range goals.
The Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Dacono,as described in Section 19,and more specifically
Section 19-2-60.C.8. states "If a Municipality's objection to or recommendation of disapproval of a
Development proposal is based upon a conflict or incompatibility between proposed uses in the Development
and the Municipality's anticipated zoning classification for the property, the COUNTY will not approve same
unless, in the County's judgment: a) such conflict or incompatibility is unlikely to occur; b) that suitable
mitigation measures to be imposed by the COUNTY as condition of approval will eliminate or adequately
mitigate adverse consequences of incompatibility or conflict or c) the Municipality's anticipated zoning
classification of the property is unreasonable because of existing uses of adjacent property. The
MUNICIPALITY shall be given notice of, and may appear and be heard at any hearing or other proceeding at
which the COUNTY will consider such issues." Planning staff from the City of Dacono are not present today.
The property is currently in violation due to the operation of a Concrete business without the appropriate
Special Use Permit. The violation has not yet been presented to the Board of County Commissioners through
a Violation hearing; approval of this Use by Special Review will remediate the violation.
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case. Ten responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of this application based solely on the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Dacono and Staff's determination that a denial of the application
is required. However, if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards will ensure the site is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Staff would
like to add a Condition of Approval and change the request. The Condition of Approval, prior to recording,
would be that the mobile home located on site shall be removed. Written evidence or removal shall be
submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services and also the applicant has amended his
application to remove the RV storage business.
Doug Ocshner asked for clarification that the RV request had been removed from this application. Mr.Caruso
said that was correct and the application now is only for the concrete business.
Robert Grand inquired how long the concrete business been there. Mr. Caruso replied that he believed since
2002, five or six years. This was not a complaint based violation. One of our Zoning Compliance Officers
drove past the site and saw the business and mobile home on the site. Tom Holton said that with a lot of the
other IGA's we have with other cities citizens have to go through the annexation process and then six months
later come through the County and is that any different for Dacono. Mr. Caruso said citizens are required to
have an annexation agreement or attempt to get one from the municipality, per item 1.B.
Nick Berryman asked if it was still Staffs recommendation for denial. Mr. Caruso said that with the IGA we
have historically recommended denial and we should in this case as well because it is their Comprehensive
Plan.
Doug Ochsner asked if the applicant was still requesting Lot B, originally intended for the RV storage, be
created into two parcels. Mr. Caruso replied that the applicant has submitted a recorded exemption
application and paid the fee. It has been administratively approved and at this time they would like to continue
their business but they will not have commercial development on the new lot.
The Carroll Group LTD, PO Box 886, Brighton, CO 80601, applicant's representative, said the violation
occurred March, 2007 and thought he could comply by submitting the USR application and paying the fee.
Staff advised Mr. Calderon at the time of his application that he should ask for whatever change of use he
16
might want for the adjacent parcel. In December, 2007, Mr. Calderon decided to remove the RV storage lot
request from the application so only the existing concrete business is at issue. The previous property owner
lived in a home on the property and also used the property commercially. Mr. Calderon did not realize he
could not do the same. They met with Dacono's manager and because of their Comprehensive Plan which
designates this area for medium density housing, Dacono was recommending denial. There is oil and gas
development in the area, commercial development to the north, as well as high voltage transmission lines.
They have polled neighbors (approximately thirty)and none of those responding expressed any opposition.
The applicant's representative felt they have shown the business is not a detriment to area;they have tried to
mitigate the situation with the County;have proven Section 19-2-60.8.showing that it is not detrimental to the
area; and asked for approval with the condition that Mr. Calderon can continue his business.
Tom Holton asked if they had approached Dacono for annexation as commercial. The applicant's
representative said they did and Dacono was not interested as they did not have any services they could
provide at this time.
Mark Lawley asked again about annexation as nothing in the information indicates that. The applicant's
representative said they approached Dacono. Mr. Calderon went to Dacono to seek annexation and they
declined. Obtaining an annexation agreement would be different criteria for a later date.
Doug Ochsner asked if they must be denied annexation before they come to the County. Mr.Caruso said that
with the IGA with Dacono, they get a say in the process. The County fills out a Notice of Inquiry to Dacono
and Mr. Calderon did do that. It states Dacono was not interested and that Mr. Calderon should proceed
through Weld County.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said the Dacono agreement was the first of the IGA's and we had a
requirement they come back to Weld County with an annexation agreement, hence the Condition of Approval
that requires that to take place. The problem is that if Dacono says no,that condition may be a very easy one
to do just if they send a letter back refusing to annex the property.
Robert Grand asked if Staff has documentation regarding the annexation. Mr. Caruso said they do and read
the letter into record.
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 Public Works if they had any concerns to address. They did not.
Pam Smith, Environmental Health, said their Development Standards and Conditions of Approval would
remain as they are.
Doug Ochsner asked if removing the RV component changed the application. Mr.Caruso responded that he
had removed references to the RV storage; Environmental Health conditions three through thirteen apply;and
he could not speak for Public Works.
Nick Berryman asked if the conditions would apply to the current concrete business. Mr. Caruso said they
would.
Tom Holton inquired if CR 15 belongs to Dacono and if that would affect Weld County.
Don Carroll, Public Works Department, said: CR 15 is a local paved road;with sixty feet of right of way; the
road is maintained by Dacono with a half and half annexation;west half Dacono and east half is Weld County.
Public Works does not like to have that happen but this is how it is in this instance. Mr. Carroll said that prior
to recording the plat,or item 1.D.,and in addressing the RV storage facility,he realized some changes needed
to be made and voiced concerns that are not in the Conditions of Approval or Development Standards. Mr.
Carroll was asking, that with the existing house and proposed new building and new circle drive, for one
access per legal parcel, as they can improve the existing access and not create additional accesses.
Drainage was also a concern.
17
Tom Holton asked how to proceed with the changes. Mr. Carroll reviewed his suggested changes per his
December 6, 2007 memo: maintenance of CR 15; status of CR 15;recommending one access to the facility
per legal parcel; and a drainage element.
Doug Ochsner asked if they could leave it as is and say to"address the concerns in the December 6, 2007
memo". Mr.Carroll suggested item 1.D.read,"The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of the
Weld County Department of Public Works, as stated in the referral response dated December 6, 2007 that
relate to Lot A of RE-2914. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services."
Tom Holton motioned to amend item 1.D.to read,"The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of
the Weld County Department of Public Works,as stated in the referral response dated December 6,2007 that
relate to Lot A of RE-2914. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services." Second by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Pam Smith, Environmental Health, suggested replacement language for item 4 A& B:
"In the event the applicant intends to utilize the existing septic system at the home, for employee use, the
septic system shall be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of
observation of the system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed
hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system is found to be inadequately
sized or constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with current Regulations."
Robert Grand motioned to delete item 4.A.and 4.6 and replace it with a new item 4.A.,re-letter accordingly,to
read, "In the event the applicant intends to utilize the existing septic system at the home,for employee use,the
septic system shall be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of
observation of the system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed
hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system is found to be inadequately
sized or constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with current Regulations." Second by Tom
Holton. Motion carried.
Mr.Caruso said prior to item 1.which reads,"The Department of Planning Services'staff recommendation for
approval is conditional upon the following:"can be stricken.
Nick Berryman motioned to strike the sentence located prior to item 1.A., "The Department of Planning
Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following". Second by Tom Holton.
Motion carried.
Mark Lawley asked if Dacono had already indicated they were not interested in annexation, why was there a
Condition of Approval that indicates an annexation agreement is needed? Mr. Caruso replied that the IGA
specifically requires it. Bruce Barker interjected that in Section 19-2-60.C.2., requires it as a condition of
approval of any USR, that there be an executed annexation agreement between the applicant and the
municipality which requires the owner to annex etc. so that condition should be included. Planning should
contact Dacono again as to the referral we received from them regarding annexation and if it is still correct we
would consider that condition has been met.
Mark Lawley motioned to add the words,"or the municipality states in writing that it does not intend to annex
the property". Second by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant's representative if they had read and agreed with the amended Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. The applicant's representative said they were in agreement and
would like to reiterate it is only the property owner and his immediate family that are on the site. There are no
employees unless they are riding with the owner to a job site. No employees park or remain on the site.
Tom Holton asked if that was in the Development Standards and might make a difference as far as the septic
requirements.
18
Mr.Caruso said if there were employees on site there would be septic requirements.We also have a condition
requiring eighteen parking spaces for equipment, residents of the single family home and employees. Tom
Holton said development standard twenty-five stated eight employees,but if none are on site the parking could
be reduced. Mr. Caruso said Staff would agree to reduce parking to ten spaces.
Pam Smith said if no employees are on the site, then that restricts business for the life of the USR. She also
expressed concern about providing restroom facilities for the employees. Do they really want to reduce
parking as it is restrictive to the operation of a business. Mr.Caruso suggested they leave the parking as is.
Tom Holton moved that amended Case USR-1640, 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. Robert Grand seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried.
Mark Lawley cited Section 19-2-60.C.2.regarding the attempt for an annexation agreement shall occur for his
vote.
Tom Holton cited Section 23-2-220 for his vote.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 19-2-60.8. regarding a municipality's objection to or a recommendation of
disapproval of a Development proposal is based upon a conflict or incompatibility between proposed etc.
Meeting adjourned at 6:23
Respectfully submitted,
i@
Donita May
Secretary
19
Hello