The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081359.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Paul Branham,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: ARTICLE IV Site Selection and Construction of Arterial Highways, Interchanges and Collector Highways(Including Private Toll Roads and Toll Highways), Mass Transit and Rapid Transit Terminals, Stations and Fixed Guideways, and Areas around Arterial Highways, Interchanges, Collector Highways(Including Private Toll Roads and Toll Highways), Mass Transit and Rapid Transit Terminals, Stations and Fixed Guideways. And the amended WELD COUNTY HIGHWAY 1041 REGULATIONS: Page six, Section 24-1-300.A., should read, "No person may locate and construct an arterial highway, interchange or collector highway(including private tool road or toll highway), mass transit and/or rapid transit terminal, station as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 24-4-100 and 24-4-120 of this article, within the unincorporated portions of this County without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the terms of this Article IV." Page six, Section 24-1-300.B., should read,"No local authority, including Weld County, may issue a building permit for purposes of selecting a site for and constructing an arterial highway, interchange,collector highway, mass transit and/or rapid transit terminal, station, or fixed guide way as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 21-4-100 and 21-4-120 of this article,wholly or partially within the unincorporated portions of this County." Page six, Section 21-4-310, B.1., should read, "If, as a result of the meeting, the Planning Department determines that the nature or extent of the Proposed Project involves the potential for significant environmental or economic damage or warrants examination of specific less environmentally damaging alternatives, the Planning Department may request that the applicant evaluate present information on such alternatives as part of the application. This shall not preclude a similar request following the pre-application conference." Page ten, Section 21-4-410, G.3., should read, "Changes caused by the Proposed Project in the cost of providing education, transportation networks, water treatment and waste water treatment, irrigation delivery systems, emergency services, or other governmental services or facilities." be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners. Motion seconded by Nick Berryman. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Doug Ochsner—Chair Tom Holton —Vice Chair Nick Berryman Paul Branham Erich Ehrlich Robert Grand Bill Hall Mark Lawley Roy Spitzer MO a06S- / 2008-1359 The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on December 18, 2007. Dated the 18th of,December, 2007. Z?Donita May Secretary I�1 'Dn Roy Spitzer motioned to accept the Staff recommendation to add an item 1.L., page six, and renumber accordingly,which shall say,"The applicant shall enter into a joint access and maintenance agreement for the thirty foot access agreement for the neighboring property to the north or provide evidence an adequate attempt to reach agreement has been made." Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Drumm was asked if he had read and understood the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and was he in favour. He responded they were. Bill Hall moved that Case USR-1636, 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. Paul Branham seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman,yes;Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer, yes;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Robert Grand commented that the neighbors have a right on the noise standard issue to pursue that if in fact it is in violation and secondly,on the traffic issue, it is another example where we have a CDOT question and a County question and it falls in no man's land. He reiterated that we need to be more careful and figure out a process that allows for better input so the neighbors can deal with the traffic problems. We can help them rather than ignore them. CASE NUMBER: Highways 1041 Regulations PRESENTER: Bruce Barker, County Attorney Bruce Barker,County Attorney,reviewed the Highways 1041 Regulations and said they are a result of House Bill 1041. Specific applicable sections are 2465.1. Mr. Barker said that in looking at the title of regulations, there were massive descriptions including arterial highways,interchanges,collector highways, including private toll roads and toll highways,mass transit,rapid transit terminals, stations and fixed guide ways and areas around those, which come directly from State statutes. The County has added private toll roads and toll highways. We have set up specific items we can regulate and modified them and limited it to private toll roads and toll highways. We have taken what the State has given us and have pared it back. The County was targeting private tool roads and private highways and if you looked at the two exemptions,the specific one would be in 21-4-100. State statutes 7-45-101 and 38-2- 101 were added in 2006 and modified later. If you compared these regulations to electrical regulations(21-3- 100)you would see the same general format,as we want them to be consistent throughout. Section 21-4-100 talked about a variety of general topics and protected private properties. The regulations were not intended to stop private toll roads or toll highways but give much more protection to private property owners,which was of prime concern to the BOCC. Specifically it provides protections for agricultural lands, irrigation ditches and irrigation systems, existing county roadways. Mr. Barker continued that page six deals with permits and prohibition on site selection and construction. We need to add in paragraph A., 24-1-300,after"or fixed guide way,as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 24-4-100 and 24-4-120 of this article,within the unincorporated portions of this County without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the terms of this Article IV." The same language would be added to item B.just after fixed guide way,"as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 21-4-100 and 21-4-120 of this article,wholly or partially within the unincorporated portions of this County." That puts the limitation on it but also makes it so that a permitting process must be followed. Mr.Barker added he would be surprised if they ever got an application of this type, but wanted the Planning Commission prepared never the less. In the event of an application, the Planning Commission would hear the request and make a recommendation as they do with electrical permits and they would then send it on to the BOCC. The PUC (Public Utilities Commission)does not regulate these permits but they can overturn, by State statute, BOCC decisions. In this particular instance,the PUC does not have that capability,which was a benefit,and makes a distinction between the two. Mr.Barker said Sharon Croghan,who worked on these regulations with him,had some suggestions for changes: further down on page six, Section 21-4-310, B.1., say instead "significant environmental or economic damage",which would include devaluation of property due to a"Super Slab"going in. The BOCC could then look at economic damages to surrounding property owners and make mitigation recommendations. Ms. Croghan's next recommendation was that page ten, Section 21-4-410, G.3., be 10 changed to read,"Changes caused by the Proposed Project in the cost of providing education,transportation networks, water treatment and waste water treatment, irrigation delivery systems, emergency services, or other governmental services or facilities." Tom Holton asked if a motion was required for each modification. Mr. Barker said they could vote on the items in one motion. Ms. Croghan's last recommendation was that page fifteen, Section 21-4-420, I., be changed to read, "significant adverse effect on farm or ranch lands" and remove "on prime or unique farmland". One of the Commissioners inquired if the assumption was that if in fact that happened,they would be offsetting value to the owner. Mr. Barker replied that was correct and reminded them that the BOCC were currently having the Comprehensive Plan revised and the word"prime"was still a major point of discussion. Mr. Barker asked if they want to limit it so that impact was limited only to prime or unique farm or ranchlands and added he thought it was a good suggestion that it was open to all of those and that any that were impacted should be subject to being made whole. Nick Berryman asked if this made it harder to define what's prime or unique. Mr. Barker agreed that it did and said that takes out the subjective element. Commissioner Grand interjected the assumption being that if it went to some kind of arbitration process. Mr. Barker replied it would be very hard to define"unique". Bill Hall asked if these standards were normal and similar to what CDOT would encounter. Mr. Barker said they were,only in the sense that if CDOT was looking at doing a condemnation of a highway. Mr.Barker said again that he would be surprised if they ever saw an application of the sort they have been discussing, but if they did, they would have standards in place to follow. Tom Holton asked if this could be amended like the other codes at some point in time. Mr. Barker said it could. Doug Ochsner asked about mass transit and would it inadvertently include railroad passenger trains and would they fall under the same rules. Mr. Barker said it could if it was within the same swathe. The one that would be most applicable would be RTD coming in, and we would agree to it if it were to be in that corridor. The idea with"Super Slab"was to have not only the"Super Slab"but also a corridor for other things,including mass transit,trains,freight,fiber optic cable,and super utility lines. They would be limited to those corridors only that would be in conjunction with the toll road or toll highway. Mr.Ochsner asked if it would be applicable to a railroad shipping yard in the County. Mr. Barker said no because it would not fit within those statutes, which are in conjunction with private toll roads and toll highways. Robert Grand asked if this basically enhances the rights of the property owners. Mr.Barker agreed that it was the goal to address property rights. Paul Branham said he thought it was appropriate to have these regulations in place to protect and to mitigate adverse impact on County citizens. It was comprehensive and he commended the BOCC and County Staff for their efforts in taking the initiative and having the foresight to develop this document to protect them in the future. Tom Holton said this keeps it consistent with the other codes in protecting property rights but we will need new ones down the road. Paul Branham moved to accept the Highway 1041 Regulations as amended. Page six, Section 24-1-300.A., should read, "No person may locate and construct an arterial highway, interchange or collector highway(including private tool road or toll highway), mass transit and/or rapid transit terminal,station as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 24-4-100 and 24-4-120 of this article, within the unincorporated portions of this County without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the terms of this Article IV." Page six,Section 24-1-300.B.,should read, "No local authority, including Weld County, may issue a building permit for purposes of selecting a site for and constructing an arterial highway,interchange,collector highway, 11 mass transit and/or rapid transit terminal, station, or fixed guide way as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 21-4-100 and 21-4-120 of this article,wholly or partially within the unincorporated portions of this County." Page six, Section 21-4-310, B.1., should read, "If, as a result of the meeting, the Planning Department determines that the nature or extent of the Proposed Project involves the potential for significant environmental or economic damage or warrants examination of specific less environmentally damaging alternatives, the Planning Department may request that the applicant evaluate present information on such alternatives as part of the application. This shall not preclude a similar request following the pre-application conference." Page ten, Section 21-4-410, G.3., should read, "Changes caused by the Proposed Project in the cost of providing education, transportation networks,water treatment and waste water treatment, irrigation delivery systems, emergency services, or other governmental services or facilities." Second by Nick Berryman. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donita May Secretary 12 Esther Gesick From: dkmhwolfpack@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:08 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Toll road regulations As a long time Weld county resident whose property sets right in the middle of the proposed Super Slab toll road, I urge you to support 1041. My property is listed as such and I want to either see the road being built or I want my name off the list. I will not stand for being held hostage by a private toll road company while my property value plummets. Thank you, David Wolf Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar <http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/? bbUVVwQsFFCSmkTXzD4 Po0d2 FylZtgXpaYLBzVv2ur9mtgDAdyilwA6xNSRf IGJuXdXTLuZQTTD3 t- LuWbdS7ChNKVJ0GGjclftmSNksrk_BPrdPhPSSyDtZdUsepj dFECMj kYYQghHGlEwzV5I_pOH2xKvxYYmfSk3g9J4S OOC_ssyyrp7G0F7Zn> for your browser. ',p I 1 ^'ter Hello