HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073110.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:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1619
APPLICANT: Andrea, William & Edward() Neidig c/o Alberto Loy()
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 of the SE4 of Section 17, T10N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County. Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for One(1)
or more microwave, radio, television or other communication
transmission or relay tower over seventy(70)feet in height per lot
including a transmission building in the(A)Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 1/4 mile north of the Section Line for CR 116 and west of and adjacent
to State Highway 85.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260
of the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 --The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-60.D (A.Goal 4) states:
"Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses
• will be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such
development. Such development shall attempt to be compatible with the region." The
surrounding property to the North, South, Fast, and West is primarily vacant agricultural
land with one residence approximately eight-hundred (800)feet to the South. The
subject area is agricultural and can support such development.
B. Section 23-2-220./01/4.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. Section 23-2-40.K of the Weld County Code provides for one
(1) or more microwave, radio or other communication transmission or relay tower over
seventy(70)feet in height per lot as a Use by Special Review in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District.
The property is currently in violation of the Weld County Code for having an unpermitted
mobile home located on site: an active violation (VI-0700104)was noted in the referral
received June 20, 2007 from Weld County Zoning Compliance due to the unpermitted
mobile home. The Special Use Permit, through the Conditions of Approval, if approved,
would address these concerns and ensure the intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone District is
adhered to.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 --The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. Vacant agricultural land is located to the North, South,
East, and West; there is one home located approximately eight-hundred (800)feet to the
South. One letter was received from a surrounding property owner dated July 17, 2007,
which indicated that they have safety concerns with the derelict mobile home located on
the property: this issue will be addressed through the Conditions of Approval of this
Special Use Permit if approved.
• The proposed towers will be located approximately 400-feet from the northern property
line. A letter dated July 27. 2007, from World Tower Company, Inc. stated that in the
unlikely event of a collapse, the towers would fall no farther than one-hundred and ninety m
(190)feet from the tower location (likely extending no more than 48% of the tower height) X
W ti
V
2007-3110
.saigger
Resolution USR-1619
Andrea,William &Edwardo Neidig
c/o Alberto Loya
• Page 2
The required offset to property boundaries is 100% of the tower height; therefore, the
offset from surrounding property boundaries will be approximately four-hundred (400)feet
and ensure in an instance of collapse the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding
property owners is ensured.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 --The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the
future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of
affected municipalities. The site is not located within an intergovernmental agreement
area. The site is located within the three (3) mile referral area for the Town of Nunn; no
referrals have been received from the Town of Nunn.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve
prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The site is located
in the area designated as "other" according to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Map, dated
• 1979, and surrounded by vacant agricultural land.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
H. Section 23-4-810.D—Antenna towers. New Commercial Tower facilities must use the
most-preferred facility type where economically and technically feasible. A lesser-
preferred facility type is allowed only if the applicant presents substantial evidence to
show it will have a lesser visual impact than the use of more preferred facilities and that
the applicant's desired geographic area cannot be served by using more-preferred
facilities. The applicant has proposed the new tower due to the fact that existing towers
are located more than 3 miles from the proposed site; the applicant has provided
information stating that concealed towers at this height are not economically feasible and
the only reasonable option would be to construct new tower facilities.
I. Section 23-4-820.B.3 --Antenna Towers are permitted by Special Use Review in the
following zone districts: C, I, A and PUD with Commercial and Industrial uses. The
proposed antenna tower is located in the A(Agricultural) zone district.
J. Section 23-4-820.E—The applicant has submitted documentation address all items in
Section 23-4-820.E.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
• The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
Resolution USR-1619
Andrea,William&Edwardo Neidig
• o Alberto Loya
Page 3
A. All pages of plat shall be labeled USR-1619. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a
copy of an agreement with the properties mineral owners stipulating that the oil and gas
activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence
that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall verify with the local emergency responder that the existing accesses
and road to the facility meets their minimum requirement. Written evidence of such shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and pay the necessary fees to the Department
of Building Inspection for the mobile home currently located on the lot or remove the
mobile home if it cannot be permitted. Written evidence of approval or removal shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall submit an improvements agreement for removal of the towers. The
agreement shall be made in conformance with the County policy on collateral for
improvements. The agreement shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall submit documentation of approval for three (3)towers with a height of
395 feet each from the Federal Aviation Administration. Written evidence shall be
.
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
C. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicant shall contact the Colorado Department of Transportation for the
associated right-of-way for State Highway 85. The right-of-way shall be
delineated on the plat. These roads are maintained by the Colorado Department
of Transportation. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The applicant shall address the issue of on-site lighting, including security lighting
if applicable. If safety lighting is required, the use of red beacons is preferred to
flashing strobe lights. If requested, security lighting on the site shall be mounted
no more than twenty(20)feet high and must be directed toward the ground to
reduce light pollution, prevent off-site light spillage and avoid illuminating the
tower. (Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from
the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for
•
paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1619
Andrea,William&Edwardo Neidig
do Alberto Loya
• Page 4
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of
this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files
format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable).
This digital file may be sent to maps(a)co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to operation:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment/
construction site where a contiguous on noncontiguous land disturbance is greater than or
equal to one acre in area. The applicant shall inquire with the Water Quality Control
Division (WQCD)of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wp/PermitsUnit if they are required to obtain a stormwater
discharge permit. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from the WQCD that
they are not subject to these requirements. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
•
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
• DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Andrew,William, and Eduardo Neidig
USR-1619
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for one(1)or more microwave,radio,
television or other communication transmission or relay tower over seventy(70) feet in height per lot
(three guyed AM Broadcast Towers approximately 395 feet in height) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-
100.5, C.R.S.) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions.(Department of
Public Health and Environment)
6. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site.(Department of Public
Health and Environment)
• 7. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in Commercial Zone District
as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees of the facility.(Department
of Public Health and Environment)
9. Adequate toilet facilities(port-a-potty)shall be provided during construction of the facility.(Department
of Public Health and Environment)
10. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking and handwashing during construction of the project.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division.(Department of Public
Health and Environment)
12. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
14. Effective August 1,2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
• 15. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any tower or transmission building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1619
Andrea,William &Edwardo Neidig
do Alberto Loya
• Page 6
16. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall include
a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect of engineer. Two
complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Include a Code Analysis Data
sheet provided by the Weld County Building Department with each Building permit application.
Building plans shall also be submitted to Nunn Fire Protection District.
17. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2006 International Building
Code, 2006 International Mechanical Code, 2006 International Plumbing Code, 2005 National
Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
18. The building shall be classified as U (Utility Occupancy). Occupancy Plans should include detailed
drawings showing the existing layout and how accessibility will be maintained through out the facility.
Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and
allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Distances between buildings are not shown on
the referral drawings. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Zoning Ordinance.
19. Building heights shall be measured in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and construction types
and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order
to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring buildings to
determine offset and setback requirements,buildings are measured to the farthest projection from the
building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the first
site inspection. All building plans shall be submitted to the Fire District having jurisdiction for review
• and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
20. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increase,diversions, concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
21. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
22. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
23. The use shall maintain compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration including tower marking
and lighting. (Department of Planning Services)
24. The tower owner must not exclude other providers from co-locating on the same tower when co-
location is structurally, technically or otherwise feasible. (Department of Planning Services)
25. The Board of County Commissioners may revoke a tower building permit or other administrative
approvals if the Development Standards of an antenna tower include co-location but:
A. The tower owner is not willing to provide space for other carriers at a fair market rate when it
would not impair the structural integrity of the tower or cause interference.
B. The tower owner modifies the structure in a way to make co-location impractical or
impossible.
• C. The tower owner does not adhere to any and /or all Development Standards.
Resolution USR-1619
Andrea,William &Edwardo Neidig
do Alberto Loya
• Page 7
D. If approval of a building permit or other administrative permit is revoked,the facility must be
removed at the owner's expense. (Department of Planning Services)
26. The Department of Planning Services may share information with other interested parties seeking to
locate tower facilities in the County in an effort to promote co-location and co-development of
facilities. (Department of Planning Services)
27. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
28. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
29. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
• Motion seconded by Mark Lawley.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on September 4, 2007.
Dated the 4th of September, 2007.
•
�� u2y uJ4Ak/Mfl
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
-y- 2co7
be able to see it and that's how it affects you. He added that is why they send out information.
•
Ms. Hernandez stated that as long as there is no contamination or anything that is going to affect them.
Mr. Ochsner replied that it should be covered by all the stipulations that they have to meet with they apply
for the application.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1620, be continued to September 18,2007. Mark Lawley seconded the
motion. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1619
APPLICANT: Andrea, William & Edwardo Neidig do Alberto Loya
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 of the SE4 of Section 17,T10N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for
One (1)or more microwave, radio, television or other
communication transmission or relay tower over seventy(70)feet
in height per lot including a transmission building in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 1/4 mile north of the Section Line for CR 116 and west of and
adjacent to State Highway 85.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1619.
A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a one(1)or more microwave, radio,
television or other communication transmission or relay towers over seventy(70)feet in height per lot
• specifically three guyed AM Broadcast Towers approximately 395 feet in height in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted August 21, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to State Highway 85 and'/: mile north of the section line for
County Road 114; the nearest municipality, the Town of Nunn, is located approximately 5 miles to the
south.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west are primarily agricultural with one single family
home approximately 850 feet to the south. There are 4 property owners within 500 feet of the property in
question. The Department of Planning Services has received two letters from the same surrounding
property owner. One dated August 10, 2007 and one received August 21, 2007 with the signatures of 24
surrounding property owners objecting to the approval of this Special Review Permit.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case, nine 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.
Mr. Caruso added that there is one change in talking with the applicant as one of the items, specifically
1.A Prior to Planning Commission, there should have been an investigation fee paid for the violation
occurring and Mr. Caruso stated that the applicant indicated that he has paid and can now supply a
receipt.
• Paul Branham referred to page 3, item C, second paragraph; it says "The required offset to property
boundaries is 100% of the tower height". Mr. Branham stated that he knows in the discussion there is
reference that if it did fall it probably would not fall all out but by code they have to be offset 100%of the tower m
height. Mr.Branham further added that in the commentary the offsets from the surrounding properties would y� 4
be approximately 400 feet and is not sure he is comfortable with that. Commissioner Branham said that he jt�
thinks that it should say at least the height of the tower. Mr. Caruso replied that staff put approximately 400 d
E.
feet and from our information the towers are 395' in height.
•
Commissioner Branham commented, in relation to Development Standard#1, it refers to the tower and in Mr.
Caruso's beginning introductory statements it says the tower is 395'in height. However, in the application on
the very first page it says the towers will be 375' in height. Mr. Branham continued to say that it sounds like
they are asking for 375' and then in the letter from the FAA, which is dated June 13, 2007, the FAA has
approved the construction of a tower with a height of 377' above ground level. Commissioner Branham
indicated that by Development Standard#1 it looks like you want us to approve towers up to 395'in height but
FM is saying that it can only be 377' in height and stated that it needs to be clarified. Mr.Caruso stated that
we can get clarification. He added that if they are going to be 395' in height we can make that part of our
condition and add a condition that they have to go through the FM again and receive additional clearance for
that extra footage. Mr. Branham commented that he doesn't think the Planning Commission can approve a
height greater than what the FAA letter states. The FAA letter clearly says 377'in height and that is within the
applicant's desired 375' in height, so I think that we are okay, but I think that needs to be amended before we
are to approve this.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Caruso to clarify with regard to prior to Planning Commission that the
applicant has paid the $1250.00 investigation fee and asked if he has seen proof of payment. Mr. Caruso
stated that he has not, however Alberto Loya has stated that they have just paid it. Mr. Loya supplied Mr.
Caruso with a receipt of payment of the investigation fee.
Mr. Caruso continued with the presentation showing the Planning Commission pictures of the area.
Mr. Caruso mentioned that the violation started due to the mobile home being out there and was caught by our
staff. The mobile home is going to house their equipment and will be permitted through a building permit
process and has been addressed at this point.
• Commissioner Ochsner asked if there were any pictures or a map of the closest neighborhoods. Mr. Caruso
stated that he does not have any, however south from where the mobile home is located would be
approximately 400'to the nearest property line and to the nearest home it would be approximately 500 feet.
Alberto Loya, 314 Marion Ave, Greeley CO. Mr. Loya stated that he is here on behalf of La Familia
Broadcasting and would like to introduce William Neidig, President of the Corporation, Andrea Neidig, Vice
President, Chris Roberts and Andres Neidig. Mr. Loya expressed to the Board that the Neidig family are no
strangers to the radio business. Mr. Neidig has been in the radio business since 1961, Mr. Roberts has been
in the business since 1975 and the kids have been brought up in the business. They have owned three or four
radio stations in the past 40 years and are very familiar with what it takes to run the business and all the rules
and regulations that the County, State and Federal governments set for them. He added that with regard to
the letter that was circulated with signatures of the surrounding neighbors they would like to see a copy of the
letter and they would like to see if they could have an open discussion with the neighbors. They feel they have
nothing to hide and they want to be good neighbors. Mr. Loya indicated that they plan on being out there for a
long time and want to see what they can do to best accommodate everyone's needs.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if they could address the concern that was brought up by Commissioner
Branham on the tower height.
Andres Neidig,2135 Indian Paint Brush Way, Erie, CO 80516. Mr. Neidig commented that he believes that it
was a typographical error. He stated that he couldn't explain it but added that in all this time it has been for a
height of 395 feet. Mr. Neidig indicated that he doesn't think that it is going to be a big issue with FM as soon
as they contact them and believes that this will be corrected.
Commissioner Branham asked Mr. Neidig if he has seen the FM letter. Mr. Neidig responded that he has.
Mr. Branham added that the FAA letter states 377 feet and your application asks for 375 feet and now we are
talking about 395 feet in height. Mr. Branham stated that he just wants to make sure that we don't approve
• something that the FM has already said is limited to 377 feet. Mr. Neidig said that he understands but if it
were a problem with FM, he doesn't think that it would be such a problem that they wouldn't be able to drop
the height to 375 feet, if that were the case.
Mr. Branham clarified with Mr. Neidig that they wouldn't have a problem to drop it to 375 feet if that was the
case. Mr. Neidig replied yes.
• Mr. Loya commented that they would prefer, if at all possible,to approve it at the height of 395 feet. Mr. Loya
indicated that from talking to Kim Ogle they weren't sure if they were going to get the FM approval prior to this
hearing. He added that Mr. Ogle stated that it would be okay as it would be a condition of the final approval,
however if it's been approved at 377 feet and they really are looking at 395 feet then they would like to ask for
that.
Commissioner Ochsner asked legal council if the Board approves it at 395 feet and then the FAA comes back
and says that the highest they can go is 377 feet; they still couldn't build over 377 feet no matter what the
Board approves. Ms. Giauque stated that was correct and added that you can approve it for 395' on the
condition that they get FAA approval for that.
Mr.Ochsner asked Commissioner Branham if he would be comfortable with that. Mr. Branham stated that it
would be okay with him as long as it placed somewhere in the Conditions of Approval as there is nothing now
included in there. Mr. Caruso said that it can be added prior to scheduling with the Board of County
Commissioners"the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the
Federal Aviation Administration has signed off on the height of 395 feet". Mr.Branham said that he would be
comfortable with that.
Commissioner Spitzer commented that this is for a radio tower and inquired if it will be broadcasting in AM/FM,
and if it will be Spanish speaking. Mr. Loya replied that it will be broadcast in AM and is a Spanish language.
Mr. Spitzer asked if there will be more facilities besides the tower.
William Neidig, 3612 Carrie Ave,Cheyenne WY 82001. William Neidig stated that they plan to broadcast from
a remote location here in Greeley. They are currently in the process of looking for some office sites adequate
to build their studios and to office out of the City of Greeley.
• Commissioner Ochsner asked if they are currently on the air on any other stations. William Neidig replied that
they are. Mr. Ochsner asked if the proposed radio station will be a new radio station. William Neidig stated
that no, it is currently on air. It serves northern Colorado from Eaton up north.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if these towers will improve their signal or what the reasoning is for these
towers. William Neidig replied that the reason is because there is a large unserved demographic here in Weld
County, especially in the Greeley area, that they feel their programming could definitely benefit to that
community.
Mr. Ochsner asked if they have researched using other towers that are currently in existence and if that was a
possibility. William Neidig stated that they have researched that and referred to the Engineer to answer the
question.
Timothy Cutforth, Professional Engineer, Denver CO. Mr. Cutforth explained that there is a difference
between an AM tower and just a general communications tower in that you have to have ground radials buried
underneath it to make it effective as a radio tower. Normally for a two-way radio they only need one tower and
the antenna is actually a little piece that gets clamped on the side of the tower. In the case of AM radio the
tower itself is a whip antenna and needs to have guyed wires to stand up the height that it needs to be efficient
for this frequency. There is a specific reason for needing more than one tower. We have a federal power limit
on these channels which is 10,000 watts. We can't just turn up the power;we have to squeeze the signal. He
added that they need to put the signal more where the people are.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Melanie Erickson, 57251 Highway 85, Carr, CO. Mrs. Erickson stated that in the statement she will be making
when she refers to"we"she is talking about all the people that signed the petition and when she is saying"I"it
is just her opinion.
• Mrs. Erickson stated that we feel that this man should not be allowed to put any type of business on this
property. For the past 11/2 years he has had a trailer on his property without obtaining a permit. When it rains
it sinks further into the ground and when the wind blows, parts of the trailer are blown everywhere. He does
not take care of the trailer or his land. The grass is a fire danger many times throughout the year as well as
the dilapidated trailer. By his non-action with the trailer and the land, it shows us that he does not care for his
property. He is not a voting constituent of Weld County and of course does not live anywhere close so does
•
not care what affects his neglect has on surrounding people or environment. Their plans show building a road
to Highway 85, however they do not have permission to build a road on their easement across our land. In the
past the previous owners were unable to obtain a permit for access from Highway 85, therefore their plans
have a flaw in them. The original papers stated 70' tall and then when researched more there is three (3)
towers in height of 395 feet. I again find this to be another misleading statement on the part of the owner.
How are we to believe that these towers will be maintained when so far all that has happened is a run-down
trailer, lack of tending to the fire danger, and misleading height of towers. He does not have a good track
record of good faith and honesty. I was given some information that bees get confused when microwave
towers are near. They are unable to find the hives and therefore they are unable to germinate the alfalfa and
then unable to make the honey. Putting these towers will hurt the agricultural environment and the bee
ecosystem. Off the top of her head, she is not able to remember the source of this study, but will get the
information if the board would like. Most of the people in this small neighborhood moved here so as not to
have these types of eyesores within their view. This area is agriculture and we would like it to stay this way.
We have looked at many other towers in this area and not one of them is within 500'of a house. Just because
it meets the specification of the Planning and Zoning does not mean that it is a good area to put it in. If
something was to happen, how would the Fire Department get to the dilapidated type trailer or the towers if
they are put in. It is a volunteer Fire Department and that means that there are not men or women at the Fire
Station when the call comes in. From the Fire Station to our house it is eight(8)miles. So you have a good 5
or 10 minutes wait for the volunteer Fire Firefighters to get to the station to then get up to where our property
is. So with no proposing of water or anything near, I just find that to be neglect again. I also wonder how this
trailer can be served as a building for the equipment. It is my understanding that this trailer that is sitting there
is going to be the building for the equipment to house these towers. So my question is how that is possible as
any other building that I see that houses equipment for towers is a concrete building, a fire safe building. As
well as the access to the trailer is very easy and anyone could vandalize it and the contents within. This then
would put our house and many others in the way of vandalism. To me that is an impact on our small
community. She wanted to thank Roger Caruso as she had heard it was a flood zone and he researched it for
• her and told her that it wasn't and appreciated that.
Commissioner Holton asked Mrs. Erickson where she lived. Mrs. Erickson replied that she is the house that
will be looking at these three(3)towers 24/7. Mr. Holton clarified that she lives south of this. Mrs. Erickson
replied that is correct and is the owner that holds the access to the highway. She added that the access road
and the driveway is their land and they had to give a 30'easement for whoever owns the north half of the 74.5
acres.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mrs. Erickson how far away she would guess they are from the property. Mrs.
Erickson replied 500 feet and figured that if one of those towers fell over and would start a fire their barn would
go. Mrs. Erickson added that there are other towers around and believes that they should access existing
towers and not put her property and her house in harms way.
The Chair asked if anyone else in the public wished to speak. No one wished to speak;therefore the public
portion of the meeting was closed.
William Neidig stated that last year they had an agreement with the Erickson's that they would mow that area
of land and they would sell it as hay. They assumed that the agreement was still underway as of this year. As
far as neglecting it, he didn't see it as neglect. It was their understanding from when they took over that
property, that the Erickson's showed interest in mowing that grass and keeping the profit from the sales. So
that was their way of making an arrangement with them.
Mrs. Erickson asked to address that, however the Chair stated that since the public portion of the meeting is
closed she cannot. However, she can discuss it afterward with the applicant and with Mr. Caruso and then
she can also come to the County Commissioner's meeting.
Mr.Cutforth stated that towers being steel don't burn, however they have an electric light at the top but haven't
• heard of any situations of where a tower falling caused any kind of a fire. The towers fall very rarely, it makes
national news in L.A. or anywhere because it's so rare. Any building is a suitable transmitter structure if it
keeps the weather off whether it is made of concrete, steel or frame. Equipment structures are not generally
hazardous structures as the equipment in there is inside of a metal container and all of the modern stuff
doesn't even have high voltage anymore in there. He thought the highest they go is 300 volts inside of the
cabinet so the chances of an actual fire in the equipment becomes rather small these days. Radio stations
are very much interested in staying on the air, which means you don't want something that is going to be a
•
hazard and likely to burn down and leave you off the air because you make zero dollars while it's off the air
until you rebuild. He further added that it is already a grass field and that's what its use was before it was
purchased. If you are using pasture grass you either have to sterilize the land so that nothing can grow or
plow it regularly so that nothing grows there if you wish to prevent the possibility of a fire due to lightning or
some other means. The radio would not increase any of those.
Commissioner Branham commented that the citizen expressed concern that the tower might fall on her
property and asked how far away from her property line the base of this tower would be located. Mr.Cutforth
replied that the tower is 1/4 mile from her property.
Commissioner Grand stated that Mrs. Erickson had questions about access to Highway 85 and asked the
applicant to enlighten the Board with regard to that. Mr. Grand added that she seemed to indicate that there
was a problem on having access and asked if the applicant in fact has deeded access to that or easement
rights. Mr. Loya replied that the proposed access was on a right-of-way. Mr. Caruso elaborated in that the
deed on Exhibit A calls out the property"except for a portion that was given to the State for State Highway 85
together with a non-exclusive access easement over the east 30'of the north 780'of the S2SE4". Mr.Caruso
further added that he talked to Gloria Hice-Idler with the Colorado Department of Transportation and she
stated that as long as it remains the same she has no objections. If they do want a new access permit she
might be able to issue one and doesn't foresee it being a problem but that is up to the applicant.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there is a condition of approval that an access agreement is there. Mr.
Caruso stated that per the deed it says they do have an access.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr.Ochsner if he is to understand that there is a condition of approval that they
have a legal access. Mr.Ochsner asked Mr. Caruso if there is a condition of approval or as the way it stands
right now there doesn't need to be one because it is already in the deed. Mr. Caruso stated that the deed
currently reflects a non-exclusive easement over the Erickson's property to the south. If they disagree with
• that they can argue that but it is in the deed.
Commissioner Branham asked Mrs. Giauque, County Attorney, if she is comfortable with the access as it is
defined in the deed and if it is adequate for our hearing. Ms.Giauque replied that it should work as it is a legal
document.
Commissioner Ochsner asked the Engineer to speak with regard to utilizing existing towers. Mr. Cutforth
commented that they looked at a bunch of different towers that are in the area. Most of them are on a 2 acre
parcel which makes it impossible to use a second tower. The person with the tower doesn't have a larger
parcel big enough for the guy wires for their existing tower and that really doesn't make it possible to make
anything but a simple circle with a signal. It keeps them from optimizing the north/south coverage. Also,this
is approximately as far south as they can move. There are some more towers further south,however they are
further south than where they would be allowed to move. The FCC rules require them to maintain a certain
signal strength over their city of license and then also meet their other requirements for efficiencies of the
towers,etc. Mr.Cutforth added that they didn't find any other towers that were located in a location that would
be suitable for their use and that they could do a directional antenna width. The requirement to make it an
optimal facility just didn't fit with any existing towers.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Caruso,with regard to the bees, if the Department of Wildlife submitted any
referral. Mr.Caruso replied that we did receive one and they responded that they have no concerns with their
interest. Mr. Loya mentioned that it is their understanding that what the citizen is referring to is microwave
towers and these are not microwave towers. Therefore they would not conflict with the bees.
Commissioner Hall asked, as far as the building codes, isn't there a certain requirement that they would have
to put in a permanent foundation for the mobile home and also build that up to a current standard. Mr.Caruso
stated that he is correct and it is included in one of the conditions of approval on page 4 item 2.D. "The
• applicant shall obtain a building permit and obtain the necessary fees to the Department of Building Inspection
for the mobile home located on site".
Commissioner Holton asked if they are just going to use these as AM radio stations or is there going to be cell
phone antennas on it. Mr. Cutforth replied that there would not be any cell phone antennas attached to the
tower. He added that most often the cell phone people don't usually like the idea of sharing with other people
who are not cell phones. It's rare that they ask an AM radio station to use their tower.
Commissioner Branham stated that on page 5, item F, it currently reads "The applicant shall submit
documentation of approval from the Federal Aviation Administration". Mr.Branham would like to move to add
a phrase in between the word "approval"and"from"so that it will read as follows"The applicant shall submit
documentation of approval for three (3) towers with a height of 395' each from the Federal Aviation
Administration". Commissioner Grand seconded the motion.
Commissioner Holton asked if we need to make this a condition prior to Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Branham asked for legal advisement. Ms.Giauque replied that prior to recording plat would be
appropriate so that it can get to the Board and be heard there.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Holton asked if the property is landlocked. Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, said that
he would consider the property not to be landlocked because it does front the US Highway 85 so there is
access. The access question is since there is a deeded access to the property CDOT is utilizing the one
access as a shared access with the easement going to the north property. As Mr.Caruso indicated that if that
does not work it may be possible to gain their own access from Highway 85 to the property. Mr.Carroll added
that he knows Gloria does not like to grant additional accesses, however it's a possibility in this particular case
that since it is a non-manned facility and not used on a daily basis she might, but that would be her call.
Commissioner Hall asked Bryon Horgen, Assistant Building Official, what requirements there are for the
mobile home as it looks like this mobile home is in somewhat of disrepair. Mr. Horgen replied that with the
mobile home we would treat it just like a new structure and would require an engineered plan and the engineer
would have to certify that the structure would meet all the requirements of the IBC. The floor loading, etc.
would be higher than what was required as a mobile home so it would probably require some additional
• supporting of the flooring.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read and are in agreement with the amended Conditions of
Approval and the Development Standards as amended. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1619, 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, Mark Lawley seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, with
comment; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like to see a better site plan so that you can understand
where it is located on the property.
Commissioner Ochsner thanked the public for coming in to comment and believes that the board has
addressed a lot of the issues and this is what the County process is for. They can no longer leave that mobile
home on there unattended as it will have to be maintained and they are going to have to follow the rules now.
Mr. Ochsner added that they have now met the requirements and the public is welcome to come and talk to
the Board of County Commissioners and also talk to the applicant and the planner, Mr. Caruso.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
• Respectfully submitted, JI,,
31 t(Ak
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello