HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022023.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp-absent
Luis Llerena- absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Lee Morrison, County Attorney; Don Carroll,Weld County Department of Public Works; Char
Davis, Weld County Department of Health and Environment.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1386
APPLICANT: Brett&Chrisann Reese
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: South east corner of the E2, SW4 of Section 27, T6N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a bed
and breakfast facility (lodging for guests within the existing house) in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 64 ("O" Street) and approximately Yz mile
west of WCR 45.
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services, is requesting a continuance until August 6, 2002
Michael Miller read the case into the record. Sheri Lockman,for Carla Angeli,requested a continuance until
August 6,2002,citing unresolved water issues as the reason for the request. John Folsom made a motion
to continue USR-1386 until August 6, 2002. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1389
APPLICANT: Michael Dean & Marjorie L. Greckel
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 8, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District (Storage of recreational vehicles, campers, boats, trailers,
construction trailers and modulars) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 15; 1/2 mile south of WCR 24.
Michael Miller read USR-1389 into the record.
Ornagji- a rp„ct‘ Page -1- 2002-2023
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, is requesting a continuance until September 3,2002,as
the applicant has unresolved issues with the Town of Firestone and the Firestone Fire Protection District.
Stephen Mokray made a motion to continue USR-1389 until September 3, 2002. John Folsom seconded.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1376
APPLICANT: Jennifer Bargen/Bart Stoneback
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The N2, NW4 of Section 33, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the
Commercial Zone District (Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 4 and east of and adjacent to WCR
17.
This consent item was opened to the public as no reason was given by the public. The item was passed
on to the Board of County Commissioners to hear.
As no cause to hear USR-1376 was given, this case will go forward.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1006
PLANNER: Lauren Light
APPLICANT: Guy Jensen
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2303; part of the E2 of Section 35,T2N, R67W of the
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Plat for a 4 lot Minor Subdivision.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 23; north of and adjacent to WCR
14 1/2. For a more precise location, see legal.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case MF-1006, read the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Mr. Miller called for members of the audience to speak.
Mark Peterson, 10813 WCR 14.5, said all properties are irrigated by Slate Ditch with shares issued to
property owners, and asked as a condition of approval that an engineered water system be instituted in
order to prevent acrimonious conditions between property owners. Mr. Peterson also made reference to
an additional head-gate.
Mr.Goble,the applicant's representative, replied that Slate Ditch Company is currently delivering water on
the property and there is no proposal at this time by the applicant to add an additional head-gate. It would
be up to the Slate Ditch Company whether a head-gate is added. Mr. Goble stated the homeowner's
association would have a mayor-domo/water contact person to work with Slate Ditch. Mr. Goble also
suggested the use of plastic dividers allowing the homeowners to be responsible for water distribution, as
long as it does not adversely affect others.
Mark Peterson said water is currently distributed with plastic checks and can't be delivered to Lot 3 w/o
impact to Lot 4. Mr. Peterson again expressed concern about water issues between neighbors at some
point. Mr. Peterson prefers boxes to regulate water flow.
Page -2-
Peter Schei,Weld County Department of Public Works,said he had visited the site and would like to remove
a site distance triangle on the final plat that is not applicable. There are also some power poles running
along the west side of WCR 23 on the property and it appears there may be a conflict with the location of
Blue Sky Drive and one of the poles. He has put this information in a memo and has submitted it to the
Planning Commission members and the applicant.
Cristie Nicklas moved that item 1 E. on page 5 be amended to the July 16, 2002 reference letter date.
Seconded by John Folsom. Motion carried.
Mr. Miller opened discussion to the public and seeing none it was closed.
Fred Walker said he felt the two existing land owners should build a formal divide structure to eliminate
future conflicts. He also liked the applicant's suggestion of an appointed homeowner to oversee water
distribution as he felt things run smoother this way.
Mr.Walker moved that Case MF-1006, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners as amended,
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp, absent ; Cristie
Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker,yes with comment; Luis Llerena,absent; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1390
APPLICANT: Anthony Navarro
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts B & C of SE-745; part of the SW4 of Section 14, T5N,
R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Commercial Recreational Facility
(Paintball Park) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 34; approximately 1/2 mile west of
WCR 47.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services,requested Case USR-1390 be continued. The applicant
would like to make revisions to the original application: increase the number of participants from 30 to 80
players on Saturdays and Sundays; increase from 150 to 250 the number of participants for tournaments
and special events;and increase special events from 5 to a maximum of 8 per year. This information was
not included in the original application and staff needs additional time to re-notify the concerned agencies
and to re-review the application.
Lee Morrison,Weld County Attorney,said these changes are not insignificant and the increase in numbers
is significant to traffic and other impacts. Mr. Morrison felt it was better to make these changes now before
this case goes before the Board of County Commissioners.
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.Gathman, Department of Planning Services, suggested September 3,2002 or September 17, 2002 to
continue this case. John Folsom moved to continue Case USR-1390 to September 17, 2002. Stephen
Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1392
APPLICANT: Tri State Generation &Transmission
Page -3-
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 5,6, 7&18, T2N, R67W; Parts of Sections
1,12,13,14,23,24,25,26,35 & 36, T2N, R68W; Parts of Sections
1,2,11,12,13,14,23, 24, 25 & 26, T1 N, R68W; Parts of Sections
30,31,T3N,R67W;Parts of Sections 25,36,T3N,R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Major Facility of a Public Utility(a 13.2 mile 115 kV transmission
line and two new switching stations) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: Commencing South of WCR 6 at the Proposed Erie Switching
Station (SE 932), north to WCR 6,west to the WCR 6&WCR 11
intersection, north on WCR 11 to WCR 12; From Dacono
Substation (NCU-329) north on WCR 11 to WCR 20.5; east on
WCR 20.5 past Rinn Valley Substation to WCR 13;north on WCR
13&northeasterly on Firestone Trail to WCR 26;west on WCR 26
to WCR 13; north on WCR 13 to Del Camino Substation and
Proposed Del Camino Switching Station.
Michael Miller stated that he had received a letter from one of the affected parties attorneys requesting a
continuance and change of venue. They have requested the hearing be moved to the Southwest Weld
County facility and also that the meeting be held in the evening so affected parties can attend. Mr. Miller
asked for input from the Board and also what the likelihood was that they could do an evening meeting?
Fred Walker asked if the Board is the final authority on this case? Mr. Miller replied no,the Commissioners
are. Mr. Walker then asked about the date by which the Commissioners must have a final decision?
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney, replied that August 15, 2002 constitutes the date by which the
Commissioners have to have a final decision unless the applicant agrees to an extension at their request.
This is in our Ordinance but is imposed upon the County by the State Legislature. It gives the utilities the
possibility that if it is not acted upon, it is deemed approved, whether they have had hearings or not. The
Statute does provide a time extension if there are additional issues from the applicant.
Mr.Miller inquired whether there is currently a meeting scheduled for the Southwest Weld facility? Kim Ogle,
Department of Planning Services replied no, there was not.
Stephen Mokray asked for clarification as to why the location and time of the meeting should be changed?
Mr. Miller said this was requested by the attorney for some of the affected parties so more may attend. Mr.
Mokray wanted the record to indicate that he favors day meetings.
Mr.Walker pointed out that Larimer County meets in the evenings occasionally to accommodate the public
and felt this was an opportunity for Weld County to reach out to the community if an evening meeting is held.
Mr.Walker asked for a show of hands of those here specifically for this case. The majority of the audience
was present for this case.
John Folsom felt this would be an imposition on the people who have come up here today and taken time off
from their employment. If they change it, these people have then come up here for nothing.
Mr. Miller called for a 10 minute recess so the Board could read letters received pertaining to this case.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1392, read the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
The applicant was represented by Mark Murray, Land Rights Manager for Tri-State.
Page-4-
Mr. Folsom inquired if there is some ongoing litigation regarding under-grounding some of these lines and if
this will affect our determination in this case?
Mr. Morrison,Weld County Attorney, said he does not believe any of that litigation area is within the County,
so that should not determine the course of this process.
Mr. Folsom then asked if the Board is to approve or disapprove the routing of the line and other circumstances
connected with the line, but final approval still remains with municipalities?
Mr. Morrison replied that the Board is making a recommendation to the Commissioners but the County has
jurisdiction over the 4 miles in the County. It could end up with discontinuity in the line but the applicant has
to deal with each jurisdiction separately.
Mr.Miller asked Don Carroll,Weld County Department of Public Works,about proximity of poles to the center
line of the road? Is there any concern there with the power lines being that close to the road?
Mr. Carroll said 3 to 4 miles of the line affect is in the County, everything else falls within the municipalities.
WCR 13,just south of the switching station is a major arterial. They are replacing the bridge just south of
that location so they want to make sure poles are out beyond bridge section. A typical cross-section is 140
feet or 70 feet from the center line out at that location. The next section that affects them is WCR 26 an east
/west road. The first portion of that road has been annexed. They have the remaining portion up to the
Firestone Trail. WCR 26 is designated to build out as a paved rural road which requires 60 feet of right-of-
way or 30 feet from the center line, so they feel that they have adequate right-of-way to accommodate any
widening and the poles would be outside of the right-of-way. Also down on WCR 6 is a similar situation. It is
a collector status road, full build out will require 80 feet of right-of-way. It isn't a long way, but it is outside of
their future right-of-way line.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if the Firestone government is in favor of routing the line along the Firestone Trail
but they still have not officially approved it by an ordinance? Mr. Ogle replied that was correct.They still have
to go through the USR application phase for the town. Mr. Folsom asked if unofficially they have
recommended it be placed along the Firestone Trail? Mr. Ogle replied that is correct. There should be a
referral from Bruce Nickerson, Firestone Planner,that says staff is in support of the alignment as worked out
through agreement with Tri-State.
Mark Murray,Tri-State Land Rights Manager came forward. He complimented Mr.Ogle on his thoroughness
in the application presentation and said he was open to any questions or clarification anyone may have. He
was accompanied by other members of the Tri-State team.
Mr. Folsom asked if in the data submitted, were alternative routes considered, and how were other routes
determined? Was the evaluation quantitative, and this one was chosen as being least objectionable?
Mr. Murray, Tri-State Land Rights Manager answered that this route was the result of many meetings and
discussions with landowners and municipalities. Mr. Folsom then asked Mr. Murray if he was aware in the
deed of the Firestone Trail to the Town of Firestone that the Union Pacific Railroad retains an easement on
the western 50 feet of the right-of-way? Mr.Murray replied that the entire right-of-way purchased by the Town
of Firestone was reviewed by a local title company. Tri-State insures all of its easements,and they have been
assured that they can obtain title insurance for all of those easements that they have through that Firestone
Trail.
Cristie Nicklas addressed Mr. Murray and stated that one of the letters the Board received said they were not
notified of the public meetings on the location of the transmission line. Could Mr. Murray give the Board some
background on how public notification was given so people could attend these meetings?
Mr.Murray replied the majority of the information on landowners came from county records and that Tri-State
has made significant effort to notify surrounding property owners with a registered letter.
Bryant Gimlin noted the Board has had correspondence from several people asking why the line could not be
Page -5-
located underground and asked Mr. Murray to elaborate on that for them?
Mr. Murray deferred to Steve Fawcett, Senior Vice President of Transmission. Mr. Fawcett said technically
it is possible to put transmission voltages 100 kV and above underground, but it is extremely expensive,S to
10 times more expensive than an aerial line, and in most cases, there are no compelling technical reasons
why it must go underground. They have asked their Board of Directors, if in order to obtain a citing decision,
can they spend the considerable extra money to put the line underground. A resolution expressed in a Board
Policy says they will, if the other parties contribute to the extra cost of the difference between the aerial and
the underground. As an example, a recent project they completed with the lines underground, cost an
additional one million dollars per mile. They serve 44 co-ops in four states and all of their transmission is
aerial. Even their 115 /230 kV lines in the metro Denver area are aerial. They are trying to be the least
obtrusive as possible, but under-grounding is terribly expensive.
John Folsom asked Mr. Fawcett if he was the person to address as far as EMF's(electro magnetic fields)and
health considerations are concerned and if Tri-State has fairly evaluated the pros and cons of health risks?
Mr. Fawcett spoke to leukemia studies in children and concern in public arenas, citing international studies,
the World Health Organization,the Environmental Protection Agency,the National Academy of Science and
others and said they stated there is no way to ascertain a link between health and EMF's. There is no
scientific method or logic to prove a negative, all they can show is that there is none that has been
demonstrated.
Mr.Miller asked what efforts had been made to route these lines away from the populated areas? Mr.Fawcett
yielded to Mr.Murray. Mr.Murray stated that Tri-State is an electric cooperative owned by 44 co-op members
in Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico. Tri-State just celebrated its fiftieth year and its main
objective is to provide bulk transmission and generation needed to support its co-ops. Tri-State has made
every effort to go around subdivisions, but in some areas this is just not possible. They will make every effort
to either compensate or mitigate issues of a line that runs close to a property.
Mr. Miller inquired if the effort was made to find a route that did not pass directly through or adjacent to
subdivisions?
Mr. Murray said yes, but they don't believe a route exists. The route that they have was a collective effort
through meetings between landowners and other municipalities in trying to find an acceptable route that
wouldn't come close to these houses.
Mr. Miller said that did not really answer his question,that it seems to him it comes down to dollars and cents
as to how routes were chosen,and he thinks the routes through neighborhoods were chosen primarily to save
money.
Mr. Murray responded there is always an economic element used in evaluation, but by utilizing the existing
route of the 34-5 system that they are trying to upgrade and replace because it is overloaded,they use that
as much as possible. The Firestone Trail, for example, took them about a mile and a half out of their way
rather than going straight up WCR 13. They don't know that the route they have before the Board today is
the most direct route, but they have come to an agreement with the other agencies on this route.
Mr. Folsom commented that the route selected, on the face of it appears to be, except for the jog on the
Firestone Trail, the most direct route to connect the substations. There is a route % mile east of 1-25 that
from what he knows of the neighborhood,which is quite a bit,would not go through any subdivisions,but there
would have to be branch lines to feed the substations along the line. (Denoted on the map by the yellow line
that goes 1/2 mile east of 1-25 north and south.)
Mr.Murray answered that this is correct,and Mr.Folsom touched on one of the factors they had with the lines
that would have to go back into the substations,because the whole idea was to tie the substations together.
Mr. Murray cited litigation Excel is currently involved in with a property owner regarding the moving of power
lines, and said Tri-State is trying to avoid this kind of problem with their lines.
Page -6-
Mr. Folsom addressed the letters received expressing concern about property values. Mr. Folsom asked if
Tri-State had tried to quantify this,that when they did put in a high voltage transmission line adjacent or near
to property, did they establish the effect on property values?
Mr. Murray gave an example of a past project in Frazier, Colorado where Tri-State purchased four lots to aid
in transmission through the subdivision. After purchase they encumbered the lots with a 200 foot wide
easement. Last year Mr. Murray said they sold two of the lots for as much as they had paid for all four. The
transmission line didn't seem to be an issue.
Mr. Folsom asked if Mr. Murray had more information beyond that one example.
Mr. Murray replied that in compensation issues with the landowner, Tri-State normally engages a qualified
appraiser to appraise not only the compensation for the easement but any damage to the remainder that the
line may cause.
Fred Walker asked the cost of the lots and what they sold them for.
Mr.Murray replied that they had paid$700,000.00 for the four lots and sold two of them for$695,000.00.They
had offers for the other two, and Tri-State's Board elected not to sell the others.
Mr. Miller noted that Tri-State is replacing existing lines and putting those lines on these towers. Those lines
were built years ago before all these subdivisions ran along those roads. Now those roads are adjacent to
major subdivisions. It seems the most beneficial thing to do for those people is to relocate the line altogether
away from the subdivisions. Mr. Miller said he was sure Tri-State had technical reasons for not doing this,
but he also understood the"not in my backyard"feelings of the property owners.Tri-State ought to spend a
couple of million more dollars and move those lines somewhere else. It appears to him that Tri-State has
taken the easiest way by following existing lines and upgrading them as opposed to looking at the long term
effects on a large number of people.
Mr.Fawcett,Tri-State, replied that typically they try to cause the least amount of incremental impact possible.
The 341/2 line is being removed,and while the poles are taller,this is still a pre-existing utility easement that
they are commonly encouraged to use. They have tried to find less developed areas. As to the impact of
property values, existing lines still draw development. Most of the concern is raised during the planning
process when people panic and try to sell their property,but the appraisal fee is fair.They pay fee for the right-
of-way itself, and then damage for the remainder so the landowners get compensation for possible impacts
to their property.
Mr. Folsom commented that the area is growing so fast that if the lines are placed where there are
developments today,five years from now there will be more development so the"not in my back yard"feeling
will exist wherever the lines go.
Mr. Gimlin wanted clarification on if the Board is concerned with only 4 miles of this line in the County? Mr.
Gimlin also questioned jurisdiction, how the route was established, and why this route was chosen over
another potential route. If you look at the relatively small portions the Board is looking at today, it is virtually
impossible for us to make suggestions as to re-routing given those small sections.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney replied that yes, the County is only involved with 4 miles of the line.
Mr. Murray said Tri-State worked closely with the three municipalities involved in selecting this route,and are
currently in the permitting process with these municipalities. Frederick and Firestone are desirous of this trail,
Dacono did not require a permit but they have met with them.
Mr. Morrison added that if the County denies this,there is at least one interpretation that allows the utility to
go to the Public Utility Commission and appeal that decision. If there is a disconnect in the approved routes,
this could be resolved through the PUC.
Mr. Miller opened the hearing to public comment.
Page -7-
Josh Samuel stated he submitted a letter to the Board with pictures of his property, was opposed for many
reasons,and has many unanswered questions. As the route indicates,the power line proceeds down WC R11
to 20 'V2 to the Rinn Valley substation then down to WCR 13. There is no road 20 IA. That is his house,
backyard, barn and driveway, and it is a lake property with no road to it. Why is route traveling down private
property and if that is acceptable can they put power lines on property that is not a road? He can demonstrate
other paths if necessary,this particular route is inappropriate. It passes over his barn,15 feet from his porch
and 40 feet over his head. He has three children and is not in favor of this route. He has asked Tri-State to
bury this line on his property. He was told he can pay for burial of line if that is what he wants. Why does he
have to pay to keep his property the way it is now? Should be paid for by Tri-State. It is too close to his house
when studies are inclusive as to cancer and there are issues with electrical hyper-sensitivity, blurred vision,
muscle fatigue. Mr.Samuel does not want the health of his family compromised and asked the Board to give
careful consideration about locating near people and wetlands. The west area of the property needs
environmental assessment due to wildlife habitat. Mr. Samuels also added that he has not received any
correspondence from Tri-State in the eight years he has resided in this area.
Mr.Folsom asked Mr.Samuel about alternate routes. Mr.Samuel replied there are any number of open fields
north of Rinn Valley Substation, routes east in empty fields.
Kathy Allen, expressed concerned about cancer in children as 589 homes, an elementary school, and the
Firestone Trail are in close proximity. This is a main thoroughfare as well as an eyesore. How can they
compensate an entire neighborhood for power lines? The elementary school is a major concern and how safe
are high voltage lines next to that?
Bill Stonebraker, does not feel Tri-State has pursued other means. He owns a stretch of railroad, south of
WCR 12, and would be interested in negotiating with Tri-State. This railroad goes directly from WCR 12 all
the way into the proposed substation on WCR 6. It would be simple to get the old railroad bed rather than the
line they propose. Fireworks storage facilities he owns would be inoperative and have to be moved,and could
cost him as much as two million dollars for him to change things. Static electricity is a problem for him in his
business,and could be a problem with his business. Could be just as easily served using railroad rather than
proposed line. Mr. Stonebraker feels railroad would be a more viable avenue to take. Half mile east, line
directly east to WCR 6 would be much better.
Suzanne Graf, representing homeowners that could not be in attendance presented letters from them.
Michael Carmichael, homeowner and developer. He said the line does not go through predominately
agricultural land. Alignment is wrong one and could not be the cheapest because it is not the straightest. Why
has deal been done? Will impact many people and is asking for denial. He suggested a path in commercial
areas-feels there is something wrong with whole alignment.
Rod Unger, never received a notice from Tri-State and is asking for sufficient time to prepare. Subdivisions
have buried power lines, why can't Tri-State. Huge detriment to homeowners. Tri-State has the money to
satisfy wants of consumer-do not penalize us w/o compensation just so they can make money.
Doris Pavlik, water-ski lake property owner representative stated she had to comply with regulations. No
public meetings have been held in Firestone. Easement concerns. Presented a hand drawn map and
discussed concerns about ditch maintenance. Lightening strikes on poles. Concerned about large numbers
of wildlife in the area and its effect on them. Wants assurance property value will be maintained.
Joe Johnson,moved into St.Vrain Ranch one year ago and would not have located there had he known about
prospective power line route.
Suzanne Schelp, Frederick resident expressed her concerned about children and their future health.
Kay Nock, Greenwood Village, lake developer and water skier. Property devalued.
Sue Widall, four years ago built dream home and lines would devalue their property. Never received a
registered letter in the time she has lived there. Expressed health concerns for residents of the area. Feels
Page -8-
this route is the most objectionable. Supports underground burial if it must go through at all. August 15
deadline means what?
Mr. Miller responded this refers to the County Commissioners having either voted for or against by that date
and if it has not been processed by that date, it is assumed to be approved.
James Lawson, is opposed to proposed lines over his backyard fence. EMF affects humans. Power line
health issues. Urged Board to consider alternative route.
Elizabeth Wood, is in direct path of proposed route and wants burial of lines.
Brad Anderson, homeowner, transmission line burial would be too expensive for him to bear burden of cost.
Laurie Seymour,No Name Creek property owner,says she has not received any prior notification. Concerned
about health risks, sound issues, wetlands environment and five foot water table as it concerns stability of
poles.
Mr.Miller closed the public portion pf the hearing and asked the applicant to come forward and address public
concerns.
Mr. Murray in addressing proximity of power lines to homes,said that lines currently exist there today,and the
new lines will be pretty much in the same locations as existing lines today.
Jon Byer, Tri-State project lead, said that they have three subdivisions in Frederick; two on the east side of
WCR 11 and one on the west side, and currently there are lines on both sides of the road. The proposal was
to relocate lines on east side to the west side.On the west side in front of that subdivision there was a 70 foot
wide utility corridor. The proposal was to have the line and the right-of-way all within that 70 foot wide corridor.
The line itself and the poles would be approximately 35 to 40 feet from the property lines. Right-of-way and
easements would be up against property lines but still encompassed in this corridor. They did try to locate
away from homes. WCR 11 and 1-25 was a route they considered that also runs along Godding Hollow, but
this route was discounted by Frederick's Mayor, so they had to stay with route they have now. Looked at
WCR 13 extensively, the mayor visited the site, but the Frederick Planning Commission denied the permit.
That was two of the alternatives removed from the table,sending them back to where the lines currently are.
That explained how the proposed route was established, going through what is admittedly, a difficult area.
He has met with the new Mayor of Frederick and they have responded to the referral for the new permit.
Mr. Folsom said he does not see where the route is that close to Godding Hollow. North of WCR 20.5 the
area if Firestone's jurisdiction.
Mr. Byer responded that Godding Hollow is not straight,and transmission lines can't be built to meander like
a creek. It is also a 100 year flood plain down in the bottom which was a consideration.
Mr. Miller asked the applicant to explain the cause of the sounds emitted from power lines,when they would
be louder etc?
Steve Mundorph, Tri-State, manager of transmission engineering. 115 kV construction can be noisy with
sloppy construction techniques which they do not plan to use. Essentially they use compression, dead-end
assemblies. A lot of noise comes from parts, and he explained they will run quietly with proper components.
It will make some noise but it will meet industry standards for noise. In his experience, noisier lines are the
older 34-5 lines. Lower voltage lines are generally noisier than the higher voltage lines. They will take steps
to control noise.
Mr. Miller inquired whether people in houses 40- 50 feet away from the power lines hear them? How about
ten years down the road when maximum capacity of the line is achieved? Does overheating of the lines
increase the noise level?
Mr. Mundorph, Tri-State, replied that he did not believe so. The corona effect contributes to the noise; the
Page-9-
buzzing is a voltage dependent constant; and noise and corona are not affected by the amount of current.
If it's not noisy from day one, it should not increase in the future. Over heating of the lines at capacity should
make no difference either.
Mr.Walker asked Mr. Byer, Tri-State, about property access for the Lakeview Village property owners, how
many poles will there be, and will the poles be an issue as far as their location and property access?
Mr. Byer stated that access would still be available to Lakeview Village. Their survey work has not been
completed but pole spacing will be approximately 400-450 feet in this area. The exact location will not be
known until the survey work is complete,but Tri-State will be as flexible as possible working with the property
owners on pole location.
Mr. Walker asked about maintenance of ditches under power lines and what line height will be? He also
wanted to know about the apparent lack of notification to the property owners and if there was public
advertisement placed in the newspapers?
Mr.Byer said line height is typically 14 feet. Tri-State spoke to lack of notification for original meetings in June
of 2000. Tri-State said they are 7 to 9 months behind the ball in notification. Yes, they did place notices in
newspapers.
John Folsom inquired about conductors in excess of thirty feet at least? Are they 115kv lines around the
lakes?
Mr. Mundorph,Tri-State engineering manager, said 14 feet is code requirement for ground clearance. That
24 feet is set to allow clearance and that clearance envelope varies from 24 to 40 feet. As far as service and
maintenance of the ditch, they will talk to the ditch owners about clearance. There are some engineering
options and they would work with the land owners to provide clearances to maintain those ditches.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mundorph if he had seen the picture of the excavator?
Doris Pavlik, property owner, described picture and said line comes right next to the fence line.
Lee Morrison,Weld County Attorney,asked if property is going to have to be acquired from Lakeview Village?
Mr. Murray replied, yes there is, there will be an easement acquired.
Mr. Miller asked how close will proposed route come to the elementary school?
Mr. Murray, Tri-State, said the elementary school is along the Firestone Trail and they plan to be within that
trail, preferably on the east side.
Mr. Folsom said Prairie Ridge Elementary School is on St.Vrain Boulevard and it is about 1000 feet from the
structure to the trail.
Mr. Miller inquired about possible alignment of the line along the railroad and have they talked to the railroad
about this?
Mr. Byer,Tri-State,spoke to railroad access. In the past the railroad has not allowed them to locate facilities
on their right-of-way and that's a major barrier for them. They have not talked to the railroad about this
particular issue, but this has been their experience with them in the past.
Mr. Miller inquired as to an abandoned track bid.
Mr. Byer said it is not abandoned down at that south end. Up until just recently that part of the railroad was
used to get in and out of the salvage yard located on west side of 1-25 which was recently done away with due
to 1-25 widening.
Page -10-
Mr. Folsom said the railroad bridge across 1-25 will not be replaced,and he understood that Union Pacific had
applied for abandonment. Any other customer between St.Vrain and the interstate? He understand that one
can't figure out what the railroads are going to do.
Mr. Byer, Tri-State, said ownership is still with the railroad.
Mr. Miller asked for further Board discussion?
Mr. Walker wanted to concentrate on that section of the County that the Board can act on. He is
uncomfortable voting until issues of Lakeview access,safety of line height, and machine use along the ditch
are resolved.
Mr.Mokray agreed with Mr.Walker and said that communication between the neighbors and Tri-State should
have been better and he also was not comfortable in voting at this time.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Morrison, County Attorney, if Tri-State has rights of eminent domain? Does this apply
to easements? Could they condemn the land to acquire an easement? If property owners feel compensation
is insufficient, can they go to court?
Mr. Morrison said yes,they can acquire what is necessary to protect their use. Tri-State gave testimony that
they would call it a right-of-way but pay a compensation equivalent to an actual fee taking of a strip. If
compensation cannot be agreed upon,then yes,they could and would go to court. There is a process to allow
landowner the opportunity to contest value. There is also a process to pay on the amount of the taking which
requires the condemning authority to pay for appraisals. Mr. Morrison also indcated the Board may want to
consider suggesting conditions regarding Lakeview Village issues.
Mr. Folsom asked whether property owners adjacent to easements will receive compensation?
Mr. Morrison said if actual property is condemned, then the residual property may also be determined to be
damaged,and compensation payed for the residual. If there is no actual physical taking,they are not under
eminent domain, but can claim damages.
Mr. Folsom is not convinced that there isn't an alternate route.
Cristie Nicklas inquired of Mr. Folsom whether the St.Vrain Ranch development is in the County? He replied
that it is in Firestone.
Mr. Miller voiced his disappointment in the effort put forth by Tri-State and thought economics drove this
choice of routes. They chose the easiest,quickest way to do it and it could be detrimental to the health,safety
and welfare of the people along that route. He thought there were alternatives that were better and this
deserves considerable study. He agreed with Mr.Morrison's recommendation of adding language to address
issues that may come up.They can't address each and every issue with the information they presently have.
Mr. Miller stated he had difficulty supporting this as it stands.
Ms. Nicklas asked if anyone in the audience received a registered letter for establishment of route line?
Josh Samuel, in 8 years of residence in the area, said he had received only one letter.
Bill Stonebraker received a letter on May 29, 2002, informing about surveying preparation. He met with Mr.
Byer.
Sue Vidall had received a couple of letters but nothing sent registered. No public posting of notices.
Mr.Gimlin spoke in agreement of Mr. Miller's previous comments. When Mr.Gimlin looked at the project as
a whole, he felt it was incompatible. There were too many people adversely affected by this project. When
he looked at the 4 miles in the County jurisdiction,with the exception of the Lakeview residents,there was not
a lot of effect on County residents, therefore it is difficult for the Board to approve without Firestone having
had their hearings. Mr. Gimlin was in favor of a continuance until the municipalities have had their public
Page -11-
hearings.
Mr.Miller said the Board is under the gun with this 90 day rule but in his view this is an incomplete application
and there is not enough information to make a decision today.
Mr.Morrison responded that the completeness of the application is determined by the Department of Planning
staff. The adequacy of the evidence may be insufficient,but the Board can determine whether there is enough
evidence to support recommending favorably.
Mr. Miller inquired as to the Board's options?
Mr. Morrison said they could approve or disapprove it or add additional conditions. While this is a 1041
proceeding, the standards are not the same as the typical zoning though they may over lap in some cases.
The concept of being able to mitigate is still an element,so if you find there are sufficient ways to mitigate you
should propose those, if not recommend denial w/o further mitigation measures due to lack of evidence.
Mr. Miller asked Mr.Ogle when the Firestone hearing would to take place? Mr.Ogle responded that it will be
in mid to late August, 2002.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if an option was to have the applicant agree to an extension of the time period
until the Board feels they have enough information to reach a decision? Mr. Morrison replied that it was, but
the applicant would have to agree in writing for it to be effective, and they are not obligated to do so. If the
municipalities hearings result in routes not hooking up,they would have to come back and amend,start over,
or see if the PUC is an appropriate avenue to address it.
Mr. Walker asked if Tri-State would be open to a voluntary continuance?
Steve Fawcett,Tri-State representative,responded that they would consider an extension of the deadline,but
would like the opportunity to clarify some things and present more of their side of the story as to notification
of landowners and meetings they have held. They would agree to the extension and will provide that in
writing. To allow time for the Firestone meeting, a 45 day extension would be agreeable. They have taken
notes so specific issues today may be addressed at a later date.
Mr. Morrison said this was adequate from his standpoint, but a further complication might be that there will
be two new Planning Commission Board Members in August different from those present today.
Mr.Fawcett asked if Tri-State would have the opportunity to present additional testimony either written or oral
at the next hearing? He also expressed the need for urgency in setting the new hearing date so that service
may continue and be provided expediently.
Mr.Morrison said the Board certainly could allow them that opportunity. Mr.Miller agreed that Tri-State would
be allowed the opportunity to present additional testimony, including that of a health care professional they
named.
Mr. Morrison cited the Code - CRS 29-20-108 which allows for a waiver of the 90 day processing, if the
applicant requests it in writing.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue case USR-1392 to August 6,2002,for the purpose of determining whether
the Board has received a letter from Tri-State waiving the date of August 15, 2002 as the final date for
completion of this case. Bryant Gimlin seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp, absent; Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena, absent; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr.Walker asked the Chair if the Board should elect the new chairman and vice chairman today? Mr. Miller
replied that the bylaws require they do it in August. Mr.Miller,on behalf of the Board,officially thanked Cristie
Page -12-
Nickles for her 7 years of service on the Planning Commission and wished her well in her retirement to Florida.
Meeting adjourned 4:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
V/ VYYti
Donita May
Secretary
Page -13-
Hello