HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022875.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 15, 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 pp
Bryant Gimlin Absent Fri 'i
James Rohn
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Lauren Light, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Chris Gathman, Char Davis, Pam Smith, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 17,
2002, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1016
APPLICANT: Carlson Farms Estates
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2, NE4, NW4 of Section 4, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-1 (Residential One)Zone District to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) Zone District for six (6) lots with E (Estate) Zone uses
and one (1) out lot containing 2.48 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 62 (Bliss Road) and west of and adjacent
to WCR 41 1/2.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting withdrawl of the application.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-592
APPLICANT: Weld County Land LLC
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 of Section 33, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD(Planned Unit Development)..
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 7; north of and adjacent to State Highway
52; south of and adjacent to WCR 16.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a November 5, 2002 hearing. Ms.
Light indicated that Department of Public Works requests more time to review the request.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1401
APPLICANT: Raymond & Dorthula Lohr
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 NE4 of Section 19,T6N,T64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use-By-Right in the Industrial Zone District (Portable
Restroom Business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
naxvd- Orin(,- Page -1-
(U- 8-.2001 2002-2875
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 51; approximately 1/2 mile south of State
Highway 392.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1401, reading 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.
John Folsom asked where the limits are defined if the business increases. Ms. Light indicated the map was
submitted without the house so a new map would need to be submitted that shows the boundaries around
the house. Mr. Mokray asked for clarification on the location of the barn. Ms. Light indicated it is proposed
and will be located next to the road. Ms.Clamp asked about the number of units that are allowed. Ms. Light
stated it was restricted by the space and if more space was needed they would need to relocate to a different
area. Ms. Light indicated that 1.7 acres are included in the USR boundary. Ms. Clamp asked about the
fence that will be used as screening. Ms. Light indicated the applicant can address that. Mr. Folsom asked
Mr. Carroll about the parking spaces and if the spaces were adequate for trailers. Mr. Carroll stated the
parking is for employee parking spaces and it would be asked that a spot be determined for the equipment
parking and how many trucks and trailers will be utilized. Ms. Light added that an 8 foot fence is requested
in the condition of approval. The applicant will submit the request and staff will review it.
Michael Miller asked Char Davis, Weld County Department of Health and Environment, about her referral
referring to a commercial well and commercial tap. Ms. Davis indicated that both are located on the property
and it depends on what they want to use. North Weld stated the tap is fine or it can be changed to
commercial. A commercial source would have to be dedicated and changed. It would have to be a
dedicated source.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about CR 51 and the 80 foot right of way and there is nothing asking for the
additional 10 feet. Mr. Carroll stated that 80 foot is needed at full build out and presently there is 60 feet
there. The additional 10 feet will be needed from the applicant and the other 10 feet from the other side.
It will be done at the plat drawing stage and it is asked to be reserved not dedicated.
Dorthula Lohr, applicant, provided additional information on the project. The business is to help supplement
the income. It is a family owned business. The screening that is proposed is 8 foot metal siding. The
neighbors will not be able to see the portable restrooms at all. There is no sewage stored on the site. It is
be pumped and taken to the City of Greeley. The trucks will be stored on site. The existing shed has room
for both trucks inside. Storage of porta potties will be beside the shed and to the south. The fence will
surround the site so it will be out of view from everyone. There is one trailer that is used to transport the
restrooms to the sites, it will also be out of view. North Weld County Water stated that a commercial tap was
not needed because it requires 30 thousand gallons a week. The business uses typically 300-600 gallons
a day. The state indicated they would not give a commercial dedication on the water well that is in existence.
Cathy Clamp asked about the number of portable restrooms are kept on site and anticipated. Ms. Lohr
stated that at the most there would be 50 but as a rule there is not many there. They are not making any
money when they are sitting in the yard. Presently farming is slow so there will be more stored but in the
spring they will go back out. The units are cleaned and maintained typically on site. There is at times a need
to bring them back to clean and remove graffiti. Ms.Clamp asked if the anticipation was to grow larger. Ms.
Lohr stated that there is no anticipation for a large business. Ms.Clamp asked what the maximum that could
be done on this property. Ms. Lohr indicated that if they kept out 400 it would be good. The units can be
kept out year around. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the maintenance chemicals used. Ms. Lohr stated all the
chemicals are kept on site and are biodegradable. The quantities are five gallon buckets in concentrated
form. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the employees. Ms. Lohr stated that at the present time there are no
employees except family, primarily grandchildren. At some point down the road someone will be hired. Mr.
Rohn asked about the cleaning and whether it was done on the property. Ms. Lohr stated they are asking
for a washbay so they can pump that back to the City of Greeley. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Davis about North
Weld not giving a commercial tap and what is the volume difference. Ms. Davis stated that if the well was
not going to be used it would increase the volume through the tap. Ms. Davis would like to speak with North
Weld because if they are not going to require it then the County may not be able to. Mr. Morrison stated that
the Water District would need to be checked with. The size of the tap would be an example. The distinction
Page -2-
is that water districts are dealing with volume. Ms. Lohr indicated she has a letter from North Weld County
Water that addresses the issue. Mr. Morrison read the letter from North Weld County Water District into the
record with regard to the water to the property. The letter allows for 684 thousand gallons a year. It would
be worthwhile to check with the district to determine the allowed usage. The volume is the remaining issue.
Cathy Clamp indicated that once the tap is enclosed in the RE boundary it cannot be used for anything
outside those boundaries. Ms. Lohr indicated it would not be a problem.
Char Davis indicated concern over the well not being commercial. The water from the well cannot be used
for the business.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cathy Clamp asked about the designated washing area. Ms. Davis indicated it is on the application and it
will be provided on the final design. Mr. Miller asked about berming around the tank. Ms. Davis stated if it
is owned by the oil company then they would need to be contacted to make sure they are accommodating
the standard. Mr. Morrison stated that berming is to comply with something that is being done already.
There are times when the surface owner is doing things around the tank battery that requires more that what
is being done. Oil and Gas have their own set of regulations. Mr. Miller indicated development standard
#22 would need to be removed.
Char Davis indicated that a development standard would need to be added#39 that states the well shall not
be utilized for commercial use.
James Rohn moved to add development standard #39, delete H and amend the language in #22. John
Folsom seconded. Motion approved
Cathy Clamp asked about the color of the screening and the light glaring off of it. Ms. Light stated it would
be reviewed when the proposed plan was submitted.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lohr if dropping the 3000 sq ft building would affect the business. Ms. Lohr
indicated it would not affect the business.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1401, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan 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; Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
John Folsom commented that the letter of complaint came from Lindies Lake Subdivision and no one
appeared to speak against.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1402
APPLICANT: Arnheim, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2050; part of the S2 S2 NE4 of Section 30, Ti N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone
District (maintenance shop, outdoor storage of equipment and materials,
and office) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 27; 1/2 mile north of WCR 4.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1402,reading the recommendation
Page -3-
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.
Cathy Clamp asked about the applicants business. Mr. Gathman stated it was a construction contractors
that specialize on the installation of water lines and sewer lines. The materials will be pipes. Mr. Miller
asked about outdoor storage not being above the privacy fence and the height. This is impossible with
heavy equipment, screening can be done but the height of the fence could be 16 feet. Mr. Gathman
indicated that a standard height could be recommended of 6 or 8 feet. Mr. Miller asked about the greater
Brighton Fire District referral regarding the welding operations and the possible need to have an automated
sprinkler systems. Mr.Gathman stated it will be addressed in the building permit process and the Fire Code
will be adhered to. Mr. Folsom asked about the right of way for the road. Mr. Carroll indicated that there
are sometimes overlaps in the request for the right of way when municipalities are involved. This is to make
sure that there are no structures in the right of way whether they are 120 feet or 140 feet.
Tug Martin, applicant representatives, introduced Cane Turner, applicant. Mr. Turner indicated they are
primarily a general contractor that installs water and sewer lines. A CAT or a Boom truck would typically be
the largest piece of equipment that would be located at this facility. Mr. Miller asked if this would be a
maintenance or a storage facility. Mr. Turner stated that it will be a maintenance facility and approximately
five pieces of equipment would be worked on concurrently. That is the size of facility that would be
requested. Ms.Clamp asked about the materials kept onsite besides equipment. Mr.Turner indicated there
would be some tools, diesel fuel, welding accessories and things for general operation of maintenance.
There will be temporary storage of some pipes when a job finishes. Ms. Clamp asked the operation hours.
Mr. Turner indicated that typically it is 7:00am -5:00pm, Monday- Friday but there are some Saturdays in
which the mechanics will need to be there. Mr. Turner indicated the work would mostly be indoors. Ms.
Clamp asked about right of way on some of the county roads and if there were going to be any problems in
transporting the equipment. Mr. Turner indicated they are not having any problems right now. The access
and the roads are large enough. Mr. Rohn asked where the typical job site is located. Mr.Turner indicated
it depends on the market. Mr. Ruesgen asked where the current facility is located and the need for a new
facility. Mr.Turner stated it was a shared facility in Broomfield. Mr.Turner indicated it was a smart business
move for the company to obtain a private location for the facility, not a shared facility. The size of the
current facility is not adequate. Mr. Rohn asked Mr. Gathman if CR 27 was growing into an industrial type
area. Mr.Gathman indicated there are some industrial type businesses. Ms.Clamp asked Mr.Carroll about
the signaling of CR 6 and when this was planned. Mr. Carroll stated it is scheduled but does not know
exactly when. The state is involved with this. Mr. Carroll indicated that routes are checked and permits for
overloads are allowed.
Todd Martin,applicant representative,added concerns with conditions of approval. The number of parking
spaces that are being required is excessive. There will be no more than 5 employees on the site at any
given time plus few vendors. Ten spaces will be more appropriate. The trailer that is on site is not owned
by the applicant and it will be removed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cathy Clamp questioned the number of spaces. Mr. Gathman stated it was based off the parking standard
for a warehouse. Mr. Gathman would be comfortable with 15 spaces with areas for trucks indicated. The
application indicated 12 employees.
James Rohn moved to delete second sentence in#5,2B4-parking spaces to 15. Stephan Mokray seconded.
Mr. Walker suggested that the 15 parking spaces needed to be agreeable to the applicant.
Motion Carried.
Char Davis added the concerns with the fuel tanks and the fact that the language needs to be kept. Mr.
Gathman originally suggested removing it but it has now been determined that the language should stay.
Page -4-
Michael Miller asked Mr. Turner about the hours of operation being 7:00am -5:00pm is limiting them. Mr.
Turner stated 7:00am -7:00pm Monday- Saturday would be more realistic.
Stephan Mokray moved to amend the hours of operation to those above. James Rohn seconded. Motion
carried.
Cathy Clamp asked about the height of the fence. Mr. Gathman stated the height could be a
recommendation. Ms. Clamp recommended 8 foot. Mr. Rohn stated it was an industrial area and the rest
of the area does not have screening for their businesses. A 6 foot fence would be adequate due to the area.
Ms. Clamp indicated that at the present time there are more agricultural than residential uses in the area.
Mr. Rohn does not know the significance of a six foot versus an eight foot fence. There are no neighbors
opposing the project. Mr. Folsom indicated that there is no reason not to improve the area. Mr. Ruesgen
asked if the applicant objected to an eight foot fence. Mr. Turner indicated that would be no problem.
Cathy Clamp moved to amend #5 to read that all outdoor storage shall be confined within the eight foot
privacy fence. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1402, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bernie Ruesgen 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;Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1392
APPLICANT: Tri State Generation & Transmission
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, T1N, 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.
This is a continuation of the July 16, 2002 hearing.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1392, reading additional comments into
the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bernie Ruesgen excused himself due to his inability to vote on the project. Cathy Clamp also excused
herself.
James Rohn asked for clarification regarding code quotations used in the staff comments. Mr. Ogle stated
that the concerns have been addressed through Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr.
Rohn asked Char Davis,Weld County Department of Health and Environment,what has been learned about
Page -5-
the magnetic fields. Ms. Davis stated that there have been studies done and there is no significant risk
associated to long exposure to EMF. (Electro Magnetic Fields)The information is inconclusive. Mr. Ogle
indicated that the applicant has someone present that can address those specific questions.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle about the hearings at the Town of Firestone and the fact the route did not
change. Mr. Ogle stated that the route is the same with some of the line being placed underground which
was a request by the town. The town will be responsible for the additional cost of burying the line with town
funds. Mr. Folsom asked if there were any other underground areas. Mr. Ogle indicated that there are but
they are located in the Town of Frederick and not in county jurisdiction. Mr. Folsom indicated that the
agreement with Firestone is contingent upon them agreeing on the additional cost. Mr. Ogle indicated that
should the Town of Firestone not accept the additional cost or terms of burying the line then it is permitted
to be overhead. Mr. Folsom asked about a court case with the residents and the town of Frederick
concerning lines along County Road 11. Mr. Ogle indicated that the lines have approval to go overhead
unless the terms and additional cost of burying the line is agreed to by Town of Frederick. Tri State is under
no obligation to place the lines underground, it is for those who chose to accept the terms and additional
costs.
James Rohn asked why the burying of the lines cost cannot be a bond type issue. Mr. Morrison indicated
that local improvement districts do have some authority for bonds. An improvement district can be financed
by the municipality without bonds where payment is done over time for the improvements or there can be
one that relies on bonds where the numbers determine who can do what. Mr. Miller stated that it was the
Planning Commission job to determine routing as opposed to bury or not bury and the cost associated with
that.
Mark Murray,applicant, provided clarification with the project and addressed issues that were brought forth
at the previous meetings on July 16, 2002 and meetings with the Town of Firestone, as well a s the
information presented today. The purpose for this project is to accommodate the enormous amount of new
and planned development that the area is experiencing. The electrical infrastructure that is in place was
installed in the 1960's and with all the additional growth the line is overloaded and experiencing low voltage
problems. The project is to replace the line with a larger line to accommodate and connect three substations
in the area. This will eliminate the low voltage issues and it will provide the needed loop for the expected
electrical needs in the area. The project has obtained permits and routing approval from Dacono, Town of
Frederick and Town of Firestone. Survey permission has been granted on 37 of the needed 40 properties.
Issues that will be covered are Tri State's Non Profit Status, routing alternatives, public meeting &
workshops, underground burying of the line, landowner concerns, health concerns and land values. Tri
State is a non profit wholesale power supply cooperative that provide power to 44 a member distribution
system. The company is owned by its members the consumers. Mike Barningham,consultantfor applicant,
and environmental contractor,provided information on the selection process for the alternative routes.There
were 25 alternatives identified, 13 were considered primary that were evaluated and detailed with the
affected municipalities and the business themselves.The routing alternatives contained factors that needed
to be represented. There are switching stations,one mile of line in place and three municipalities with their
own requirements. The line can be broken down into two parts that include the substations and municipal
boundaries. The goal was to consider a feasible route alternatives that met the needs of the proposed
project,was economically sound,compatible with existing and future plans for the area and accepted by the
three municipalities.The question of routing along 1-25 was addressed and it was determined that there were
several obstacles that could not be dealt with. The preferred route is permitted by the Town of Firestone,
Town of Frederick and is accepted by the City of Dacono. The route is also approved by state and federal
regulatory agencies. Tri State has also met the permitting requirements of Weld County.
John Folsom asked about the evaluation of the alternative and what was the determining factors, costs,
impacts or compatibility. Mr. Barningham indicated that all were a factor in the determination. The permit
application included a table that compared the alignments and this shows all the considerations that were
used. Mr. Folsom brought up an application by Xcel in which the process was given weights to all the
considerations. This gives an objective view on evaluation. This is a very subjective way of evaluating the
process. Mr. Barningham stated that this project,given the dynamic sense of change,would be interpreted
differently by anyone reviewing the data. It is impossible for Tri State to keep up with the number of
residences in the area. Mr. Folsom indicated the route that utilized the commercial areas are primarily in the
Page -6-
planning stage and have not been constructed whereas the preferred route interferes with several residential
developments. Is it more appropriate for the route to be located next to residential or commercially zoned
property? Mr. Barningham indicated that two years were involved in the process as well as three
municipalities. Those commercial developments were already severely constrained by the flood plain. The
line is on the edge of the residential developments whereas it would go through the commercial
developments. Mr. Folsom asked the route along the Firestone Trail and why it was located there. Mr.
Barningham indicated that the Town of Firestone was not in agreement with any of the other alternatives.
Mark Murray continued with Tri States presentation. There have been several public meetings and
workshops held. There have also been individual landowner meetings. Three public workshops have been
conducted. S ome oft he concerns t hat w ere brought forth i n the previous meeting w ere a ddressed.
Underground alternatives have been discussed and Tri State has a policy that outlines the terms and
conditions for the high voltage transmission facilities. Tri State will consider underground burying of the line
with the additional cost becoming the responsibility of the landowner or municipality. If the landowners or
municipalities do not agree to the additional cost and terms Tri State is still permitted to construct overhead
lines. Firestone is in the process of determining whether it will be able to afford the additional cost of burying
the line. Tri State will allow three months to arrange financing for the additional cost. Tri State will not
construct an underground facility that will compromise the reliability. I n conclusion that there will be
opposition for any route that is proposed. A route that best balances all the factors and is agreeable with the
three towns that are involved is the preferred route. The last Planning Commission meeting contained land
owners concerns and some of those issues have been addressed. Mr. Stonebraker's concerns were
addressed and there is a possibility of amending the application to be located on the east side of CR 11 to
the north end of Mr. Stonebrakers property. Mr. Joshua Samuels concerns were address in that Tri State
has modeled the line and believe they can compensate Mr. Samuel for the right of way and meet the
required electrical clearances. Lakeview Village was met with independently and an alternative route was
suggested. It was suggested that the route go on the west and north side of the property. Tri State
researched the alternative route proposed by Lakeview Village and it was determined that it did not offer a
reasonable solution. Eight of the 13 landowners that would be affected by this, were in opposition. With
regard to the cleaning of the canal,Tri State would like to have a two week notice to de-energize the line for
the equipment to be able to do the work needed. There may be some improvements that Tri State can do
to the ditch during construction.
Michael Miller asked if the line could be raised and see if it could alleviated the issues with the cleaning. Mr.
Murray indicated that it could be accommodated up to a certain height. Tri State could work with the
company contracted to clean the area and determine the height that is needed. Mr. Rohn asked when the
substation was built and when the Lakeview property began. Mr. Murray indicated the substation was done
in 1998 and Lakeview was in existence when it was approved. The location of the substations are in the load
centers to provide service to the members. Mr. Rohn asked what type of process is involved in the burying
of the lines. Mr.Murray stated they were five foot underground in a concrete vault.A graphic was introduced
depicting how this would be accomplished. A special aggregate is used to dissipate heat. Mr.Folsom asked
if all the conductors can be on one pole. Mr. Murray indicated it could but they would be a little higher and
larger in design.
Dr. Robert Pearson, physician, provided some clarification on the medical aspects of the power line. Dr.
Pearson has extensive experience in EMF research and knowledge concerning the field. Several studies
have been done on this subject. The studies focus on EMF but have different aspects. There have been
several reports indicating the inconclusive findings obtained through EMF studies. The federal government
did not feel it was beneficial to fund additional research studies on EMF. There has been no evidence of a
health threat from exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic fields. Additionally, there is no
absolute certainty that NO health threat exists, though the probability is small. Factually the EMF fields will
diminish fro the line rapidly with distance. Magnetic fields are a function of the current flow in the line not
the voltage. At the edge of the right of way the field will have a level found in most homes. It has been
shown that magnetic fields are a normal part of daily life. Mr. Mokray asked about the duration of exposure
and if studies were done with that aspect in mind. Dr. Pearson indicated that that is an issue as well as the
voluntary exposure. Dr. Pearson indicated that there has been studies utilizing voluntary exposure with a
lifetime study. Studies have been done with short term exposure as well as chronic exposure. Mr. Rohn
Page -7-
asked if the studies were done with adults,kids,males and females. Dr.Pearson indicated that studies have
been done utilizing both adults,kids and occupational settings. The studies Dr. Pearson has been involved
in have contained more children with the disease aspect being evaluated. Mr. Rohn indicated his main
concern for the line was location near a school. Dr. Pearson indicated that the line is located near Prairie
Ridge school but is not on the line.
Mr. Murray continued with property values issues. There is little or no damage that is done to property
values once the line is in operation. The damage is done prior to operation during construction due to the
siting portion.Tri State has purchased lots and sold those lots having an increase in value. Tri State utilizes
existing green belt areas. In conclusion,the line is needed to support the existing and planned load growth
in the Tri-Town and Weld County service area. There will never be a perfect route, however, Tri State
believes the proposed route alignment has the least amount of impact on the number of people affected.
The Chair opens the hearing for public comment.
Bob Charles,representative for four homes on No Name Creek Estates,stated his concerns. The power line
is roughly 60-70 feet from the back of the home. A concern is with the health risk and property value. Mr.
Charles feels as though compensation should be done even though the line is not directly on his property.
There is an impact because the line is located so close to the home. Mr. Charles would like to see an
alternative route that goes along the west side of the ski lake. The line goes through open land area not
residential area. There will less impact on housing with the alternative route. Mr. Mokray asked if he
attended any of the meetings. Mr. Charles indicated he did not own the home but did attend the Firestone
meeting,but was not able to express his concern because he lived in the town of Frederick. Mr. Miller asked
if there are any power lines located on the property presently. Mr. Charles indicated there are located
approximately 1/2 mile west. Compensation would not be available according to Tri State.
Jill Haberkorn,neighbor,stated her concerns. Ms.Haberkorn protested the route accepted through the Town
of Frederick. The Town of Frederick never considered an alternate route to the one that is presented today.
The portion of the route between CR 18 & CR11 dissects 600+ homes in three neighborhoods. It affects
1000+people. The route was chosen based on the cost by the Town of Frederick. Missing the one mile of
road on CR 11 would miss the majority of homes. CR 13 is a better alternative due to the fact no homes are
affected. Some studies have shown an increase in disease in children who live under power lines. If the
power lines are in existence then the homeowner has a choice rather than it be placed there after. The
property value will decrease 17% according to a study done by Boulder County. The Godding Hollow was
discounted due to it being a floodplain but the Town of Frederick rezoned the area to residential with Melody
Homes being proposed. Why can homes be built in an area but not power poles?
Curtis August, neighbor on the north side of Lakeview Property,stated concerns. They have been involved
with the forums since the beginning. The preferred route was decided upon as of last year. A letter was
received in September indicating a new route to the north side of the lake. If the route was going to change
then public meetings would need to be held again with the a newly affected property owners. There are
actually more ditches on the north side of the property that will need to be cleaned.
Doris Pavlick, representative for Lakview Village, stated concerns. There are concerns with the cleaning
of the ditches on the south side that feeds the lake. A large track hoe is used to clean the ditch. Scheduling
is attempted but not always the case, a two week notice that Tri State is requesting is not feasible. There
has been nothing negotiated with regard to the cleaning. The information that was handed out was reviewed.
The north route was suggested due to the fact that the homes were located 600-800 feet from the property
line. Photos were added to the exhibits showing where the lines would be located or can be located.
Lakeview suggested the route on the north because of the safety and convenience. The problem was
initiated due to the fact the substation is located in the middle of the section. The property on the northwest
side of the lake cannot be developed. In conclusion, Lakeview suggested the north route for several factors
and Tri State has indicated it will cost more and there is possible legal issues. Lakeview may concur legal
issues. Mr. Rohn asked if it was not perceivable to work out an agreement with Tri State for the
responsibility of the cleaning of the ditch. Ms.Pavlick indicated that dealing with a large corporation for such
a small issues is very difficult.
Page -8-
John Geils, President of Lakeview Village, stated concerns with property values and health issues. The
Town of Frederick never gave any indication of the proposed route. He was not aware of the line when the
lot in No Name was purchased. Mr. Geils feels that the location of the line should be in a position that does
not compromise any homes because of the safety and health issues.
Jim Nock, Lakeview Village owner, stated concerns with his lot and building envelopes for his home. The
line renders it extremely difficult to build. The interest in the route to the north is not to push problems off
on anyone else but the location would be more fair. Tri State needs to alter the policy on burying lines. By
not burying lines it pushes the burden onto immediate homeowners.
Heather August, neighbor on the north of Lakeview Village, has concerns with the new proposal of the line
to the north. The information is new and there has been no meetings addressing the possibility. The land
to the west of the Lakeview property was annexed into the Town of Firestone with a proposal of 300
additional homes. The line should have been disclosed to the buyers of the homes.
Ted Stoner,Lakeview Village,indicated that Lakeview originated 15 years ago. The time,money and energy
has been invested into the dream of Lakeview Village. This is now being threatened by the canal
maintenance, lines and the visual aspect.
The Chair closed public portion of the hearing.
Mark Murray, applicant, addressed concerns brought up by neighbors. The height of line is set in the
National Safety Code for clearances for electrocution to allow traffic under the line. There have been
discussions with Lakeview with no agreement regarding to compensation. There has been talk of an
agreement for Tri State to do rip rap in the canal. Tri State would offer to schedule the annual cleaning and
work out a financial contribution to them. The permitting began two years ago and the longer it takes to
begin construction the more subdivisions will be in process.
Fred Walker asked about the power line to back of Mr. Charles house being 70 feet. Mr. Murray stated the
survey has not been done. There is 75 feet of right of way extending north and the line will be placed in
there. Mr. Walker indicated that notice of two weeks for the ditch cannot be given, maintenance changes
on daily basis. Mr. Walker is concerned about closeness of line to the four homes in area. Mr. Murray
indicated that the two week notice is a standard and guideline for Western Systems Coordinating Council
that Tri State has to operate under. They set the guidelines and the scheduling of parameters that can be
worked around. Mr. Rohn questioned the dredging fo the creek and if Tri State was willing to organize and
will it be near the fees currently paid. Tri State is willing to work out an agreement with Lakeview Village
to dredge the canal. Mr. Miller asked if the right of way is on Lakeview property. Mr. Murray indicated it is
and compensation will be made for the right of way on the basis of an market analysis. Mr. Morrison added
the amount of compensation is outside the Planning Commission authority. The more difficult situation is
for those not losing land and are not entitled to claim demonition of value at least in a straight condemnation
action. Mr. Rohn asked what the health risk associated with having the lake so close to the power lines. Mr.
Murray indicated those issues were addressed in the design phase. Mr.Miller indicated that there are limited
areas to build projects. The majority of this route is suitable but the area of concern is around the Lakeview
area. This section of the route is not the least imposing route. There is a way around it. Mr. Rohn indicated
that Lakeview Village was there first and this deserves a little more consideration and an alternative route
could be chosen. Mr. Walker indicated that he does not like the route but the vote will be for the preferred
route that was submitted. The application is incomplete due to the mitigation of issues with the surrounding
owners. Mr. Miller stated that the imposition on the property line for the four homes was of great concern.
Mr. Folsom does not agree with the way the preferred route was selected. Some of the other alternatives
seem to be economically more feasible. The selected lines affects existing properties that total in the
thousands. Mr. Folsom prefers a commercial and industrial areas. Mr. Mokray commented that Tri State
has not done a good job in satisfying the surrounding neighbors. Tri State is looking at the cost and not the
bottom line of people having to live and look at this. Mr. Rohn commented that the burying of the lines would
be the best alternative. Tri State could come up with an additional fee on the bills so the users would be
beneficial and responsible.
Michael Miller asked if there were attached Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Ogle
Page -9-
indicated that there are. Staff would like to make an amendment to development standard #14#15. They
are the same so staff is asking to strike#14 and renumber.
James Rohn moved to strike#14. Stephan Mokray Seconded. Motion carried
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1392, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of denial. James Rohn 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;Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Fred Walker commented that he does acknowledge that power does need to be brought to the area.
Dialogue needs to continue between the Tri State and the owners in the area.
James Rohn commented that a better route could have been chosen or this application amended.
John Folsom commented he does not feel that the method Tri State used for determination of the proposed
route was sufficient and applicable.
Stephan Mokray commented that some of the issues needed to be resolved prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting.
Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -10-
Hello