The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About870589.tiff RESOLUTION RE : APPROVE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A RADIO TRANSMITTER TOWER - SUCKLA FARMS , INC. WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 8th day of July, 1987 , at the hour of 2: 00 p.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Suckle Farms , 4468 Weld County Road 19 , Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 , for a Use by Special Review for a radio transmitter tower on the following described real estate, to-wit: Part of the NW} , Section 33 , Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS , said applicant was represented by Tom Hellerich, Attorney, and WHEREAS, Section 24 .4 .2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review, and WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons: 1 . The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 24 .7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance . 2 . It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24 . 4 . 2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows : a. The proposed use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 870589 Page 2 RE: USR - SUCKLA FARMS b. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural Zone District and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. c . The use permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and with future development of surrounding areas as permitted by the Agricultural Zone District. d. The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. e. The Use by Special Review Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application for a Use by Special Review for a radio transmitter tower on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is , granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . The attached Development Stndards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat . 2 . The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services Office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Colorado Balloon Club shall be relocated. Should the relocation site be within Weld County, a Use by Special Review permit needs to be approved. 4 . An Intermodulation and Signal Saturation Study shall be submitted within thirty days from the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners to the Weld County Information Services Agency for review and approval. 870589 Page 3 IRE: USR - SUCKLA FARMS The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 8th day of July, A.D. , 1987 . �/�a� � -BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ni WELD COUN OLO O Weld County C erk and Recorder (AYE) and Clerk to the Board Got . L cy, irman (AYE) TY: C. Kir y, Pr -•Tem Da 'ugk,eontp (AYE) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (AYE) ue • a John n County Attorney (NAY) Frank Yamaguchi 8'70589 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Suckla Farms , Incorporated (Surrey Broadcasting Company) USR-776 :86 :57 1 . The Use by Special Review permit is for an 1 ,190 foot high radio transmission tower and equipment building as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of -Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. 2 . Within five working days after the construction of the tower is completed, it shall be marked and lighted to meet the Federal Aviation Administrations ' identification requirements . S . a complete intermodulation and signal saturation study shall be performed and submitted to the Weld County Information Services Agency for review and approval. A copy of this study, approved by the Weld County Information Services, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 4 . Any future frequencies transmitting from the tower shall require -an intermodulation and signal saturation study to be approved by the Weld County Information Service Agency. Future studies shall be approved prior to the addition of the frequency operating from the tower. 5 . Any harmful interference caused by an frequencies tranmitted from the tower shall be corrected by the applicant at the applicant' s expense. 6 . The applicant shall provide space on the tower and in the equipment building for an antenna and -equipment to mitigate any loss of transmission capability in the -existing public safety radio network. The space shall be provided at no cost to the public safety agencies. 7 . All construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance . 8 . The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24 .5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance . 870-589 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SUCKLA FARMS 9 . The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24 . 6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 10 . Personnel from the Weld County Department of Planning Services and Weld County Information Services Agency shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 11 . The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown herein and -governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Any material deviations from the plans or Standards -as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the permit by the weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners _before -such changes from the plans or Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the -Department of Planning Services. 12 . The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards . Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the permit by the Board of County Commissioners . 870589 HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 87-26 RE: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A 1,250 FOOT HIGH RADIO TRANSMITTER TOWER - SUCKLA FARMS A public hearing was conducted on July 8, 1987, at 2:00 P.M. , with the following present: Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Pro-Tem Commissioner Gene Brantner Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Tommie Antuna Assistant County Attorney, Lee D. Morrison Planning Department representative, Keith Schuett She following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 13, 1987, and duly published May 21, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Suckla Farms, Inc. for a Use by Special Review for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record, saying it was continued from June 3. (Let the record reflect that during this hearing the Board accepted, and Mr. Morrison marked into the record, Exhibits K through AA.) Keith Schuett, representing the Department of Planning Services, read the recommendation for denial from the Planning Commission into the record. Mr. Schuett said the Planning staff recommendation was for approval of this request. Tom Hellerich, Attorney representing the applicant, came forward to make his presentation and said that they wish to amend the original request to change the height of the tower from 1,250 feet to 1, 190 feet. Mr. Hellerich made his presentation, saying that one of the concerns voiced at the Planning Commission was the landing field for the Colorado Balloon Club, which is near the proposed tower. He said arrangements have been made with the Club and an alternate landing field will be provided. Paul Montoya, Corporate Director of Engineering for Surrey Broadcasting Company, explained why this site was chosen for the tower and also how the tower is to be erected. He said strobe lights will be used on the tower and they will have minimal impact on the residents because a louver system will be utilized, meaning that the lights can be seen by aircraft, but not by the residents. Mr. Montoya said approximately one acre of the property will be used for the tower, with the facility being fenced, and the rest will remain as agricultural, which Mr. Suckla will be allowed to farm. Michael Wiebe, Engineer for Surrey Broadcasting, addressed concerns about radiation and interference. He said only the antenna, 1,190 feet above ground, will radiate energy; therefore, radiation is not a hazard. Mr. Wiebe said the probability of interference is low and, if it does occur, Surrey Broadcasting will be responsible for correcting it. Greg Zadel, realtor, made comments concerning this proposal and why this site was chosen. Mr. Zadel also explained the video tape which was shown to the Board at this time. (TAPE CHANGE #87-48) Frank Suckla, owner of the property, came forward to make comments. Those persons in the audience who came forward to voice opposition to this request were: John McGinn, representing the Town of Frederick; Diana Evans; Harold Roberts; Betty Pohlman; Kevin Pohlman; Robert Martin; Ed Jeffres; Iva Renner; Michael Molek; and Diana Spurling. Mr. Pohlman stated that he was concerned about of the proximity of the tower to his landing strip. He said he was granted a Recorded Exemption from the County Commissioners and the Tri-Area Planning Commission approved his landing strip for a plane which he is building. Mr. Schuett said that a landing strip was not included in Recorded Exemption #947 for Mr. Pohlman, / 1_ I1 '' Page 2 RE: C-ERTIFICATION - USR, SUCKLA FARMS, INC. stating that the landing strip must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion followed concerning the Recorded Exemption which was granted Mr. Pohlman. Mr. Schuett then explained the difference between a Recorded Exemption and a Use by Special Review. Mr. Jeffres made a presentation using an over-head projector. Following comments by opponents and the presentation by Mr. Jeffres, rebuttal statements were made by Mr. Wiebe and Mr. Montoya. (TAPE CHANGE #87-49) Larry Celsey, Chief Engineer of KYOU Radio Station, and Dennis Lamming, General Manager of KYOU, made _comments concerning interference. Mr. Hellerich presented his summation, asking that the Board grant this request for a Use by Special Review. Following discussion, Commissioner Brantner moved to approve the Use by -Special Review for Suckle Farms, Inc. , citing the criteria for approval of a USR. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, explaining her reasons for doing so. Comments were made by Commissioners Kirby and Lacy. Commissioner Brantner said he would amend his motion to include the Planning staff's recommendation for approval, which is subject to 4 Conditions and 12 Development Standards, and changing Development Standard #1 to state that the permit is far a 1,190 foot high radio transmitter tower rather than a 1,250 foot high tower. Commissioner Johnson, as the seconder, agreed to the amendment. The motion, as amended, carried with Commissioners Brantner, Johnson, Kirby and Lacy voting aye, and Commissioner Yamaguchi voting nay. This Certification was approved on the 13th day of July, 1987. APPROVED: f-- • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 'i�,t9Lwvt�4AJ148t&s�J WELD CO NTY COLORADO Weld County Cl k and Recorder and Clerk to the Bo Gor . La , airman Depu County,a erk C.W.� K� Pro-T Si/ K, IgnieS0 Gene R. -Brantner -EX SED TE OF SICNG ue Frank Yamaguchi TAPE #87-47, #87-48, & #87-49 DOCKET #87-26 PLO130 ATTENDANCE RECORD PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the name of the applicant or Docket # for the hearing you ar-c attending. TODAY'S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: July 8, 1987 DOCKET # 87-26 USR 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower, Suckla Farms, Inc. DOCKET # DOCKET # NAME ADDRESS HEAPING ATTFNDING °1 i�*, fr I P.e� 't, -'Re! l7- 77c 7 •—#f L f�;nn 7;,:tc i 'sec Fi r Li)Pm I'd g /0-77:::27,4://e/tn- 6?Ay)A.)4 m -/r7r, 3?3 ,S?// �.0_ 1/¢ -‘ i' / (b/d, /a it70) Si: i ol-and cy- ( able-41 r ' cl;I a A. k.�. 1 1i_.l 4 bit X 0 9 , s[ LQ [Lf[Like ?UoJ I ,,ti�._ ,,� -j,,At,,, e,� °1O 7 Ed ; c( t f,p ti-i, Lin C 6 C-3; /. .ii,, ,=-- ___17,49,---,,, is�?-'1'!t-T�C� 'A Is% /, r) ?(- � ru.i✓ - l✓ r'la 7,a Llitie/2 ri /, ` em u ft, Yr)6 > / 010e 7ZL t led ax . 1. 7 > &lir %h 41 anc 7. ems) gt-(2 n2 / ✓E �rl�.fie 2 7$7 Ar e,e / Y/1/��9C! a.e 49.'1,4.6-e/ : � { c 0..¢ 74-64. .2,'S3 tak-207f CW-I , fciA:ckytt lA-. 905.'20 I rF � 2u� cczrs n63i i✓, Cs, iZo = ti 1S F-hra i 1UF7D,v . C'O . .5'06:1 1 li, -i ClS _ /y , r it l w ,7---Ai'.,2.,A ,i. 7s2,?-7 d, ( . ,ftIAi7 /7 /t 7-,, r-7 , s P% �/e / /6 :i rra2.0 inE.f ,A,,),;4,re� (l m 42 ifn!9, ft,-) - / /Oil/ rl�/"'/ )n .Cri inw �. /112_,,,J/112_,,,J � /A,,r.1, -4 A--.7., (lair ...(0.t�� X 5/ ,e1 fr e ,, /'` ✓ r�l , 2 (9A,/ ,,x2„.: 'G / a7f�f ,,> 'i [,/ 7z) 1) 7y A ` C/ ,� 1. 1...,./-1,-' r 4/ C �q 74R u'6 Via/ /6/ 1, ,_0,4 .-, , etie; c-2)62 .2J l/' s2-,,ti42r7 , Xta,, � - ,,,/QM. /Iii Jlrtr, Z4c c,c g D A �, 870589 ATTENDANCE R E C O RTC PLEASE write Dr print legibly your name, address and the name of the applicant or Docket # for the hearing you are attending. TODAY'-S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: DOCKET # DOCKET # DOCKET # TAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING ,� >771 / 2JrQ y17ai', ) Qa�.I (4._l✓at is e u�_ciVC Y y r ° `emu 'eti—. , /g �,x: ,'arm . 1 & V #141-e -ICIce--JJ�y , . --Zee- - _ �.� ['OE/ e� rr zz- (i9.,-a eAvn, E 44A- iP-e. r/11 f, t 11) - t'6 3 ,3 n i O ( / 44, ,� ' !ta_C�c2,, • aGi,1 / /L/!.</ 1 C6$ 2,LZL A/ 2.- ee ten.VC1£4' . �-I) S Ip l/ Tir-u--“P_.0 7 ,,,� w IS i/ o ' 1 " 1 '003-1-4,1&G 9,12 z,LIdiPre:, 7vs30gle,, ,�� C _ -i,L u., - c-- ---,n7 -,--Z' r d.A-2.G<: 771- 4, e e.tc t etc, tic, a 3 O -e- -R2 t :irAli"n (1r o?,:14 / ,"®r4 7a 4 -S. Pk],pkni 1 &14. Yea / /17,,I/O T'u t- ',`'�( � oc& del N ALtS )r•( o Co / Da , ee24, 7-i«.e.[- L.,-2. / Jfaf.,✓2ale, -,.ji1vPii Co. SDI i4- --Wzi_a flJeu :"- / ✓tY q 441yn</ Cal /LKJ /d 1-. /�✓I-sae.« pY"e�L dd-- Cam+ . ,-Pr,-,,"r2; - (1;9-r-ca_(/ 1 e•, '4C, ja:�J1 i!of trp.,r/.�� ,,r.tOW�.,v ia. ,,,,,e') Cd /O 8'174 4 1.41 ,. iX in-e,,, -, p,_.t Ga/ IlA a / G 0 y�Z a n A-f-"A.c� CL �'O -3c, 2a t. n...<, (..2:1:7 " "1 . kite,-) it!`to 16;- 5d.Ii (o'3 GL2& C"/>'.;14 to,,,/ or 99'Co,✓J/ _'u(4. 1/6 ,4 �) Ac i o 1/4"1„,._47,,- 17.---)- � .C�ci-r CZ° �' tzkl -t /et'yyJ./4 rSYG Gr f4 �C—. .15 S'o (7 /0li 'iii-lx$ l4�J. aillfovt Srtirr &pt?t ei!o :)d7 d« ble /(lug ��7t FS . vs) "•,. f 1(ahl5� SIC P. lc Ftkf& PULJ 4 0 I. i le Poox.I Y ILIA? PApio /-cC. k'tsf1_0 M 6k' / r( . JA UA/13ir(/+hJK )90/-15-" 3T 4130 Dee()vice , 'ko±zc2 . ` }y ' K.-14W, Ai/ 0601 , i A/e#lam I%/)6> 7 1-yo ,�JRJ � ✓� mrhje/e � rS „",.., p-._t�.,� /43 Mac- of -(' r to 870589 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Case NumberUSE-776:86:67 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing at Hearing 1. Application 32 Pages X 2. One Application plat of one page(s) X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendations date April 21, 1987. X 5. DPS Surrounding Property Owner's Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List X 7. Three DPS Maps Prepared by the Planning X Technician 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS -Case File Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11. Memorandum dated April 21, 1987, from Chuck X Cunliffe, Director DPS, to Case File. 12. A letter dated April 15, 1987, from Richard X Payne, Vice President/Chief Operating Officer for Surrey Broadcasting Company, and H.C. Van Schaack, President, Colorado Balloon Club, to Mr. Ted Melland, FAA - Northwestern Mountain Region. 13. March 17, 1987, DPS Staff recommendation for X continueance. 14. A letter dated March 2, 1987, from Paul X Montoya, Surrey Broadcasting to DPS. 15. A letter dated February 26, 1987, from Paul X Montoya, Surrey Broadcasting to DES. 16. A letter dated March 3, 1987, from Samuel Cook X and Esther Cook to DPS. 17. A letter dated March 6, 1987, from Robert P. X Martin to DPS. 18. A letter dated February 24, 1987, from Steve X Shores, owner of Sam's Superfoods to DPS. 19. March 3, 1987, DPS Staff recommendation for X continuance. 20. Letter dated January 31, 1987, from Gayle D. X Grahm to DPS. 21. Letter dated February 2, 1987, from Floyd A. X Larkin, Mayor of the Town of Frederick to DPS. 22. Letter dated February 3, 1987, from Debora G. X Bohe to DPS. 23. Resolution from the Town of Firestone approved X January 22, 1987. 870589 A A/ii,, Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing at Hearing 24. Letter dated February 10, 1987, from Kenneth X Onorato to DPS. 25. Letter dated February 16, 1987, from Bud and X Joyce Hunziker to WCPC. 26. Letter dated February 16, 1987, from Morian Evans X to WCPC. 27. Letter dated February 19, 1987, from Larry and X Kim Kichmeir to WCPC. 28. Letter dated February 17, 1987, from Ruby L. and X Alan D. Dieckman to DPS. 29. Letter dated February 20, 1987, from H.C. Van X Schaach, III, President, Colorado Balloon Club to WCPC. 30. Letter dated February 25, 1987, from Betty J. X Goetzinger to WCPC. 31. Staff recommendation dated -February 3, 1987, for X continuance. 32. Letter dated January 30, 1987, -from Evelyn Yurk X to DPS. 33. Letter dated January 28, 1987, from Gilbert and X Diana L. Evans to DPS. 34. Letter dated January 29, 1987, from Lois C. Farr X to DPS. 35. Letter dated January 29, 1987, from Ernest L. and X Helen Craig to DPS. 36. Letter date January 30, 1987, from Edward W. and X Roberta Swanberg to DPS. 37. Letter dated January 29, 1987, June S. Dailey to X DPS. 38. Letter dated January 27, 1987, from Mr. and Mrs. X Edgar H. Trow to DPS. 39. Letter dated January 29, 1987, from Thomas E. X Sparling to DPS. 40. Letter dated January 29, 1987, from Robert P. X Martin to DPS. 41 Letter dated January 21, 1987 from Rebecca E. X Marker, Tri-Area Planning Commission 42. Letter dated January 8, 1987 from Bill D. X Dunlap, Mayor, Town of Firestone to Tri-Area Planning Commission. 43. Letter dated January 23, 1987 from Robert H. X Rhinesmith, Director, Weld County Information Services Agency to Planning Commission. 44. Letter received January 15, 1987 from Barbara X Johnson, Airport Planner, Federal Aviation 870589Association to Department of Planning Services. 45. Map showing the location of houses around the tower site. X Submitted or Prepared Prior to Hearing at Hearing 46. Map showing the general area of the tower site X in yellow. 47. A packet of 33 pages titled "South Weld County X Citizens Protest to USR for Broadcasting tower installation and operation. 48. Letter dated April 21, 1987 from Martin Hill, X Jr. , President-Elect, Colorado Balloon Club to Planning Commission. 49. Letter dated April 21, 1987 from John McGinn, X Town Manager, Town of Frederick, to Planning Commission. 50. Letter and map dated March 16, 1987 from H.C. X Van Schaack III, President, Colorado Balloon Club to Mr. Ted Melland, F.A.A. Northwest Mountain Region. 51. An 11 page report from Ellis & Wiebe, P.C. X 1010 South Joliet, Suite 204 The following 7 items were distributed to the Planning Commission members after the March 17, 1987 Planning Commission meeting by surrounding property owners in opposition. 52. A packet of 34 pages of materials X 53. A packet of 21 pages of materials 54. Minutes of the Boulder County Commissioners X (27 pages) dated "December 9, 1986 55. A packet of 12 pages from the U.S. Department X of Transportaion, Federal Aviation Administration. 56. A packet of 21 pages from John Hart X 57. A letter dated March 18, 1987 from Kevin Pohlman X to the Department of Planning Services. 58. Letter dated March 13, 1987 from David Atherton, X Director, Boulder Regional Communities Center. 59. Letter dated March 10, 1987 from Betty & Bob X Pohlman to the Planning Commission. 60. Resolution dated Januayr 22, 1987 from the Town X of Firestone. 61. A "Special Report" dated October 27, 1986. X 62. A copy of the Federal Communication Commissions X rules Part 73. 63. Letter dated March 6, 1985 from Jim Wilson, X President, L.E. Blanc & Dick Communication, Inc. to Ronald B. Peters, Vice President, Satellite Communications Corporation. 64. A petition containing signature of people in X opposition to this request. 65. A packet of 36 pages of letters, maps, and X related data. 870589 66. Letter dated January 31, 1987 from Gayle D. X Graham to the Planning Commission. 67. Letter dated February 3, 1987 from Debora G. X Bohe to the Department of Planning Services. I hereby certify that the 67 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these itms were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on April 24, 987.et a Currents4,,,,,- e STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THISZ1day of 19'87 SEAL €o1,.s.,..�o. Qeac\ NO Y PUBLIC My Commission Expires My Commission Expires Feb. 13, 1989 870589 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case t/iSP- C(G U�GdiCv a1/K k Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description 41. rrcy 'PKSrn767 ; re Q %. 2<ait tr - Pl ofos S �. �� r G i nv, 'Th nll9 qr F"(t-Cftcl di rtt✓ ?/, V \ MO.11 J<l1-T vvi r h 7o IT i etv(.G 604 dfi /" '( TIC( Re S / ` / f( f V f• �{ `r jDYlC l� l 1461 -t!(Ib'f- $ ,� fire V Y(9/7-"s / jii 1VG ✓GEhv� vf 11{/- tilr(4 Vigo cm- iftki YI Y1 A /1a 24 r1� $47 -4a4 ) pi. s;ores EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case ,'/.S-1,7 if�yy//��GAG 27_2(Z/2,yr/J Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description 4 Siztezrt� t�C '� • /2 2:15:1:17-0-1/ � 1 4?1,0,Ze 07/44,0nZar-,a/t7TI/ D. 27/4.:'11L4/mat=e.e' .1;LgLoi .CfrAitO a'71/7 ///,�� l��//7 -yam/ V---Zen'7' l/ 7 CV H. �D72'i %/../22,0"../ ,refee21/1" ?<eeT 7v 47 1 J. .<fi o-f� ` ` 4/Pad - OedeSii Willi K. P100 n� a L� �� L. M. 1/D/l�-� I U4 c k YCP,n9 P7I D N. V1 44,P . I J1/i.vu- C ktAdu pc .( ✓e 0- ?CLIC; V/(4H knap 870589 mEmORAMUM To Date Board July 8 , 1987 COLORADO From Clerk to Board' s Office subject. USR - Suckla Farms We have received phone calls from the following persons who are opposed to the above-mentioned USR: Jean Richardson - Dacono Blanche Burns - 118 Walnut Drive, Frederick Marguerite Leahy -. 347 6th Street, Frederick 870589 ti .,,.s .Dacono �1rwa Firs sroteciion Dis riot ; , ; io. July, 3, 1987 1ktn .< Mil f? *,,,,l, Mr. Gordon Lacy, Chairman r ; Weld County Commissioners g4' -'. 1 ' 915 10th Street '� 11UL 81997 ' i Greeley, Colorado 80631 ,. 1 Commissioner Lacy; sEeLev, COW. Reference the Radio and Communications Tower being planned and presented to the County Commissioners Wednesday July 8, 1987 at 2:00 PM, and planned for construction on the Frank Suckla Property north east of Dacono, Colorado, I submit the following: The fire district has the feeling that we do not protest this tower or the use of the land, provided all building and zoning requirements are complied with. This property is not within our jurisdiction, but is within about 1 mile of our fire station and between our operations area and the Weld County Communications center. I feel the greatest input on this tower should come from the Weld County Communications and the personnel who engineer their system, and the Federal Aviation Adm- inistration to insure no emergency communications interference and no flight pattern interference. There seems to be a great deal of concern in the area over the tower, however these towers have existed in every city I have ever served in, and with proper planning and co-operation between the tower owners and existing authorities, no major problems were encountered. I feel the recent issue in Boulder County may serve to show that the interference problems can be eliminated, and should also show that good solid agreements should be made in the approval of such ventures. The Dacono Fire District files no protest, and leaves the negotiations of proper agreements and approval or dis-approval to the knowledge of the Weld County Commissioners and your staff of research personnel. :e: .ectF Y / i Gv. / /Jos-ph W. Fuss District Fire Chief Dacono Fire District Dacono, Colorado 80514 P_gt_fq).-C\QM-* • DACONO, COLORADO C0514 Lit_ p$ 1987. Lif0 89 Noll en Phnom Ommissim DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES RECORDED EXEMPTION ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Applicant: Robert and Betty L. Pohlman Case No: RE-947 Legal Description: Part of the SW} of Section 29, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Larger Lot Size: 31 acres Small Lot Size: 2.4 acres Criteria Check List Meets Criteria Yes No X 1. Consistent with the intent of the zone district. X 2. Compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. X 3. Compatible with the future development of the surrounding area. X 4. Complies with Overlay District Regulations. X 5. Complies with minimum lot size requirement. X 6. Complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. X 7. Consistent with efficient and orderly development. X 8. Lots accessible from an existing public road. X 9. Adequate water supply. X 10. Adequate sewage disposal in compliance with requirements of the Weld County Health Department. X 11. Lots are not part of a recorded exemption approved within less than five (5) years previous, are not part of a subdivision, or are not part of a Minor Subdivision. X 12. Does not evade the Weld County Subdivision Regulations requirements and Statement of Purposes. APPROVED Recorded Exemption is approved in accordance with information submitted in the application and the policies of the County. The Department of Planning Services has determined through its review that the standards of Section 9-2 E. (1) (a) through (m) of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations have been met. The applicant shall submit a mylar plat to the Department of Planning Services to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 9-2 C. (4) of the Weld county Subdivision Regulations. The plat shall be submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of approval by the Department of Planning Services. By 7)7777-1/(2HerS �G/� Date �j/73/ 870589 Date: April 21, 1987 CASE NUMBER: USR-776:86:67 NAME: Suckla Farms, Incorporated (Surrey Broadcasting Company) ADDRESS: 4468 Weld County Road 19, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a 1250' radio transmission tower and equipment building. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately } mile east of Frederick. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with application requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: - The proposed use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Boundary Goals and Policies in that: a. The proposed use is located in the Urban Growth Boundary areas of existing municipalities. b. The adjacent municipalities do not consent to annex the property. c. The proposal does not constitute leapfrog development. d. The development is compatibile with the Comprehensive Plan's transportation and public facilities and services goals and policies because it will not impact or require additional public facilities and services. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Agricultural District and is provided for as a Use by Special Review. 870589 Suckla Farms, Incorporated USR-776:86:67 Page 2 - The use permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and with future development of surrounding areas as permitted by the Agricultural Zone district. - The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. - The FAA has completed its airspace study and determined that no hazard to air navigation exists provided the Colorado Balloon Club relocates. - The Use by Special Review Development Standards will provide adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application submitted by the Applicant, other relevant information regarding the request and the responses of the referral entities which have reviewed this request. The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. 2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Colorado Balloon club shall be relocated. Should the relocation site be within Weld County, a Use by Special Review permit would need to be approved. 4. An Intermodulation and Signal Saturation Study shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners to the Weld County Information Services Agency for review and approval. 870589 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Suckla Farms, Incorporated (Surrey Broadcasting Company) USR-776:86:57 1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 1,250 foot high radio transmission tower -and equipment building as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. 2. Within five (5) working days after the construction of the tower is completed it shall be marked and lighted to meet the Federal Aviation Administration's identification requirements. 3. A complete intermodulation and signal saturation study shall be performed and submitted to the Weld County Information Services Agency for review and approval. A copy of this study approved by the Weld County Information Services shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. • 4. Any future frequencies transmitting from the tower shall require a intermodulation and signal saturation study to be approved by the Weld County Information Service Agency. Future studies shall be approved prior to the addition of the frequency operating from the tower. 5. Any harmful interference caused by any frequencies transmitted from the tower shall be corrected by the applicant at the applicant's expense. 6. The applicant shall provide space on the tower and in the equipment building for an antenna and equipment to mitigate any loss of transmission capability in the existing public safety radio network. The space shall be provided at no cost to the public safety agencies. 7. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 8. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 9. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 870589 Development Standards Suckla Farms, Inc. Page 2 10. Personnel from the Weld County Department of Planning Services and Weld County Information Services Agency shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. 11. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans or Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 12. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 870589 A :t TRI-AREA PLANNING COMMISSION P.O. BOX 363 FREDERICK, COLORADO 80530 July 7 , 1987 Mr. Gordon Lacy Chairman and Weld County Commissioners P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Chairman and Commissioners: The Tri-Area Planning Commission (TAPC) felt it necessary to once again vent our disapproval of the decision of the Weld County Commissioners to grant approval of the Hamilton Farms application for a recorded exemption. We ask that this letter be read at your next meeting and the letter and all enclosures be made part of the record. We feel we have throughly discussed this issue and the facts presented by both sides show this operation is not in the best interest of the Tri-Area. Enclosed are minutes taken on two occasions and given the facts we denied on both occasions. We regret that our Weld County Commissioners have once again failed to listen to a body who volunteers their time once a month to listen to all applicants for various needs and to concerned citizens who take the time to research and get facts to present at these meetings , not only at the TAPC meetings , but at the County Commissioners meetings. People who are concerned about the community they live in. At a special meeting held on June 10, the TAPC passed a motion to request that the Weld County Commissioners reinforce the recommendation that Hamilton Farms adhere to the proposed and the in effect Comprehensive Plan setforth by Weld County. Hamilton Farms is in violation. The TAPC would also like to comment on the upcoming meeting on July 8, at which time the tower issue will once again be discussed. We have no idea whether this application will be denied or approved, but again this issue in not for the best of the community. I enclose minutes taken on two occasions and as you will see all the facts presented lead this Commission to deny application. We have here an issue which has been strongly opposed to from not only the TAPC, but the City of Dacono, the Towns of Frederick and Firestone and quite a large number of home owners in the area of the proposed tower who have made their presentations against this issue numerous times. } Gordon Lacy Chairman and Weld County Commissioners July 7 , 1987 Page 2 We, as a Planning Commission and concerned party ask, how can you approve such issues when all the negative points outweigh the positive? Are you representing the best interests of the community or the best interest of the Weld County Commissioners? What do you have to gain, when voluntary bodies send in their recommendations for denial and you approve? Is this our purpose, to take the time to listen to these issues and make a decision to the best of our ability to not be heard repeatedly by those who make the final decision? We ask that you:reconsider these issues, look at all the facts and make a concrete and justifiable decision. Thank ou, Dean Mircos Chairman Tri-Area Planning Commission DM:rm q Enclosures ($) July 6, 1987 LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN THE COLORADO BALLOON CLUB AND SURREY BROADCASTING The Colorado Balloon Club, a Colorado non-profit corporation, currently launching from the area known as the Frederick Airstrip, has expressed an interest in using a site to be leased by SurCo of Northern Colorado (Surrey) as an alternate balloon launch site. The need for an alternate site is due to the requirement of Surrey to construct a broadcast transmission tower for radio station KYOU approximately three(3) miles southeast of the present Frederick Airstrip. Due to the possibility of wind currents taking hot-air balloons launching from the Frederick Airstrip site toward the proposed broadcast transmission tower, this alternate site is required. The alternate site is approximately 550 feet by 550 feet (6. 945 acres) located in the northwest corner of the south half of Section 10, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of Weld County, Colorado. Surrey' s intention is to lease the property from Sukla Farms, Inc. for a term of not less than ten(l0) years. Surrey would agree to allow the Colorado Balloon Club to utilize this property for hot-air balloon launch activities for this period at no cost to the Colorado Balloon Club. The Colorado Balloon Club and Surrey each agree to use this property for no other purpose except hot-air balloon launch activity without the consent of both parties. At the time all conditions of this letter are met, it is agreed that Surrey will apply with Weld County for a Special Use Permit to allow balloon operations from this site. This letter of intent is conditioned on the satifactory consumation by Surrey of a purchase Agreement to acquire the proposed broadcast transmission tower site, and Weld County approval . SURREY BROADCASTING COMPANY Accepted: SURCO OF NORTHERN COLORADO, INC. COLORADO BALLOON CLUB BY n 2 / L w By tJ tg r„ ca tL� L Jyte t Ni ols H. C. Van Schaak Yesi ent President Date: 770 •t♦ e IV t ' , j,_..•mc' / } 1 - I ..,:,- •;;;,,,, •- •r , � F y t• 2r.:x: tf /'.: .� 'A j N a P A 0 N A P p p N N N N. A OD j • . k - B 0 U LI L D E R -+ • • • \ z ro U C 0 3 N T Y ��} _ I DraTircomg. ..: ••na, T. V_ _ __„ ,.... �i _I `Nt 11 sia . e ` io N. r ! IS in ziN -: 2,3 En LII; ' I Slit" .. •"s'H •i I f-i.gF, v �'�p,N r - nG9 ;-xo ' 0 �i i i •a.n ': ce �i ! d PI m 1 i SJ• ,t • i o xr ns nn L` 1 \\ IN.J,_ „"S ` ou/ I -03.NW intr-o-444,64.,,,,,.._.. Eratc, i.,,,, ,,, . il�(,• 10 i�•,c or sin J - •e • i• tlit ing WIN _ ,,k 0) : i '4 ne El i o s. ).,. .rn - - .9'� Imo• _t i tei:ANI< I .I •.• , . . N 7S-`�'se � I , 1 � 1 a pI RP 1 '�on Z' �o API V - ' - YYY - -- b 5 na_: :-.4.1-yr„ , _ . _ __ __ __ __Jr. ,-..,_ . MI lia : I I . , •, .. 1. 'MIS .,_, , .4<-, 47,0.,_, imp Ei , Na tit liaari :ersiii ,:adii ., ::,_,, , a i, . i ; e , tr .6. : - : ,^ t -ri-- ----:i14 - g '' " ovieleverisar .. :.. . . __ _. ., ___ _ , NMI. . ---_,__:_.,.. • •.,At lif..IINIWritilli-N ' nom. p ' ~�ti I^/q�N 'i 4 �e n- 1.' 'I I� 1.o I. - /•` 1 a��y I . ti '9 ,:,W.g.i D� P4L/iC�l I-�•�1• r�'eP/�,,,, .17 .-„'r. i`illl'N : IC ta 0 1,e._,U! , . • y m y I 11 _ u i� c y�gy 7 LeBlanc & Dick 14440 Cherry Lane Court, Suite 201, Laurel. MD. 20707 Communications Inc. (301)498-2200 TLX821569 March 6 , 1985 Ronald B. Peters , Vice President Director of Engineering Satellite Communications Corporation 10200 East Girard Avenue Building C, Suite 256 - Denver, Colorado 80231 Subject: Colorado Springs Tower Project Our File Q5-9-130 Dear Mr. Peters : We acknowledge and thank you for your letter of February 25 , 1985 requesting our opinion on tower collapses . Experience has shown that a guyed tower collapses within 50% of its height as a maximum and typically within of 40% of its height. When a tower begins to collapse,_assumrng one or more guys on one azimuth have failed-,= this will cause the tower to fall in the _ - direction of the guys that are still under tension. In this - process , the tower shaft buckles . It will then kick back towards the failed guy, gravity then takes over and the steel falls straight down. There are several examples of this type of collapse , and research would verify this conclusion . We trust that this information is helpful to you with your Planning Board. Very truly yours , XRIBil g Jim Wilson President MAR 171987 ti JW/je e '/�.;1�( Weld Co. Planning Commission cc: Mr. Carroll Cunningham "The Height of Technology" • 73.318 January 1, 1985 84-514 (Correction)* FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES - PART 73 73.318 -ERE6ERV-Ei3+ FM BLANKETING INTERFERENCE. Areas adjacent to the transmitting antenna that receive a signal with a strength of 115 dBu (562 mV/m) or greater will be assumed to be blanketed. In determing the blanketed area, the 115 dBu contour is determined by calculating the inverse distance field using the effective radiated power of the maximum radiated lobe of the antenna without considering its vertical radiation pattern or height. For directional antennas, the effective radiated power in the pertinent bearing shall be used. (a) The distance to the 115 dBu contour is determined using the following equation: *D (in kilometers = 0.394 rP *D (in miles) = 0.245 ✓P Where P is the maximum effective radiated power (ERP) , measured in kilowatts, of the maximum radiated lobe. (b) Permittees or licensees who commence program tests, replace their antennas, or request facilities modifications, and who are • ‘I issued a new Construction Permit on or after January 1, 1985, must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are • received by the station during a one year period. The period begins with the commencement of program tests, or commence- • ment of programming utilizing the new antenna. Resolution of complaints shall be at no cost to the complainant. These re- quirements specifically do not include interference complaints resulting from malfunctioning or mistuned receivers, improperly • installed antenna systems, or the use of high gain antennas or antenna booster amplifiers. Mobile receivers and non-RF devices such as tape recorders or hi-fi amplifers (phonographs) are also excluded. (c) A permitttee collocating with one or more existing stations and beginning program tests on or after January 1, 1985, must assume full financial responsibility for remedying new complaints of blanketing interference for a period of one year. Two or more permittees that concurrently collocate on or after January 1, .1985, shall assume shared responsibility for remedying blan- keting complaints within the blanketing area unless an offending station can be readily determined and then that station shall assume full financial responsibility. (d) Following the one year period of full financial obligation to satisfy blanketing complaints, licensees shall provide technical information or assistance to complainants on remedies for blanketing interference. FCC/73-135 - 274 - RULES SERVICE CO. COPYRIGHT, 1986 WASHINGTON, D.C. o E(�E VE MAR 17 1987 Weld Co. Planning Commission 1 i; • art Categorical Exclusion from RF Radiation Regulations The FCC's RF radiation regulations, adopted in Feb. 1985, apply to AM, FM and TV stations, experimental stations, LPTV and TV translators, and satellite uplink facilities. Deferred at that time was the categorical exclusion from these regulations of: land mobile equipment; microwave point-to-point transmitters; amateur radio, and low-powered broadcast equipment. A Report and Order to be released by the.FCC in November is expected to conclude that these facilities may not create opportunities for overexposure to RF energy and should be categorically excluded from consideration. This would include RPUs, STLs, and TV auxiliary facilities. RF Radiation Regs • FCC rules require broadcast stations to certify compliance with limits on human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation. The FCC has adopted RF energy safety limits as a protective measure for the general public and station workers. Developed by,the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), these exposure limits are expressed in terms of milliwatts-per-square-centimeter (mW/cm') averaged over any six-minute period. The FCC is required to take these steps in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, enacted by Congress in 1969. What Does a Station Have to Certify? First, determine whether your facility complies with regulatory limits (see below). Your station's certification should be a reply to the question on the license renewal or construction permit application: "Is Commission Grant of this Application a Major Action under Section 1.1305 of the FCC Rules?" If people are not exposed to RF fields in excess of the regulatory limits, this would be a "minor action" and no further FCC scrutiny of this aspect would take place. Conversely, if a station does expose people to RF fields in excess of the ANSI limits, this constitutes a "major action" which would require submission of a narrative statement concerning these facilities. The FCC then would weigh the pros and cons of the application, perhaps submit an Environmental Impact Statement and possibly require modification of proposed, or even existing, facilities. How Does a Station Assess Whether Its Operation Will Be in Compliance? Last year, the FCC published a Technical Bulletin to be used as a guide for station compliance with ANSI standards. The Bulletin contains a series of tables setting forth, for specific power levels, the distances from the antenna within which public access should be restricted. For most FM & TV stations, antenna height alone will be sufficient. For AM stations, public exclusion from station property is usually enough, even for a 50 kW station. FCC and EPA officials expect the vast majority of existing stations already to be in compliance. The tables presented below are derived from the FCC Technical Bulletin and provide an initial idea of where your station stands with respect to the new regulations. The tables list various ANSI "worst case" examples, in terms of power output and distance from the antenna. If, for example, at an indicated Effective Radiated - Power (ERP), an FM or TV antenna is higher above ground than the distance set forth in the table, the station's RF energy should be within ANSI limits. The FCC Technical Bulletin provides much more detailed tables, broken down in terms of number of antenna bays, distance above ground or within main beam, etc. What if My Station Does Not Comply with the Figures in the FCC's Tables? If the tables indicate there might be a problem, then a station may have to take some corrective action. However, you may be able to demonstrate compliance by more exact calculations. Corrective action could be as simple as fencing off an area around the,tower base. In some cases, compliance could require a change in antenna, or antenna height. In the most extreme cases, a change in transmitter location might be required. NAB has provided its members with a detailed primer on RF standard compliance which contains the FCC Technical Bulletin. Again, note we expect the vast majority of broadcast stations are in compliance. If you have any questions, contact Ralph Justus, NAB Science & Technology (202) 429-5346 or Barry Umansky, NAB Legal (202) 429-5430. DISTANCES TO ANSI EXPOSURE LIMITS AM Stations TV Stations FM Stations with Circular ANSI Limit = 100 mW/cm' ANSI Limits: Polarization VHF = 1 mW/cm' ANSI Limit = 1 mW/cm' ERP DISTANCE (ft) Ch. 14 = 1.58 mW/cm' 1 kW 10 Ch. 69 = 2.68 mW/cm' ERP DISTANCE (ft) 5 kW 10 kW 23 ERP DISTANCE (ft) 1 kW i. V 25 kW 30 VHF 100 kW 150 C^J,�u- an 316 kW 266 0 8, E NIB[1T Ch. 14 Ch. 69 N5500pk 1987 i,7 UHF 1000 kW 378 292 lvrr+�^ � I" r : 2000 kW 532 414 5000 k W 840 653 nmtgi�SlnD wlii Co.elmtning C October 27, 1986 3 kE D f ire i To IISR-776•R6.57 Cage File Date April 71 19P7 • COLORADO From Chuck Cunliffe Subject: FAA Referral Response Mr. Ted Melland, Seattle, Washington, FAA Office, telephoned at approximately 10:30 a.m. to say that he was verbally indicating that his determination on the proposed tower was no hazard to air navigation provided the Colorado Balloon Club relocated to another site. Mr. Melland indicated that he had received a letter signed by the applicant and the Balloon Club which stated that the applicant would relocate the Balloon Club and the Club was in agreement to the relocation. CAC:rjg 870589 r WOW • a- 4 M lBia Many ir■ ■ aP■ leo SURREY •NOAOCA$n,Q COMPANY April 15, 1987 Mr. Ted Melland FAA - Northwest Mountain Region Airspace & Procedures Branch, ANM-530 17900 Pacific Highway South C68966 Seattle, Washington 98168 Dear Mr. Melland: This letter is to inform you of a meeting which took place at the Lakewood Sheraton Inn in Lakewood, Colorado, at 5:30 P. M. on April 8th, 1987 between Surrey Broadcasting Company and several balloonists including Hank Van Schaack who is current president of the balloon club. The purpose of the meeting was to both share our situation with the balloon club and brainstorm about locating a more suitable and prominent launching site east of our proposed tower. We are currently working with a realtor from the area seeking possible locations that would be acceptable. - Other subjects discussed included Surrey Broadcasting and the balloon club working hand-in-hand with promoting the sport of ballooning in the state of Colorado. In addition, Surrey Broadcasting has offered air time on it's northern Colorado properties KATR-AM and KYOU-AM, and it's southern Colorado properties KDZA-AM and KATM-FM to promote the clubs festivals and fundraising efforts. We hope this cooperative effort will help you and your staff in reaching a decision on the proposed tower application. Sincerely, SURREY BROADCASTING CO. 7717 .694/7 7clidalt44/74 _ Richard J. Paye H. C. Van Schaack, Pres. Vice President/Chief Operating Officer Colorado Balloon Club o �_ RJ?/bh .,J P'R C� cc: Weld County Planning Board Keith Schuitt and Martin J. Hill, Jr. I irfPR �. 7 1987 870589�''�------ -- - / -1) ._c?'- 3u',la u'CO De^�eY,c c a c «3 ' 3' v39-; 5: *On Co. Pkarf;fl G6RI�IISSIOf Date: March 17, 1987 CASE NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 NAME: Suckle Farms, Inc. ADDRESS: 4468 Weld County Road 19, Fort Lupton; CO 80621 REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately .5 miles east of the Town :of Frederick The Department of Planning Services' staff is not prepared to offer a recommendation on this proposal. The Federal Aviation Administration has not completed its airspace study on the proposed tower site. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow the applicant and other interested persons to present testimony at this meeting. The staff would further recommend that the Planning Commission consider continuing the application to the April 7, 1987, Planning Commission meeting for the purpose of allowing the staff to prepare a recommendation based on the application materials, other submitted information, and the testimony at today's Planning Commission meeting from the applicant and other interested parties. This will also provide time for the FAA to complete its airspace study. 870589 SURREY March 2, 1987 • M � AT O-CrN 1 . MAR 9 1987 Weld County Planning Commission U 915 10th St. Weld Co. Planning CnmmistieP Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case #USR776 - Commercial Radio Tower Dear Planning Commission: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the seventeen letters of concern sent to the Weld County Planning Commission relating to Sukla Farm's Use By Special Review request, Case Number USR776. Surrey Broadcasting Company will be purchasing the property owned by Sukla Farms upon receiving the necessary permits to construct a radio broadcast site. All concerns will be addressed in this letter in the order of main concern, -as expressed by the residents of the area. Interference. The main concern seems to be that of interference to electronic equipment in the area. Proper engineering on the behalf of Surrey Broadcasting should minimize interference problems. One method of reducing the potential for radio frequency interference is the placement of the broadcast antenna high above ground by using a tall tower. Raising the electromagnetic field off the ground reduces the amount of energy by half every time you double the distance. Most engineering consultants will agree that any interference situations that exist can be lessened dramatically by increasing tower height above residential areas. (This also eliminates any concern for RF radiation hazard, as will be explained further in this letter). We have the added benefit of locating this tower in a sparsely populated area. Residential dwellings average about 6 to every square mile in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. The closest developed residential area is 1.80 miles from the base of the tower. Protection to any resident from the unlikely presence of interference is afforded by the Federal Communications 890589 Weld County Planning Commission March 2, 1987 Page Two Commission in Part 73.318 of their Rules. This rule states that "Permittees or licensees who commence program tests, replace their antennas, or request facilities modifications, and who are issued a new Construction Permit on or after January 1, 1985, must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station during a one year period." The Rule goes on to state that "Resolution of complaints shall be at no cost to the complainant." We feel in planning the facility we have tried to engineer in a reduction of potential intereference to local residents. Public Safety Radio Interference. In a related concern some residents worry about the proposed site interfering with public safety (police and fire) communications. I'm sure these concerns stem from a recent case on Lee Hill, outside of Boulder, which a new radio station caused interference to the Boulder County Sheriff Department's communications equipment. This was a case of a high power broadcast facility trying to co-locate with many other land mobile and public safety repeaters without making the proper studies and taking the proper steps in heading off the potential problems before they occur. We are fortunate on two fronts with our proposed site. First, we are not co-locating with any other existing land mobile or public safety equipment. Our research indicated that the closest public safety communication equipment to be over two miles away. Secondly, in working with the Office of Weld County Communications in obtaining the frequencies and locations of all public service communications equipment that has a potential to be interfered with, we can conduct an intermodulation and saturation study to predict any potential problems. This study will be conducted by an outside engineering firm agreed upon by the Office of Weld County Communications at the expense of Surrey Broadcasting. To further ease any concerns over this matter I must point out that in the case of the Lee Hill interference situation, the Federal Communications Commission took swift action in determining the problem and ordering the offending station off the air. 870589 0 Weld County Planning Commission March Z, 1987 Page Three Hot-Air Ballooning_. Another concern expressed by residents was one of the safety of the hot-air balloonists that launch in an area bout 3 miles from the proposed site. Typically a balloonist will not launch in winds over 12 miles an hour. At this wind speed it would take a hot-air balloonist over 15 minutes to reach our proposed site. This would give any trained balloon pilot ample time to make any safety decision. Hot-air balloons do not fly in inclement weather, so not seeing the tower for any reason should not be a concern. Residents are also concerned that the balloonists would move out of the area, which would have an economic impact on the Tri-Cities communities, as the hot-air balloonists buy food and gasoline in the area. We feel however that this tower would be less of an obstacle than the high tension lines that surround our proposed site. Aircraft Safety. Residents are also worried about the tower interupting fixed wing aircraft operationsin the area. In May of 1986 Surrey Broadcasting submitted a Notice of Proposed Construction to the Federal Aviation Administration for consideration. The FAA is in the midst of conducting an air-space study to determine whether this tower would create a hazard to aircraft in the area. Thus far the FAA has requested we lower our overall tower height by 62 feet. We have agreed to do so. The FAA has not completed the study at the time this letter is being written. The YAA is very thorough in conducting an air-space study, so a Determination of No Hazrd, if granted, should eliminate any concerns over aircraft safety. Strobe Lighting. The FAA would most probably require this tower to be equiped with high intensity strobe lights for visibility reasons. Normally this would be high-intensity strobe lights during daytime hours and the traditional red lights at night. In addressing the concern over the high-intensity strobe lights being an annoyance to local residents, we contacted the manufacturer of the lights, E.G. & G. They recommended we use a new louver system they have found success o ■ W 'A IY ::.:xrgl 970589 Weld County Planning Commission March 2, 1987 Page Four with in other areas of the country where this was a concern. The louvers do not allow the direct light of the strobes to be seen on the ground by people living in the immediate area. If this tower is constructed we will include this "louver modification" for all high-intensity strobe lights. Aesthetics. Local aesthetics were another concern expressed. The proposed site would include the tower, with a seven-foot face and a block building, about 1000 sq. ft. The building and tower would be fenced. Gravel would surround the building to eliminate any problem with weeds. The building will be painted a light brown/tan color so as to better blend with local surroundings. The site will remain agricultural except for the area in which the tower and building would be relocated and the six areas where the tower guy wires would be set to the ground. This will take less than one acre our of the proposed forty-eight acres out of agricultural production. This is in line with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The agricultural land will be provided at no cost to the farmer wishing to use it. Aesthetically this will be a well maintained site, in which the majority of the property will remain agricultural. The property has high-tension power lines on two faces, water tanks across the road, two oil wells at the site and two oil refinery plants within a mile of the site. We cannot see this as an aesthetic detriment to this area. Town Growth/Property Values. Other concerns were of this site affecting the town growth if Frederick. The edge of the developed area of Frederick is approximately 1.80 miles from the base of the proposed tower. At the rate of growth seen over the last twenty years for Frederick it will take at least 45 years for the town's edge to reach the area across the road from the site. Our information shows that annexation of the area east of Frederick was done so as to improve the tax base of the town during the increased oil drilling activities of the past years. We find there is no correlation of property values dropping after the leIl] e — 870589 >:3 Weld County Planning Commission March 2, 1987 Page Five construction of any broadcast tower, such as the one proposed. In talking to property owners in the area of the Erie tower owned'by NOAA, a federal agency, they had no negative comments concerning property values. R.F. Exposure. Recent concern over R.F. energy exposure has caused some residents to be concerned that this might be a problem. Safety standards in this area have be set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. The maximum exposure limits set for FM Broadcasts stations are 1 milliwatt per centimeter squared. At the proposed power level of 50,000 watts the distance to the ANSI exposure limit is 187 ft. Even at 100,000 watts the exposure limit is 269 ft. We can see how this would be a concern if we were considering putting the antenna close to the ground, but by having the antenna over 1150 feet off the ground we comply with all limits by a factor of six times to the ground and by a factor of nine times to the nearest resident. Tower Collapse/Ice. One resident was concerned about the tower collapsing and ice falling from the tower during the winter months. Any falling ice would fall beneath the tower and be a hazard only to our own building. Because of this we deisgn our building to have a special roof which resists ice fall. I contacted Jim Wilson with Le Blanc and Dick Inc., a company that manufactures towers to discuss tower collapses. He indicated that towers collapse within 50% of their height and typically within 40% of their height. This would indicate that the tower would collapse within 600 ft. of the base of the tower. Summary. I hope we have answered most of the concerns of the residents in the area of this proposed site. I'm sure there will be more questions to arise, so we will continue to make ourselves available to work with the Weld County Planning i11 870589 Weld County Planning Commission March 2, 1987 Page Six staff on this case. Please contact me if you need any further information. Sincerely, SURREY BROADCASTING CO. Paul Montoya Corporate Director of Engineering PM/csm cc: Frank Sukla Richard Paye Bob Rhinesmith/Office of Weld County Communications __ .i 870589 0589 SURREY BROAOCASIING CO,.PANY February 26, 1987 Weld County Planning Commission 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Case # USR776 - Commercial Radio Tower Dear Planning Commission: In response to Robert Rhinesmith / Office of Weld County Communications' letter of January 23, 1987; Surrey Broadcasting Co. , owners of KYOU Greeley, have no problem with the recommendations. We will comply with the provisions outlined by Mr. Rhinesmith. Surrey Broadcasting Co. will employ an outside engineering firm to do an intermodulation and saturation study. We will need to work with Mr. Rhinesmith in identifying all public service radio frequencies in the surrounding area that his staff feels might by affected by this proposed facility. While we have no idea what future frequencies would be transmitted from this tower, we would require any future user to have a study done. ( It is also in our best interest to require a study) . There does not, at this time, appear to be any FM broadcast stations wishing to transmit from this proposed site. As far as Mr. Rhinesmith' s recommendation to require any harmful interference to be corrected by the applicant, at the applicant' s cost, we feel this would only be proper. This is also an FCC requirement. Surrey Broadcasting Co. is also prepared to provide tower space to aid in any loss of transmission capability as outlined by Mr. Rhinesmith. These facilities would be offered at no cost to Weld County Communication. 870589 Page two We look forward to working with Weld County Communications in heading off any possible communication conflicts. We hope to treat this as a model for other city and county communication relations. Sincerely, (1O7 711/P*7 Paul Montoya Corporate Director of Engineering PM: lj cc: Mr. Robert Rhinesmith, Office of Weld County Communications Mr. Richard Paye, Surrey Broadcasting Company 0 E(EEIVE 111AR 9 1987 *Id to.M ogi%S I:ammissio 870589 7472 WC Rd. 16 Ft. Lupton, Co. March 3, 1987 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Dept. of Planning Service 915 10th Ave. Room 343 Greeley, Colorado Dear Sirs: We are writing regarding the proposal of erecting a 1250 foot radio transmitter tower on Mr. Frank Suckla's Property, Weld County Roan 19 & 16, to be used by KYOU radio in Greeley. It concerns us greatly that many conveniences that we now have would be seriously disturbed, as well as the tower being weari- some to look at as a part of our landscape. We understand that home computer programs are easily erased and interference with emergency (fire and ambulance)calls are experienced when radio transmitter towers are placed close to a community and high rural population such as ours. This would then present potential danger to the people and seriously devaluate the surrounding properties. Thank you for the opportunity to contact you on this issue. We hope that you will seriously consider our concerns. Respectfully, a hi';--AR 1 0 1987 870589 Weld Co. Mammy (manioc March 6, 1987 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: USR-776:86:57 Radio Transmitter Tower, Suckla Farms, Inc. Dear Mr. Cunliffe: At the February Tri-Area Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Paul Montoya of Surrey Broadcasting mentioned that a limited radius of the proposed tower would be subjected to a certain amount of RF radiation. He claimed the formula to determine this radiation is complicated and the results would probably mean little to persons unfamiliar with the issue of RF radiation. True as his claim may be, I felt a need to acquire a further explanation of any potential hazard RF radiation may pose to nearby residents. My search ended with a conversation with Milton Lammering of the EPA's Denver office. Currently, studies are being compiled and negotiations with the broadcasting industry are being held to set a standard for RF radiation exposure. These proposed guidelines should be available within the year. Since these guidelines may only be recommendations and because of the close proximity of the proposed tower to my house (approximately 1/4 mile), I feel the health of my family and the marketability of my house and property may be severely damaged if this proposed tower exceeds any RF radiation exposure guidelines the EPA may issue. My questions to your office would, therefore, be: 1) Would there be any provisions in the permit limiting the amount of RF radiation from the proposed tower to the exposure limits recommended by the EPA? Would these provisions be enforced even if it meant reducing power or reducing the number of users at some point in the future? 2) Is there an agency in the county government that would monitor this radio tower to ensure complaince? I would appreciate any information you could offer me on this issue. Thank you. Sincerely, (Kve-td- /97724 - o Robert P. Martin N1AR P p 1987 8445 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Weld Co. Planning cnmmIssioo 9'705s9 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 915 10TH STREET - ROOM #342 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DEAR SIRS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED 1,250 FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER TO BE LOCATED NEAR FREDERICK. I READ AN ARTICLE IN THE LONGMONT DAILY TIMES-CALL LAST SATURDAY REGARDING THIS TOWER (FEB. 21, 1987 ISSUE - COPY ATTACHED) WHICH I FEEL COULD BE VERY MIS-LEADING. THIS WAS THE STATEMENT THAT THE TOWER WILL LEAD 10 A TAXATION VALUE OF $12,000.00 PER YEAR. TO QUOTE THE ARTICLE DIRECTLY "TAX REVENUES TO THE COUNTY, BASED UPON A $750,000.00 CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE TOWER, WILL AMOUNT TO $12,000 PER YEAR; A SUM WHICH FAR EXCEEDS THE TAXES PAID ON THE LAND NOW." THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION THAT THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ASSESSED AS COMMERCIAL, AGRICULTURAL (AS IS STATED OVER AND OVER IN THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT), ANOTHER YET TO BE DESIGNATED CLASSIFICATION. I THINK NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALSO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE ASSESSED AT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE VALUATION LEVEL AND TRULY CREATE THE $12,000.00 ANNUAL REVENUE TO THE COUNTY AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANTS, IT WOULD STILL DECREASE THE TOTAL REVENUES THE COUNTY WOULD EVENTUALLY RECEIVE FROM THE AREA BECAUSE IT WOULD PREVENT QUALITY FUTURE GROWTH OF OUR TRI-TOWN COMMUNITIES, WHICH WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE REVENUES UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TAX CLASSIFICATION. ONE EXAMPLE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "GRANT BROTHERS" PROPERTY WITHIN ONE MILE OF THIS PROPOSED TOWER. I AM SURE THAT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD NEVER TAKE PLACE WITH AN OBSTACLE LIKE THAT ON THE HORIZION. AS A LOCAL MERCHANT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THE LIKELY DECREASE IN SALES 1'AX REVENUES DUE TO THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THE TOWER WOULD HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY. BALLOONISTS' SPEND SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS IN OUR AREA FOR FOOD, GAS, PROPANE, AND SERVICES OFFERED WITHIN OUR AREA. LAST SUNDAY (FEB.22) THE DAY AFTER I READ THE ARTICLE IN THE TIMES/CALL, I COUNTED 18 BALLOONS ON THE HORIZION NEAR MY PLACE OF BUSINESS. EACH OF -THESE BALLOONS IS USUALLY ACCOMPANIED BY TWO OR MORE "CHASE" VEHICLES. THIS USUALLY MAKES A TOTAL PARTY OF ABOUT 10 PERSONS PER BALLOON, WHICH CAN HAVE A POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT BUYING POWER FOR BREAKFAST, CHIPS, ETC. THE TRI-TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED FOR DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THESE AND OTHER FACTS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-THE -REQUESTS OF OUR COMMUNITY LEADERS IN ALSO VOTING FOR THE DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION. SINCERELY, STEVE SHOREES , OWNER SAM' S SUPER FOODS 913 HIGHWAY #52 DACONO, COLORADO 80514 870589 MAR ti 1987 Yield co. Planning �nmmissloi, Date: March 3, 1987 CASE NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 NAME: Suckla Farms, Inc. ADDRESS: 4468 Weld County Road 19, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NWi of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately .5 miles east of the Town of Frederick The Department of Planning Services recommends that this application be continued for the following reasons: 1. To allow additional time for the Federal Aviation Administration to complete its airspace study on the proposed tower site. Mr. Ted Melland of the Seattle, Washington FAA office has indicated that the airspace study should be completed on or before March 16, 1987. 2. To allow time for the staff to review additional information submitted by the applicant. The staff had requested at the February 3, 1987, Planning Commission that the applicant submit additional information. This has been done, but the material has not been reviewed by the staff. The Department of Planning Services recommends that this application be continued until the March 17, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. This should provide adequate time for the FAA to complete its airspace study and for the staff to review the additional information submitted by the applicant. 870589 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Suckla Farms, Inc. USR-776:86:57 Surrounding property owners, mineral owners and other individuals who submitted written concerns or objections to this proposal were notified by mail prior to the Planning Commission meeting that the staff would be recommending continuance of this case to the March 17, 1987, meeting. S7®5B9 3 ; moo ' .a.. ..c ./c3,, 1 \:„Th .-; 4--,.., _ VckAs..."--Tosz,-,- 17-E.1-i„, CL-Q--1— _11T. (5-V1-,-,AP NA-. ck rz b1 \J,Q4A Cicn � 2, / LT * VV J-Ah�w.._,i i.: - {-»<0_,.•,f, .\---\:,..1,\ .-cL?. C•Chu ``I C V „ u, ' r J7 11 l FEB 31987 �� ..:,. SL, �� l 1 Weill Co. MARINO 6omminioo B70589 F FRF� TOWN OF FREDERICK ir I Box 435 F+/ T Frederick, Colo. 80530 �(� Ph. 833.2388 vQQ\ riV,��l February 2, 1987 - Walt Weld County Planning Commission Department of Planning Services 915 10th St. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: The Town Board of Frederick wishes to convey to you our opposition to the proposed construction of a radio tower just east of Frederick. We find the proposed tower to be a detriment to the future easterly expansion by the Town of Frederick. The tower's close proximity to our airport presents a dangerous obstacle to aircraft and hot air balloons. Also, the tower's presence would be detrimental to any future expansion of the airport facility. Interference of emergency radio frequencies are of great concern as well as television, radio frequencies and computers. Interference could take place within a three mile radius of the tower, which easily includes the Town of Frederick. The citizens and Town Board of Frederick askyou to uphold the negative .vote of the Tri—Area Planning Commission by not giving approval of the construction of this tower. Sincerely, CCk\N.14JeNU Floyd A. Larkin R ✓ Mayor FAL:gds Er;J.)g 4,3 c1,Q1.?Al[ I � �FEB 31987 al 870589 \Vela Co, PlanmeR cumminmo February 3, 1987 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street, Room #342 _Greeley, Co. 80631 RE: Tri-Town Planning Commission Dear Commission Members; Being Weld County residents, we would like to give our opinion regarding the proposed site for a broadcasting tower that would be located a very short distance east of the town of Frederick. The proposed tower would definitely be a daily eyesore for our community. The transmissions from this proposed tower would interfere with resident's home entertainment systems. This tower would interupt the flight patterns of the balloonists and parachutists from the area; which we all enjoy watching. Most importantly - being home owners in Frederick, we are very interested in how the community develops. We take pride in keeping much of our business (banking, shopping, etc.) in the tri-town area. Since the inevitable growth of the Denver Metro area will reach the tri-town area; we want the develop- ment of the area to be positive. The proposed tower would not bring any employment to the area. The tower would not enhance the serene atmosphere our community presently enjoys. To us the proposed tower will not be a positive step toward our community's development. In the past year our community voted to build and fund the operation for a community recreation center. The center will provide a much needed indoor pool and greatly expand the ability for the Carbon Valley Recreation District to provide more programs for the community. This is the type of positive growth the community wants and will be a valuable asset for the community. Presently, our community is beginning to consider the consolidation of the tri-town area. This step may well be what is needed to make a more stable tax base for the area. This will in turn make the tri—town area a better proposition for business and residentual growth. With the community making positive decisions on how to invite a balanced growth into our area; we feel that the land immediately surrounding the tri— town area should be developed with residentual areas and businesses that,would bring jobs into the community. The proposed tower would not fit into either category of growth. We are proud of our community and enjoy living in the small town atmosphere where neighbors appreciate each other. We have what we believe are realistic visions for our area and hope the commission will listen to the community and turn down the proposed tower. On behalf of my husband; Matthew D. Richers; and myself I appreciate your time. Thank you! ti E 1 � Debora G. Bohe 750 Oak Street FEB 19�] Frederick, 80530 870589 Weld Co. Planning Cnmmissioa TOWN OF FIRESTONE WELD COUNTY FIRESTONE, COLORADO 80520 TELEPHONE (303) 833-3291 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Greeley radio station KYOU wishes to erect a one thousand two hundred and fifty foot (1250' ) radio antenna on a parcel of land one mile south and two miles east of Firestone' s town limits; and WHEREAS, 1250' is equivalent to a 125 story building, this antenna will be a major detriment to the aesthetics of this community; and WHEREAS, there is the possibility of radio and television interference; and WHEREAS, there will be no be it of new jobs, new capital and it shall be of limited tax valuati to a few districts; and WHEREAS, the antenna serves only the limited financial benifit of KYOU Radio and Sukla Farms; NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Firestone that the Board supports the Tri-Area Planning Commission' s decision to deny the special use permit requested by KYOU Radio and Sukla Farms. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED THIS 22nd day of January, 1987. Mayor ATTEST: - Clerk o CAE FEB 3 1987 Weld Co. Planning Commission 870589 ), ,f eedetickz oizea glee 2zatectien fbiatzict 1ST &WALNUT- P. O. BOX 129 • FREDERICK, COLORADO 80530 :ehr_. 1:, 7:11- -x. x : C":iiiffc )15 1Ct1 reet L nr :I'. ..' .-`112f s . . .. 0 i n 3.:: : .. )3.__ 1 • l - ... ,.i:.y •1.. ..w ':Y .,,. . - ._ 4 +-. 7 ..en-:e5. Cr,orat0 _r"S L. ^ty .:il.jJ \ r FEB 11 1987 ci /---' 870589 Weld Co. Planning commission February 15, 1987 Dear PlanninE commission, Bud and :ayself want to express our concern over the I?50 foot tower that is being proposed 500 feet from our property. It is almost certain to create radio and television interference for and the neighboring famlies and communities, There is spqulation that it could be harmful to anyone with a pace maker or hearinu aid . Our grandson lives a mile from us and he wears a hearing aid . mere recently was a tower erected on lagstaff' 'jountaln gar 5001.Jer `._gat. 22 created , . 0 loins with rauios inrcilee card add ._ L.. . . Je are i._ .. ire . _ for - .11e-_iet _:.ail aircraft . a ut or1 eatif1.1 to , at. the cor:trl '-ute reatl to the Jtmony Ilke Frederich, lacora, _ t ton_ cci dl -r n5 tdiJ tower is erectod they . Ili be tc fly l_ wh re. 41t' flas'nic- lights to make a tower of this size it will surely be aii eyesore. as we look toward our beautiful moun_ :sine . :_here are just too ::any problems this tower .' ill create and no :'c;d that will come of it . I hope that you vote this down. Sincerely, • PE • in FEB 19 1987 1 870589 neln Co. Plrwnnk P� .his, ) ,? 7 a- C� JzeA .eke,--otgam. � n ec,tea _- t t.: Z („p_e t -face-v, J /h� ec �G-cc-cckaTccc--z_ c�r�- tt�„�VG�-1rr'✓�.re. . ^� ti_,7a_rc. r�-.cY._,a-.r,-c, JJ- -( 7-,er'71- CV-Ca'Y[�� Ctlajt • 7597 FEB 1 9 1987 -WOO Co. Phnom Gomooscion 870589 ale],"c/ e&&ni, c zv, cto cza Cie-ne iun c Ls t of- L±ke ckJ - ,/o-u O J /a So <'n C&.itlin-Lairu_ca;t at-n,0 0` c.WtO, L.4.)6L 0'1 ehL evt t hyr z"Cc-D 2tZ 02/ a.-eut-J aloe u4au&J c�uue c/ /a6 cunt} `),2 i &O ae n ec/Ye-Lss /J n Ztiti-e uAA 9- —AczAce •46i en--) de/ �LvyL4 ag �"�!,ta,.,�r/ (emu vx 161/L v30 r.N ( c .s e (Jr.t ed haf t (d )or/,• el Lfr-6.5 '- a I na jic.5 (JYY1 a--n1 ✓11 Q La(a av c) / ( eca- aa Qmc/ {t e ct1 /c/Leo� cUUc, Oa-co-Kt o c/A_ 5.1B-._ i LA-cf. . /at c f.AC-� tc. -u) RUC U ev c/Y10 [i GL cvtd r_211rc/ ✓h-u,ea1 �o a �yrtcr ze GuN (/ c_Lio flo c;ru cp 1wn4 wekia., (44-Q_ -4» c /' J PoeJce oz .semE.C.fwr, 4 fa < <va��PcL &Wel �, ai3 c coo UC a/c/m cJcc tea/ 9' JLJ-C. ` '.al, . Jcr CAL',., CJe c-t oa —ec/ a a7 c L D571.97E (4L,t./r razAi./ 870589 FEB I. 91987 0 /c <7kii2c/ 4 4em. 4aLneier yield Co. Plana"w emission 8S// (De/q' eL , . ci ee`c 47 ) Feb 17 , 1987 Weld County Dent , of Planning Services 915 10th et. Rm 342 Greeley , Co . 80631 Dear Sirs: T am writing to you in reference to case ;¢ USR-776: 86: 57 ,which concerns the 1 , 20 ft . radio transmitter tower . . ^y first concern s that we were not notified about the appli- cation for the tower , ar were our neighbors . . ecoa_l,. , I want to protest the tower which would be only 4C yards rom some _ am concerned about i ne i?ro ,lens ":;i cu:: caused 7Ownsmi - e so close . It will cause interferenco in Ty television, radio, end my home computer . _ would also like to add that _ . will rersonally cause me stress to have a tower so close to my home plus the lights teat are required to be on the tower will bother my family at night by their constant flashing. Aiso , to my 'cnowledge there has never been a study done to deter- mine what long term exposure to F. radiation will do to -a person. The tower will definitely not add to my quality of life which is why I moved out to ;Veld County . In addition it will decrease my property value . And last but not least , the balloonists who frequent the area will be forced to fly elsewhere--and I especially enjoy their presence . attri p'We7 Fi7; Go'C/' -#/ /6 S/ 7714.) P.S "1ta FEB 201987 7Y Cp1-eYC , X66 / 7L.a.pr6A- J ri P31 - 4/J'6 gli 4Y‘/ Weld Co. Plana commss'ou 870589 COLORADO BALLOON CLUB 2401 15th ST., SUITE 230 DENVER, CO 80202 February 20, 1-987 Weld County Planning Commission 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Proposed radio tower near Frederick/Firestone/Dacono, Colorado. Gentlemen: The Colorado Balloon Club would like to be on record as opposing the installation of a tall radio transmission tower in the Frederick/Firestone/Dacono area. This area is regularly used for a considerable number of hot air balloon flights. The proposed tower would pose a major safety hazzard for balloons flying in the area. As hot air balloons cannot be steered, we fly "at the mercy" of the wind. The proposed location of the tower is southeast of our launch field. With the prevailing winds coming from the west or northwest, we would be subjected to flying in the vicinity of the proposed tower on a regular basis. Unexpected wind shifts could cause us to have many problems and potential emergency situations near the proposed tower. For the reasons cited, we therefore urge your rejection of the proposal to install the radio transmission tower. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very truly you , cetettiz& H.C. Van Schaack III, President Colorado Balloon Club FEB 2 31987 870583 Weld Co. Plao+unk CommlS5im. 2/25/87 MEMBERS OF THE WELD CO. PLANNING COMMISSION 915 10th ST. ROOM 342 GREELEY, COLO, 80631 DEAR MEMBERS, IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED 1 ,250 FT. HIGH COMMUNICATIONS TOWER TO BE ERECTED ONE HALF MILE EAST OF THE TOWN OF FREDERICK, I .OULD ASK THAT THE MEMBERS OF OUR PLANNING COMMITTEE, IF THEY HAVE NOT, VISIT THE PROPOSED SITE, THE TOWNS OF FREDERICK, FIRESTONE, DACONO, AND THE SURROUNDING RURAL AREA IN ORDER TO TRULY OBSERVE FIRST HAND WHAT AND IMPACT SUCH A STRUCTURE 'OULD HAVE ON A COMMUNITY THAT OBVIOUSLY TAKES PRIDE IN MAKING THEIR SMALL CORNER OF OUR COUNTY A BEAUTIFUL AND SAFE PLACE TO LIVE. THEN PLEASE ,SIGH THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SUCH A Snucro :E TO THE COMMUNITY. AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF OUR COUNTY, ENTRUSTED WITH THE TREMENDOUS TASK OF MAKING DECISIONS THAT WILL '_E MOST P.ENEFICIAL TO THE MAJORITY OF THE TAX PAYERS, I AM SURE SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS MUST BE : A. ) WILL IT PROVIDE JOBS ? B. ) 'JILL IT ATTRACT BUILDERS 'WHO 'JILL PROVIDE WELL PLANNED COMMUNITIES WITH PARKS, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, SHOPPING CENTERS, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND SIGNIFICANT TAX REVENUE TO OUR COUNTY ? C. ) WILL IT IN ANY GAY BE A BENEFIT ??? OR D.) WILL IT BE A 1250 FT. STUMBLING BLOCK FOR EVERMORE TO ALL THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY ? FINALLY FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE OF US WHO MUST LIVE WITH IT EVERY DAY PLEASE CONSIDER IF YOU WILL, THE THOUSANDS OF ISOLATED ACRES OF FARM LAND IN THIS COUNTY THAT IS CURRENTLY FOR SALE THAT COULD HOUSE THIS GIANT MONSTER WITHOUT ITS AFFECTING AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF CITIZENS WHO HAVE SHOWN THEY CARE .SURELY THERE MUST BE A MORE DESIRABLE LOCATION THAT ",ON'T REQUIRE ITS TOWERING OVER AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY BETT , :OE GE 7123 LD CO. RD. 9 FEB 27 1987 870589 *e16 CD. IhanbunE GnmwISSion Date: February 3, 1987 CASE NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 NAME: Suckla Farms, Inc. ADDRESS: 4468 Weld County Road 19, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately .5 mile east of the Town of Frederick The Department of Planning Services recommends that this application be continued for the following reasons: 1. To allow time for the Federal Aviation Administration to complete its airspace study on the proposed tower site. Mr. Ted Melland of the Seattle, Washington FAA office has indicated that the airspace study should be completed within the next 2 or 3 weeks. 2. To allow time for the applicant to submit additional written information to respond to the questions and concerns raised by the Tri-Area Planning Commission in its letter of January 21, 1987, the Town of Firestone's letter of January 9, 1987, and the objections of surrounding property owners in the area. 3. To allow time for the applicant to consider the recommendations of the Weld County Information Services Agency in its letter of January 23, 1987. The applicant should indicate his agreement or disagreement with the proposed recommendations prior to February 17, 1987, to the Department of Planning Services. The Department of Planning Services would recommend that this application be continued until the March 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. This should provide adequate time for the FAA to complete its airspace study and for the applicant to respond to items 2 and 3. 870559 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS USR-776:86:57 Suckla Farms, Inc. Since distribution of the Land—Use Application Summary Sheet and packet, the Department of Planning Services office has received ten letters of opposition to the proposal. Mrs.Gayle Graham, an adjacent property owner, telephoned on February 2, 1987, to say that she opposed the proposal and has a letter of opposition in the mail. The Federal Communications Commission and the Frederick Area Fire Protection District did not respond to the referral packet sent to them. 870589 -9502 Weld Co. Rd. 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 January 30 , 1987 Weld County Dept. of Planning Svcs. 915 10th St. , Room 342 Greeley, CO 80631 Gentlemen : I am writing in regard to the proposed 1, 250 ft . communications tower 1/2 mile east of Frederick . a do not feel this would be in the best interest of our community and would like to see the proposal defeated. The transmissions from this tower would create radio and TV interferences for many miles around . It would add nothing positive to those of us who live nearby. I , for one, would not enjoy looking out my door or windows and see flashing strobe lights . I want a peaceful community, as do all of my neighbors . The lack of such a structure is very important to all of us around here . I urge you to deny approval of t-his application when you consider on February 3 . Sincerely, .ze c'e,431 •tie Evelyn Yurk PALr FEB 9 1987 -Weld Co. Manning r.ummissinu 870589 JANUARY 28 , 1987 WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 915 10TH STREET ROOM 342 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DEAR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, WE WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AS BEING OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED 1 , 250 ' HIGH RADIO TRANSMITTER TOWER IN CASE #USR-776 : 86 : 57 . THE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD NOT ONLY CREATE A HAZARD TO THE HOT AIR BALLON ACTIVITY IN OUR AREA, BUT ALSO CREATE A HAZARD TO THE SMALL PLANE ACTIVITY AT THE TRI-TOWN AIRPORT. THE HOT AIR BALLOONISTS CONTRIBUTE GREATLY TO THE ECONOMY OF THE TRI- TOWN AREA WITH THEIR PURCHASE OF PROPANE, GAS, AND MEALS, BUT WOULD GO TO OTHER AREAS IF THIS TOWER IS ERECTED, DUE TO THE NAVIGATIONAL HAZARD IT WOULD CREATE . 'THERE HAS BEEN NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY ON THIS TOWER AND THIS REQUEST SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED UNLESS THE PROPOSERS OF THIS PROJECT COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY OF DACONO HAS HAD TO SPEND OVER $16 , 000 . 00 FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY TO ADD ANOTHER WATER TOWER, YET THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT NEEDED TO PROVIDE ANY IMPACT INFORMATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET THEIR PROPOSAL CONSIDERED. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE INCONSISTENCY FOR PLANNING REQUIREMENTS . THIS REQUEST WAS VOTED AGAINST BY THE TRI-TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION DUE TO THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS IT WOULD HAVE ON THE AREA. I STRONGLY URGE THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALSO DENY THIS REQUEST BASED ON THE NEEDS OF THE TRI-TOWN AREA AND THE DETRIMANT THIS WOULD CREATE. THIS PROPOSED TOWER WOULD NOT EVEN CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY OF THE AREA AS IT WOULD HAVE LITTLE OR NO PAYROLL BASE. SINCERELY, ead • ✓.y_ ( J` ,Gt_9( GILBERT C. EVANS 'v DIANA L. EVANS 7987 WCR #19 7987 WCR #19 FT . LUPTON, CO. 80621 FT . LUPTON, CO. 80621 (303) 833-4720 (303) 833-4720 FEB 21987 r .r=. Weld Co. PSI* ialliaa 8'70588 January 28 , 1987 Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street - Room 342 Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Planners , Bob and I are concerned about the KYOU radio transmitter tower , Case # USR 7768657 , being proposed for the land less than one-half mile from our farm. As we understand ; KYOU will not be the only user of this tower. Their plan is to lease space on the tower to possibly six to ten other companies for transmitters . Who knows what other kinds of equipment will be attached to this tower. We already have some problems with interference "messing up" the microprocessors in our equipment . We make our living selling grain analysis computers . We are not convinced this project will not add to the interference problems . Is KYOU going to provide filters , shields , or whatever is necessary to protect our equipment , television sets , answering machines , communication equipment , or any equipment with microprocessing? This project will be one-half mile from the Annexation of Frederick, Colorado. Their long range plan includes expansion of the airport , which will be complicated by a 1 , 250 feet high tower to the east . A 1 , 250 feet high tower with flashing lights day and night is not our idea of an attractive view from our home. This is higher than the Erie tower, which we see in our view to the west . At least we are farther away from it and on a higher plain than it ' s base. We enjoy having the beautiful hot air balloonists use our area for their sport . They will move to a safer area if this tower is built . We do not want to lose them! We think our neighbors and we live in a very desirable area of Weld County. This proposed tower and building will not add anything positive to this area and urge the Department of Planning Services to disapprove the project . Thank you. Sincerely, I J S'Z z 171.1 Bob and Betty Pohlmari cc --��'� 7343 Weld Co . Rd . 16 = 1.1 Ft . Lupton, CO 80621 " CO fris � v -870589' OL 1218 MacKay Court Dacono, CO 80514 January 29 , 1987 Weld County Dept. of Planning Service 915 10th Street, Room 342 Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Planning Commission Members : Since I am working and will be unable to attend the meeting on February 3 , 1937 I wish to state my objection to the proposed 1250-foot communications tower just east of Frederick. I am a resident and home owner in the Glens of Dacono, and have experienced static and interference in my Baldin Organ and TV set from a ham operator's tower about one block from my house. The Baldwin organ -repairman confirmed this when he came to check my problem. Also, I once lived in a town with a 600-ft. tower which created a real hazzard from falling ice during the winter months . Some of the streets around it had to be closed off at times to protect pedestrians and motorists from the ice chunks . The tower finally collapsed in a windstorm, but the replacement tower was erected quite some distance from the town. Surely, a more isolated location can be found for this project with less danger to the local residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours , a;w� Lois C. Farr rilia0T5TP JAN 301987 870589 id Cu. 6ImiaHI emit riou sidet, eio --/ 7,72.� at/ C J y (!/ 'c 7,/ /�J 7 `yt 5✓1. J. 4 276, :yc :16— „tx,_ j-icti"J24-Q4. Ct ---0-ete4 QA"u �i Cc e j 6 L' /%T._l.e- p c/,Ja 9 6� ; . / -0 ye ,r �pu /2Q. �/��//i„,L_L✓Y'llIWN? /Lys�n•�U, /�v /oyWc . •-� / �/;^,' i yeCC lir/'C�C-dLGw//-Soy ) C,y C-Cw tii) /Nf�CC�c L2C.L 24_ ct, J/�, •�' C � GV�"CU t ct �tL.o r,tJ c f �e PLC ✓L'W u2 . cuu a.,. CL/Li- CAA-- -< i a J-e2,0, ( C/hJP/J �G1v�4 / a -�.,— J Phm.Lac 1LL .• y�Jt (^/ �tt� I /tIo-a t/rte a�-c LP ,(�-�. ezt,.. xy G' O,C4, AAA_ �Y�t,�L .1�.'-:f.-t til,ci yc4. �/minAuL.. G/t�d. a�, Iti•c�' r:,.-a � 2< e�-n�{o�C_��l ��h �r�2�_ ELL /L W& /��9 l t-€.04- -eL . nz C-c u"-‘-} " . c I AJJ ✓.� 4'hc� ,2-u � .� „1/1- eo-rw — ,-lc-c , � '_; yc6v-uA- ..• 50o 0 ' /1 r �l 1 ACmt.a&y ,/4412. a tte_cti- U/l t7/ CdG g eo zI I JAN 2 9 1987 -Weld Co. Planning Cnmmissini 870589 96,-K) .3 7 157 t A Zen i/t.Z 1-" , 67 ....t."-17 ) ,____7-4Hc.,..7,uo, _(...6-1-2,72)icacizt, .,,3 i i - i . , -. I cyLc.o,____a_.-tne_...zi_Lc ___(....r;_c___.). ......,,„ J7 ? czyt ce._ _Lb --tze, ..t a__c____,-Le_e c- f cc/ c' -4Le--) 71/3 /ceN.,ti - .6C 062 _ 72.7 7 G o _ S 7 - ,_2_7 c=ez-L. u.cc 7-2-7 c ;is 0 o fx /Z( cy !tom) ,___J-cs c. (.e.-ee cocYz1- Gci e tip t .. _ . _ e . _ . )67 el 7 /7_ L2 - G - _ C cA---a,C__i. . .��__O cyl___L O ell.-- 1O2 C>-y(- v" - - V Q�w,... wYu c�-� c��-rc_. A ecru --e--c-c.--Le cc / 7 er_e c , _ 6 /ivLea txl-t-jr-L, Ce<1/4_.t. . e.e,-.4.<77t,c-4,-Lic) . 17 c 27c,C,J c- iA.--c-e_xJ h C e_- u GvO . _ e c t,c,r, --)2e_c__,Aft_c- - j uJ e.. {..0 o-QuAy ce___ /i a_tie_e__ t 2) Cc.'» e_A --c-vt-f= - C3 Jt&f Lc)--LC-)_ ..mot--vim ` 0 _ - rcL:e_..%1l_0 .it a-L�c el,u- 0 I et.- 0"1c--( J . , d 2. --0-�e.Au ttoo `',% ��c/J91 v2-71- 3 - (.42 t-t.e •-c_ t � � Z ' Gc__,Lcr 0--", (-- / cry - LAfiv-, ) 72 yci �cu,c . C--C-�-� Y_ ' C^, r`' / ,^'Y'-L- , / 1 i 7' C'�c '`{ C770SB9 Y 1,-;D /? 65 Z. '� C--(-cam l c`--C L 'CC c/jo : •e.t &n E u C %i_A , , _ o a— 7 (.O.Le eL. Cey-cL__, 4C at__ _-e7 .--0---t-CE c�S,a-- tee_ 0 cfcu.l v c t' cs c -e.__ cuc - e. oe--,mac- v-c f .-z ee--o fie`—.,C..� C�e_ c� -_ oe—D _ g:2 -0 C-6%- u - ..eA__ .,_,C _ c 1..�-Ch-4c.-.fie 00 ari7-e.....-(4- --",-- Lt FEB - 21987 _ Jt *Id to. Una CuSssiov 870589 629 McKinley Avenue Fort Lupton, CO 80621 January 29, 1987 Weld County Dept . of Planning Services 915 10th Street , Room 342 Greeley, CO 80631 Gentlemen: The request to develop a 1253-foot communica- tions tower east of Frederick is of concern to me . It seems transmissions from this tower might interfere with radio and televi- sion reception in surrounding communities . It would create a hazard for aircraft and balloonists . Most important, it would be an eyesore . Jay I strongly urge you to vote against this request? Yours truly, June S . Dailey 0 957 JAN 30 1981 Weld Co.Planning Ca emissiol • 870589 7 �2 Lam- O. f. - /y, i 1/) 7/0?7 / 2 / I ^,.._____./ cliyly LG�LL . ;4i _--7.-ter ,te rL1'<.tJ ,_..^'- '1_.'7_,yLz'H ` L�f SG D CL- 6 L- (V .,-C .e./z ‘--iz_ c l---/ e / cACeiri2-er- .. 1, - —/ J �e zs-r2 (..ei y.K<-, x-2.--c c-_-_ .i _3z�‘-t'',-) ' jc'.c. d// . J .71tir Ci ,_ i-t ` -f-" ` .I<I C c"ai 2. -c 7. L,--(_—_,/, 12,--C24./.1_, -,_/..7--- _- 6 -- zr, " c . � ^ tip. `�iL�'"{i'G'IT(.iL :L. t L� ^2 Ei //�G G c�-i� f/ / I ' ECVE ` / r 2 ! JAN 30 1987 /� `772/z, , q /i2�0. y -// 7,cuJ Weld Co. Planning LnmuIISSIOU 870589 a� lI.97 44'Eo l S — 776 76 S7 -/yam, •! .F- sYl LC/k;74 .; L4 , / fi et tie pee .1 O`i Wu 1 ass ' ,p,a_ccO Tamcc/r �? �rotc5e4 d(2c `Pt o/jos Sc+e el bite, Lc(c GoccJ-v cc:t mss. LUG Aee v ew,i ez n1 eeec e / )e tt detes74&J 4Ct t..�I Rkzci ip-'17o.J c p.-LC'E( Jo 41024 wi€ (die // k RLneIc &3 Qu,,2 (leek:etff/SO (-11<e• cafrntony G1/4:ttc / 3 / '144 m4 neS.dea t(Je�4 w7woh. !s -14/Se. riS iUeeJ _ • 870589 S !S fr �G/ • sOr !u!J �0. , rv.wv Qe1 e/2,eede -6 ?a4v4i4 Ra<,dQn„- vrepw . `-{72Hent' n1 fr /777 ‘ 69e tv,e /el /9 " f',ivni eo <e(3l 2/ DES JAN 301987 Weld Co. Planning Commission s 870589 January 29, 1987 Chuck Cunliffe, Director Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street - Room 342 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Case Number: USR-776:86:57 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: I am a property owner/resident living on Weld County Road 16 directly north of the proposed radio tower. I wish to convey my concerns of such an installation as to the impact to the neighborhood now and in the future, the effect on our quality of life, possible health risks and the negative effect on property values. This proposed tower is a major structure equivalent to a 125 story building. The owners desire to lease space on the tower for up to twenty (20) broadcasters, thus multiplying the problems twenty (20) times. The proximity to Frederick city limits (1/2 mile) would be a detriment to the city' s growth. The inherent problems of such a large tower with multiple broadcasting antennas would more than likely be a source of constant interference and aggravation. Although FCC regulations protect the public from the annoyance of interference from such towers, the process of filing complaints, locating the offender and effecting a remedy is long and complicated. The frustration of dealing with the federal bureaucracy would probably generate numerous complaints to county and town governments. The proposed tower is also in the path of many hot air balloon flights. The balloons are colorful , fun to watch, and are considered by many residents as an aesthetic asset to the area. These flights would be jeopardized by a radio tower of such height in their path. Crop dusting is ongoing in the immediate area. I shudder at the thought of some day finding an airplane wreckage on my front yard because of the hazard of a radio tower and its associated guy wires. I feel the quality of life I looked for and found in Weld County would be greatly reduced if this structure is allowed to be built at the proposed location. I did not move to Weld County to have the feeling of living in a cheap hotel with neon lights flashing in my bedroom window all night. 1 am also very concerned of being subjected to any additional radiation. I believe this tower with multiple broadcasting stations may generate enough radiation to be a long term health hazard. I do not feel we've had enough information on this subject and I feel very uncomfortable about it. 870589 Chuck Cunliffe, Director January 29, 1987 Page Two Lastly, it goes without saying the negative effect living close to a radio tower would have on property values. I do not think it fair for a big money enterprise to move into an area and erect something that would lower the property values of the people already living in the area. I'm sure the county would do little in lowering my property taxes because of this type of devaluation. I urge you to take into consideration the concerns of all the property owners/residents who would be effected by the installation of this proposed radio tower. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert P. Martin 8445 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 833-3256 IE JAN 30 1987 87OS89af\ - --- ,4eIt Cu, Pimply iumn6Scmu LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: January 27, 1987 CASE NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 NAME: Suckle Farms, Inc. ADDRESS: 4468 Weld County Road 19, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 REQUEST: 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: Approximately .5 mile east of the Town of Frederick SIZE OF PARCEL: 48 acres, more or less POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS: The criteria for review of this proposal is listed in Section 24.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The FFA is currently conducting an airspace study for the proposed tower. Several objections have been received. The FFA is requesting that Weld County not approve the application until the FFA has issued a favorable determination on the impact the proposal would have on the nation's airspace. The Tri-Area Planning Commission has recommended denial of the proposal. A copy of its letter is attached. Weld County Communications is recommending specific items for the proposal. A copy is its letter is attached. Other referral agencies reviewing the proposal have no objections. Referral responses have not been received from the following: - Frederick Area Fire Protection District - Federal Communications Commission To date, the Department of Planning Services has not received any objections from surrounding property owners. 870589 38 •• -- ` II_� . p ;•�. q • I "tr at 3 • • arielr:k. M I rT• !•• " '-'1,1777::g:\ p • / • uEAD • •r �,� • /fit—��p , ;..• �. I) ��, ✓ �, - --- • :" �.. _ I G : /' IF�,my • n G 1 NAT rev u• V.• 1,o p v F S�n�o,nG =Hostel s G 7 i. z, '°•::•,;.;25 •� , ifis:/'^((Qf��ey/[/✓ z— x,. �P , z, / 1 )j� z. 28 F Nit,) 1 -.--- ,..ho' I p/ „ / ry G ? , }' � �1l h : A i „ P Ill, grit:: c' x • 3 2 26 pi G. rnlE RFC., "i l� ;' v'°" �• v3. • [�a� REtr .C. F ' • • • , 24 �^ •. .., G • ` > • •c7 ♦ ' . ,i . •CNCNAIIT[ •s= •. • • \ • 33 .`� • • �NILLS p �� • ,-', h ../ ; P 7 1 22C i..ire ! ----c- d Ate CAS• : N • I y 20 T2N. ., .�I. - - K • • • . y.I�ri"r, h. LI• o�"--- • co 4 �` .^ ; r • 1a'i • • ,, •2.18 eO':° G y�it .y i•/ t G ..c N ,t F E l NF n Ai'� •r smilJ p/ C• ...r0(4 • __ Y 1\_tip FPFDEFfC _ ..z� • • `^ Fl 'A/ G LG/ � ° 3 3 •zl { rt'C�. _: r1 li� b F D/"" ( v r,:_, :.- 14 oar u,r �,x�lam' �� '4z a '[3}�� G � �� ,h ) ° • 'i °I � "�'/i, conp• � ) v u G • s; G '�_i. / , 00I5 J 7�•!.-.K::�. .G ,, n,I • -ore. 12 r 1I L_.—.k.5- y • ° .1;,Y __ _.. G'� • .� .I� s ocii •10 a . .i1 p.. ..i'S T, x !1 Ti- +' G i 4i rte / I �ll "I� •) L•w • I 8 ....� TIN oE�,o.0 Gy � I I�� •l� • �— G •G [ Ys. G •[• G .'w / 1 I _ y G Y - / 4.23 rJ 4 •, • G •6. 11 e, • L v } p 6 T C y M - BEGG/ q O p •f•' 'c 11 e ', r ZS G ,• �� d a 4 3 n kV z•\••r .• •1i a . 2 G G L • , u' �9 ., '�:.� d EASE LG- Y • ,•G • d ..•i....,�_�_� / 'I' II av R68 vV ' . ' [ } i N _I X � 67�W� / •.. �� t " A D A M S `.o -0...0 870589 '' 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 i ) - 4950 �- A ♦ i I .A I. �- o �• ter } J � /� 1` -\ �. 7 d948' c -- 5003_3 O J BM k / / 'Firestone I JI * o Y 00 / 1 . �'30 ��, 29 28 ) Evan m / -�� rr • F� ,o Pumpng St I/ /1 1) _----____...-----..- z _ \ I \ i IC I. J�/ 49 O /I �1 / ( A__ / j I / 5050 Hon Pig —F • J I / �� gP"" 3°� _14;7/, ye .n- II Rs.-.a w`k\ t"" LfWS /�N. \,� �� i. ir h �j — /7/22 Clevelandk. 5/05 �f1 ��'" �i/��_`-mil `rr' K `� .- / / S�RP ( i II r in\ _y _)/ o i J I NO AA` .I ` p jack,Be�fn I.,, , ,, "----- , , , I r t/ _�— 52 �-��.�i � • 5083 ` !^_'�` ✓ 1, �' J/ ��'' I M/ o n t t —. °r ll'I J 5p00 i. -_- - - \ - . / / ill •..�° 50� /�. f s ) 4968 --r-HD / / ( ).. v.-_t/ f j----/jr) I , 2, saes, o;'�-- cos �- -j -_ ; ._ . _ In-•-rte. ,,jL well �\ I /�li / % V ` '\. 1 T 4,s/ a 5,00 '', 1 I �--r ,/ 1 ' 'I\ � -; / i' 8 58 i iti{ yam, k ,ii• �� t - a y ;.'i y Oki- Itrigil a27 .• A - . . - ,.. • • k, _.. - . 44:tic., . ^:4h y ktni /yp '4 6��" t ic- 4 tl :3.1 l',d 7 .. , .._ . „.,„..,... ._ __ ., , ,..., . , .., ,,,,....4,.. „ .. /..... ., ,,‘ . "�.9 �✓ ' •s �T o , fey . .. ₹a i rX '" i.� 1, •, 1 ♦ air' b, .,• a ��'+'r= .,i / ....X5%; x-11 .007 --,, - L . J: t >._ ffr. , Se S70589 ` REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Suckle Farms, Incorporated CASE NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 SENT REFERRALS OUT: December 30, 1987 REFERRALS TO BE -RECEIVED BY: January 16, 1987 NO SR NR NO SR NR County Attorney ' X Weld County Health Dept. )C X Engineering Department X X Weld County Communications Office of Emergency Mngmt X X Tri-Area Planning Commission P.O. Box 363 Frederick, CO 80530 Phone: 833-2075 x X Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Barbara Johnson 10455 East 25th Street, Suite 301 Aurora, CO 80010 X Federal Communications Commission 12744 West Cedar Drive Lakewood, CO 80215 X X Longmont Soil Conservation Service 9595 Nelson Road Box D Longmont, CO 80501 X Louis Rademacher 13184 Weld County Road 13 Longmont, CO 80501 X Frederick Area Fire Protection District c/o John DiGregario P.O. Box 441 Frederick, CO 80530 NO-No Objection SR=Specific Recommendations NR=No Response 870589 Tri-Area Planning Commission P. O. Box 363 Frederick, CO 80530 January 21 , 1987 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: On January 6 , 1987 , the Tri-Area Planning Commission (TAPC) held their regular meeting . Application from Suckla Farms , Inc . for a 1 , 250 foot high radio transmitter tower was on the agenda. The parcel of land is approximately 1/2 mile east of the Town of Frederick. Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc . intends to purchase property from Suckla Farms , Inc . Mr. Paul Montoya representing Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc . was present -to answer questions . Although the TAPC could not vote on this issue due to lack of a quorum, we did have a question and answer session and heard from approximately (12) concerned citizens in the area who voiced disapproval . Mr. Montoya addressed those concerns . The biggest concern is what effect will this have on the Emergency Communications Center in Greeley? Mr. Montoya will address this at our special meeting. Due to lack of a quorum at our regular meeting a special meeting was called on January 14 , 1987 , at 7 :30 p.m. at the Frederick Town Hall to discuss application. Without going into extensive detail I will give reasons why the TAPC voted to deny application from Suckla Farms, Inc . 1 . There were approximately 25-30 concerned citizens who voiced disapproval of this radio transmitter. Reasons given by these people were: A. What will this tower do to our property value? B. We are now experiencing interference with Channel 7 , what additional interference will be caused by this tower? And what will Surco due to correct this situation? These people have asked FCC to help solve interference problems they are now experiencing and to "no avail" they have received negative responses . 870589 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Department of Planning Services January 21 , 1987 Page 2 C. One gentleman has a home personal computer business and he is constantly having problems with his software blowing up from interference of other radio station transmitters . Response from the FCC sorry they are within the guidelines, there is nothing we can do to help you. D. How much RF radiation will we be exposed to over a period of time? E. Will this tower be in the flight path of area airports or possibly interfere with flights at the future Denver-Adams County airport? F. What about balloonists ' in this area? What will it do to their hobby? This is not only a beautiful sight, but a refreshing sight and would hate to see it cease. G. This transmitter tower will have an effect on the quality of life in all the Tri-Town area. 2 . Floyd Larkin, Mayor of the Town of Frederick voiced his opinion stating this tower will have an impact on Frederick and does not want to see in the area. 3 . Attached is a letter from Bill Dunlap, Mayor of the Town of Firestone voicing his objection to this transmitter tower in this area. 4 . The bottom line is emergency communication. If we have problems such as the problems Boulder is experiencing with the same type of situation, a human life in danger cannot wait two months to solve the problem in order for a life to be saved. Mr. Cunliffe, I think this letter sums it up and should you have any questions, please don ' t hesitate to call . Sincerely, Re ecca E. Marker 0 E C V E Secretary y y Tri-Area Planning Commission JAN 221987 I] Encl . rm Weld Co. Planing Cuseufsil 870589 TOWN OF FIRESTONE WELD COUNTY FIRESTONE, COLORADO 80520 TELEPHONE (303) 833-3291 January 9, 1987 Tri-Area Planning Commission P.O. Box 363 Frederick, Colorado 80530 Gentlemen, It has come to the attention of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Firestone that Tri-Area Planning Commission has been contacted regarding the installation of a radio transmission tower to the east of Frederick. The consensus of the Board in Firestone is to recommend denial of such an installation. It is felt that such a tower could interfere with emergency radio communications, small aircraft and television reception. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Bill D. Dunlap Mayor Town of Firestone BDD/tlp of � E JAN 2 21987 tj Weld Co. Planningnistion 870589 r - f 11 twslic— ,„ t a OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS PLIONE (303)356-4000, EXT. 4215 aa�} PO. ©OX 753 91 a GREELEY COLORADO 80632 sr • COLORADO January 23, 1987 Weld County Planning Commission 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 -RE: Case Number USR776 - Commercial Radio Tower Dear Planning Commission Members: After careful review of the application and attached materials for a Use By Special Review submitted by Suckle Farms, Inc. , the Weld County Regional Communications Center respectfully submits the following recommendations and comments regarding Case Number USR776. In his Application to the Federal Communications Commission for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station, Mr. Paul Montoya marked "N/A" in his response to question number fourteen. That question asks if there are any government receiving stations in the general vicinity which may be Adversely affected by the proposed tower. If so, question number fourteen requires the applicant to state the expected effect, and to attach the following: a description of remedial steps that may be pursued if necessary and a statement accepting full responsibility for the elimination of any objectionable effect on existing stations. We believe that Mr. Montoya's response to question number fourteen.is incorrect. There have been several recent incidents of major interference problems between FM broadcast stations and public safety land mobile radio systems. Specifically we refer to the problems cn Mount Morrison in Jefferson County and Lee Hill in Boulder County. Weld County Communications has not specifically identified interference problems with the proposed radio tower; however, the potential does exist. In order to be sure that the public safety radio network is protected from harmful interference, we recommend that complete: intermodulation and signal saturation analysis be performed and documented by the applicant as a condition to the granting of the USR. This would include all proposed five (5) FM stations referenced in the application as well an any future frequencies to be broadcast from the proposed tower. ^ e o v ac\91) _ - AN 2. AN ''f 1987 r_Ji, — 870589 Welrl Cu. Plamnrty, (:emmcsslu f Weld County Planning Commission January 23, 1987 Page 2 We would also recommend that provision be made such that _any harmful interference caused by the frequencies transmitted from the proposed tower be corrected by the applicant at the applicant's cost. The applicant should accept full responsibility for the elimination of any objectionable effect in existing public safety stations now and in the future. Weld County Regional Communications is willing to work with the applicant and provide a ' list of all public safety frequencies in use in the immediate area to compare to the results of the recommended intermodulatien analysis. These frequencies are used by five (5) Weld County law enforcement agencies (Dacono, Erie, Frederick, Firestone Police Department and the Weld County Sheriff's Office) , three (3) fire districts (Dacono, Frederick and Erie) , and two (2) medical response jurisdictions (Tri-area Ambulance and Weld County Faramecics) , that are in close proximity to the proposed radio tower site. Our final recommendation would be that the applicant be required to provide space on the tower and in the equipment enclosure for an antenna to mitigate any loss of transmission capability in the existing public safety radio network at no cost to the public safety agencies. We believe that these measures will satisfy our concern;; and will be In accordance with the requirements of the FCC as listed iu question number fourteen in the Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station. SUMMARY It is important to put our recommendations in proper perspective. They are preventative in nature. Weld County Regional Communications South site is sixteen (16) miles northeast of the proposed radio tower and therefore it is unlikely that harmful interference problems such as those that exist in Boulder and Jefferson Counties would be created. However, the public safety radio network is critical to law enforcement and fire protection agencies in Weld County. We feel that adoption of our recommendations will protect the integrity of the public safety network without creating undue hardship on the applicant. ai Respe dully submitted J�/rg- -777 ad 07114 . obert H. Rhinesmith, Director, Weld County Information Services Agency Weld County Regional Communications RER:skh 870589 I Denver Airports District Office US Department 10055 East 25th Avenue of Transportation Suite 30; Aurora, Colorado 00010 Federal Aviation Administration (303) 340-5527 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 1255 foot tower in the NW 1/4 of Section 33, T2N, P67W in Weld County, Colorado (Case Number USR-776:86:57) . The Federal Aviation Administration is currently conducting an airspace study of the proposed tower to determine its affect on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. The public and interested organizations and agencies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal as part of the airspace study. Several objections to the proposal have been received and although the study has not been completed and a determination has not been issued, the potential for a hazard determination on the tower still exists. If you have questions on the status of the airspace study you should contact Ted Melland in Seattle, Washington at (206) 431-2533 and refer to case 86-ANM/D-323-0E. In the interest of aviation safety, the Federal Aviation Administration respectfully requests that Weld County not approve the application for a 1255' tower until the FAA has issued a favorable determination on the impact the proposal would have on our nations airspace. Also in the interest of aviation safety, we recommend that Weld County consider a requirement of tower proponants to solicit comments from private airstrip owners within a four mile radius of a proposed tower in a similar fashion to the opportunity of nearby neighbors to comment. The Federal Aviation Administration cannot prevent the construction of structures, it is a land use control ; therefore, enhancement of aviation safety can only be achieved through the combined efforts of the FAA and local government. We appreciate your efforts. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the number above. Sincerely, Barbara Johnson B) .MXT Airport Planner JAN 15 1987 870589 Weld Ca. Planning Commission FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 DATE OF INSPECTION: 7--1/...-,c27 NAME: Suckla Farms, Inc. REQUEST: 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW' of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County LAND USE: S W ZONING: N � tGcat%LC« _ LOCATION: Approximately .5 -mile east of the E town of Frederick S W COMMENTS: cam / ' «<: c'L��';•-,tom•C-��`—c_ 870589 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-776:86:57 DATE OF INSPECTION: January 3, 1987 NAME: Suckla Farms, Inc. REQUEST: 1,250 foot high radio transmission tower LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately .5 mile east of the Town of Frederick LAND USE: N Agricultural E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural ZONING: N Agricultural E Agricultural S Agricultural W Agricultural COMMENTS: The property is vacant with the exception of an oil well and has been in agricultural production. There appears to be an irrigation sprinkler on the eastern portion of the property. There are 4 dwellings located on the north side of Weld County Road 16, approximately 1, 100 feet north of the property. Other dwellings are located a half mile to the south and southeast. A Public Service Company electric transmission line runs along the west side of the property. Access to the property is a gravel road that goes to the oil well located on the property. The access road is across the Public Service Company property. The property appears to be the high spot of the quarter section and drains away in all directions. By: °SUMMLeatiCd -Chuck Cunliffe Director 870589 > • FLOW SHEET ECii _1, _ II _ J.l Tar i ' reLiCANT: SALKla FQYmS ' � f�.:�,' � Inl� nr_`�-i -"Sin -I ''C)REQUEST: `1111ZW' limsteh Ya: \® `Tr Qh5vnt.ar _4O Qtr. LEGAL: 14 . ► ` e�y tA.)4 2.6 cpi LOCATION: (IWO $\W P%\1 L 16_ PA;Vest CAS 010 A-L.. 70 Ws" •( FY a .`ic DATE B Y �o Application Received '� I ti DA / Application Complete . l Q n n, tDiv Hearing Date: r-tv a {RS1 Iv lit• tip Wit, Utility Board Hearing Date: N I _ I1.r3JO f� p t j / PC Sign given to Applicant r� I` PC Sign posted By: Jah, 23, 14t1 Ia I3o t� nl�,. V v0�(i Letter to Applicant Drafted 1410 SSo CA„ Referrals Listed t3 j o) 8 co cam. Public Notice Drafted 1a.I30 ) 8 c ' No/ File Assembled la.-- o.-$10 ._Jc.cv ( Referrals Mailed / t2-3o -Ala . .i..N. Chaindexed / +7 ` ?)O-Rte Letter to Applicant Mailed 1 12 -3o -86 -k-c\, Public Notice Sent Out By: Joh , 5. vie)-1 1L 3O -8(0 Prop. & Mineral Owners Notified By: J&.h,t3, tibi Z °-$4 Ic2'36-24 ti Maps Prepared 1-2-87 Field Check By DPS Staff /�/J/' Field Check-Board Member: LAWS R6dtw c.110 v( l//��l DPS Recommendation Drafted [/ / G� ��C DPS Recommendation Typed y/ !// `p /c + _�t=gl V:940.7, Packets Xeroxed D"` d to -s-fl-I /� In PC/BOA Hearing Action:Cov\t=iw,_sa 3-5-%1 4• -% Z --5-C39 3•bZ ..k.o - PC/BOA Resolution 4-z,-- B, BOA Resolution Sent To Applicant 4.21-U7 id/ // -//2-1c)7/3-14 .GC"Y s, \I\ Meeting Summary or Minutes Filed in Case Z?- fl v �-/4-R 7/3-L_ e ,,c, Case Sent To Clerk to Board Z/fr7 .2 ��j:7 CC Sign Given to Applicant l CC Sign Posted By: ‘/Z-2/e7 5/99 /C6. Y/92/6 7 CC Hearing: 7/Tie? Action: glaiend 9 -Y- '2 49ryCC Resolution Received ' 7 V/ - Plat and/or Resolution Recorded History Card Completed Recorded on Maps and Filed 9/9/8-) rDEPAI VENT OF PLANNING SERVICES is s/ PHONE(3031356-4000 EXT. 4400 �. + 915 10th STREET 9 � 1PSIGREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ca COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEALING The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on February 3, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. to review a request for approval of a Use by Special Review permit for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower from Suckla Farms, Incorporated the parcel of land is described as part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, containing 48 acres, more or less. The property is located approximately } mile east of the Town of Frederick. The public hearing to be held by the Weld County Planning Commission for the consideration of the above referenced request will be conducted in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Room 342, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on February 3, 1987. . Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, Room 342, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado, - Phone - 356-4000, Extension 4400. Jack Holman, Chairman Weld County Planning Commission To be published in the Johnstown Breeze To be published one (1) time by January January 8, 1987 Received by: I (A- I ,z.ege„.r��,.o Date: ,I 115 7 r 870589 _Surrounding Property Owners USR-776:86:57 Suckla Farms, Incorporated Suckla Farms, Incorporated 4468 Weld County Road 19 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Susan J. Trout Marian J. Botinelli Carla Johnson Hobbs c/o Johnson Farms 14491 Weld County Road 5 Longmont, CO 80501 Bud W. and Joyce Hunziker 8953 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Kim and Lawrence Richmeier 8511 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Edward W. and Roberta Swanberg 7124 Weld County Road 17 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Robert and Bonita Martin 8445 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Edger H. and Irma J. Trow 8275 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 David E. and Catherine Mallory 7543 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Colorado Community Investment Analysis Syndicate Number 3 7590 Weld Colfax Lakewood, CO 80215 870589 Page 2 Ernest L. , Junior, and Helen Craig 7772 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Carl A. Nelson, et al c/o Central Weld County Water District 115 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Town of Frederick 341 5th Street Frederick, CO 80530 Public Service of Colorado 515 15th Street Denver, CO 80200 870589 Surrounding Mineral Owners USR-776:86:57 Suckla Farms, Incorporated Suckla Farms, Incorporated 4468 Weld County Road 19 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Union Pacific c/o John J. -Mullens 1401 17th Street Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 870589 B 1143 REC 02085065 01/16/87 11 : 00 $6. 00 1/002 F 0116 MA ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RT -)RDER WELD CO, CO RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. I311 -29 - 2- RE 947 THE SOUTH 557.00 FEET OF THE SW 1/4 SEC. 29 , T2N, R67W, 6th P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO oc SW COR. '— SEC. 29 A BRASS CAP I I5I N 00°13'00" E 2646.20 w 1/4 L -_ - COUNTY RO. 15 _/-® 29 I I416.50 / 14052 t- T - - - - - BRASS CAP LOT A . I I 2.50 as 13 ACRES o b II Z J m ZI V O J m I o J of VICINITY MAP i1 I E NO SCALE COUNTY RD. 15 = 140.52 I S 00.13,00" w - SITE ' SECTION I O° I 9 I J LOT B P 31.245 ACRES - rT I I II • 30' R 30' R.O.W.- L... I I I j - I NORTH I I D 300 600 O1 I I 1 wl I SCALE IN FEET •OI I wI • = FOUND CORNERS AS PER RECORDED TIES NJo • SET PIN W/CAP L.S.5 23500 II Co 11 co m TOTAL ACREAGE = 33.745 S 1/4 SEC. 291 557 02 1 N 1/6 SEC. 29 s. RECTANGULAR BRASS CAP STEEL PIN I S 00°11'27" W euu' I.• = 300' MMcCARTY ENGINEERING ORMoN CONSULTANTS, INC. AMN/ELK 703 3R0 AVSNU• DRAWN LONOMONT. COLORADO •0601 776.77.6 METRO •4•.4373 CHECK RD APPROVED JO■ NO 1739,1 DATE 1-09-E7 sorer 1 DP 2 PURPORTED COPY - -8'70589 • DEPARciNT OF PLANNING SERVICES • - PHONE(303)356.400O EXT.4400 rt alpt. - '915 10thDO T GREELEY,COLORADO ST80631 • COLORADO - • December 30,. 1987 • TO: MINERAL OWNERS AND LESSEES OF MINERAL OWNERS Case Number: USR-776:86:57 _There will be a Public Hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on - February 3, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial. Center, 915 ' 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado concerning the request of: NAME: Suckla Farms, Incorporated FOR: 1,250' high radio transmitter tower. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NWi of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately mile east of the Town. of Frederick. You have an interest in the mineral rights under the parcel of land being considered. For additional information write or telephone,_ Chuck Cunliffe, Director. WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 915 10th Street - Room 342 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone: 356-4000 - Extension 4400 C PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS PRECEDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR CASE 11 (01SQ -'11(o . THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: to #k • 5fr0//,- • • NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN V .o SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD ) SUBSCR:IBED.AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS //r4 DAY OF ✓may , zi � SEAL,n z /y v NOSUBL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES /- y- // LAST DAY TO POST SIGN IS: Jeminvonv2 19 1)l JAN 141987 Weld Co. Planning Commissioe a _ _ _ _ ''''''''' ' '. f., '' '' is•` i r i{ I• r .i • 1 y, • -- -- --- — --.._ .f it.:r�� ;.l 64' NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION 11 �oar5� Paz Kee,8uOW. 4JoyhE &s3 KM - - 62-1311-28-O-oo-030 FuLUFFOia ,cow. Ensz( (2aue4 RLa IMEKE2,KIM4LAWkf3JaE 8511 l 11 62-1311-28.0-60-031 FT LipTu3,QOLO. 50621 .' WAM& ,EOW4RD W. 4 7124 LU2$L (7 62-1311-28-O-00-032 (2ceflE- l aBegrA PT. LUgm(,Qow. fYY-21 (8,416-) MARTIM, FbErRr ? 413a01. 6445 IWCO (6 62- 1311- 28-0-Co- tap Fr.wproN,Cow. 1 (2OVI6>] -TRW,EreE2 1.(.S IRMA T 827S (•((0.216 (.Q-1311-28-0 --00-027 FT LLIproJJ ,aw. 2c62I (2642.D MALLOR(, VAUiPE. 4 7543 u.2R_ (6 62- 1311-29-0-00-a31 0AT+IERIAIE PE. wpm) ,eat. $0621 few) COLD. COMM. IM VESrMarr 7590 WEST COLFAX 62-1311-32-0 -00-020 Aly+lysls sykvio&TE 3 LAKEuroP , eOLQ, Cz57 e) CRAIG, NWESt L.J2 4 7Tle WCF (6, !02-(31I -32-O co-018 1-lnoJ FT 1LIprota, Cow. Prc-e 60%4- MELsbt3,0ARL A., ETAL t l5 62-1311- 32-0 -00-0(S • dnrJTRAL (cap ob. UATtz2 GZE-EL€ Crow. 2o631 'D15TRccr do-&& TbWIJ of fR£DCRICK 3!11 di, srrzeer 62-1311 -32-0-co-ov FRe ROK" C OLo_ 86530 (Jzo7E6D 1F0Lrr, susNJ 4 4 (449! Me '5 62- 1311-32-0 -co -o(4 X21099) 30TI MELLI, MARIo/J Lemomonfr , COI Cl So501 I4oers , GIARLA % Jo4r3Sol.l FARMS (20197- PUBLIC aiallee OF 515 ISt 62• 1311- 33-0-00-w7 GOLOPADO 'DE,UUER , COW. RECOPDED EX Et,, TION Na 1311 - 29- 2- RE 947 LEGAL GCSCRIPTION All “f the South 557. 00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section cc), T.;wrr_hip 2 North, Range £7 West of the Sixth Principle Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, being further described as follows: • Degirir:, ng at the Southwest Corner of said Section 29; thence • NO4' 13' rur•E, 557. 02 feet along the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said section; thence S89' 17' 59'E, 2638. 88 feet -to the • East '. l , r.e of said southwest quarter; thence 800' 11 ' 27"W, 557. 02 fuel along said east line to the South Quarter Corner of said . suction; thence N89' 17' 59'W, .639. 13 feet to the Point of Deg inning. rin i nq. Thus rL_•_,cribed parcel of land contains 33. 745 Acres more or less including strips of land 30 feet in width along the West and Sr.ulfr I , ;.ens of said parcel , both strips reserved for County Road purp. LL'-'- TOGLIIILR WITH AND SUBJECT TO all rights-or-way and easements existing and/or of public record. BASIS OF DEARINGS The NULL line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29 taken as NOO° 136.,•E with all other bearings contained hereon relative 1.1erot.l. I (we) ,\, the undersigned, being the sole owners) in fee of the above described property do hereby subdivide the same as shown on • t h11 ,tt hie dQ map. 07)eardel67a-alj rtt`.'y/ I . G fray Robert A. Pohlman The foregoing certification was acknowledged before me this /In day of ()52_,-.4 A. D. , 1987. • • My commission Expires: S-A - to Notary Public Witness my Hand and Seal I hereby certify that this plat was prepared under my supervision; and that -the same is corr AMrrrrr ,the best of my pp knowledge and belief. `, 11:0 q l �veT,Ct‘''pEt tn. f d/ .netil( /-io- /ffl r r� A. M. f fasca l l L. S. 23500 tti'` 23500 O; J�5 The accompanying plat is accepted and ap ii+Xy ,s$r filing. . eS >� Department of Planning Sery L2S Director The foregoing certification was acknowledged before me this 15- day of �p,Y,d,, ��S- A. D. , 1987. C. My _commission Expires: ►'y Ca.nsii. i i. :. r !� 13, 19c9 Notary Public Witness my Hand and Seal iNc)n.134.\ . Re e-A $_ \5 `15 to • SHEET 2 OF 2 • 870589 • RECORDED/SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW • FLOW SBEET CASE d #i% 992 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :=E,,T//INGDATE: NT APPLICA : Ater/ Z9 Ld2Aj, L.. ie%/pr,„ REQUEST: a / LEGAL: Pt sici J�� 2 9 //- 2 - 4 2 n LOCAT��IO�N:ce��,,2..!!,y7' ej ,�, /Cil / W/ n- t' 7/ /� cwt cr, f' or t - cf i'3 J / DATE 3Y Application Received `� /3 Application Complete Letter to Applicant Drafted / / 6 a Referrals Listed Tile Assembled Letter to Applicant Mailed 1 - 1 -i • . Referrals Hailed I �_ to . Chaindexed - • - -; 6 DPS Recommendation Completed Action: C� Plat and/or Resolution Recorded S History Card -Completed Recorded on ?Saps and/or Filed 870589 wcnll- W 3L ®.J0 \: DEPARTMFN)T OF PLANNING SERVICES r 1_ tto (` RECEIVED _ r PHONE(303)3564000 EXT.4400 SANITA iI 91510th STREET 1\i/ ON UIV!S!ON GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 t lq arti�` DEC 3Z a _ . WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT m. jb. .AuC #/� CASE RIMER USR-776:86:57 COL•RADO December 30, 186 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Suckla Farms, Incorporated for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower. The parcel of land is described as part of the NW3 of Section 33, T2N, . R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately } mile east of the Town of Frederick. This application is submitted to your office for review and. recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. Please reply by January 16, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Chuck Cunliffe if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan. for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. ✓ We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. - A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. P1 se r fer to the enclosed letter. Signed: billJ Agency: /7776741 Date: /` ._ Ey /// DEPARTCSIT OF PLANNING SERVICES rUl PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 - 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 w o CASE NUY2ER USR-776:86:57 COLO r, ADO December 30, 186 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Suckle Farms, Incorporated for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower. The parcel of land is described as part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has .been submitted is approximately } mile east of the Town of Frederick. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. Please reply by January 16, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Chuck Cunliffe if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan. for the following reasons. • 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. X We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our • interests.. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed:` J K Li'nyiIk Agency: Longmont Soil Conservation District Date: January 6, 1987 . y /9g7 Zfn wlAI.x.Li,aq DEPART%^ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES ` (, PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 ft�ti 915 10th STREET 4 ,' ��fff` GREELEY,COLORADO 80531 ( a CASE NUMBER USR-776:86:57 Ca* RADO December 30, 186 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Suckla Farms, Incorporated for a 1,250 foot high radio transmitter tower. The parcel of land is described as part of the NW} of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is approximately } mile east of the Town of Frederick. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. Please reply by January 16, 1987, so that we may give full consideration to. your recommendation. Please call Chuck Cunliffe if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the request (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan. for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. X We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: 5. 1 s efer to the enclosed letter. Signed: �� Agency: t` lccc i trTh Date: v't I3l ( 86, . Tri-Area Planning Commission P. O. Box 363 Frederic::, CO 80530 November 5 , 1986 Keith Schuett Current Planner Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Schuett: At the regular meeting of the Tri-Area Planning Commission applica- tion from Robert and Betty L. Pohlman for a recorded exemption was on the agenda. The parcel of land is east of Frederick, north of Weld County Road 16, and east of Weld County Road 15 . During our question and answer session with the Pohlman' s they indicated the reason for the recorded exemption was so they could give some acreage to their son so that he could build a home. The son indicated he was building a small aircraft and would like to build a hanger and landing strip. With this in mind and after great dicussion a motion was made and passed to approve application with the following stipulations: 1. The length of the landing strip would not exceed 450 feet. 2. Takeoffs would be to the east and landings to be from the east. 3 . The only aircraft permitted would be the one that Kevin Pohlman is currently building. In addition, we asked Mr. Nevin Polhman to type up a similar statement and have notarized for our records. I am enclosing one for your records. If you should have any questions, please don' t hesitate to call. Sincerely, 1-c.r....:-O— (1. Veldt-- Re' ecca Ilaraer Re' Secretary Tri-Area Planning Commission rm Encl. 870589 On November 3 , 1986 the Tri-Town Planning Commission held a meeting in the Frederick Town Hall. At this meet- ing, it was decided that my recorded exemption would be approved. Also permission was granted to use _part of this land for an airstrip, provided that I agree to three con- ditions. They are : 1 . The length of the landing strip would not exceed 450 feet . 2 . Takeoffs would be to the East , and landings be from the East. 3. The only aircraft permitted would be the one that I am currently building. I hereby agree to these conditions . Kevi Pohlman 7 No.1OOA. NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT. STATE OF COLORADO, nn pp � � � }ss. 41t-41 Countyof.1 Y_h » The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `r day of ^---� ' rU,,,,,p,On, ry„ , 19 Ala b3,: tans.`*40-91-_94.. O 1 WITNESS my hand and official seal. _ � t�- ��:`�'`� z 990 zr • x . 4. ; . My commission expires.--.-- U / . � 1� : 4�.. rot ,. hoG{Y, N�61ic.... 'If by natural person or persons here insert name or names: •by person acti:Lning in representative or official capacity or as -attorney-in-fact, tnen insert name of person as executor, attorney-in-tact or other capacity or description: if by officer of cor- poration, then insert name of such officer or officers, as the president or other officers of such corporation, naming It—Statutory Acknowledgment, Colorado Statutes Annotated.—Ch. 40, Sec. 107. 870_589 REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Robert and Betty L. Pohlman CASE NUMBER: RE-947 SENT REFERRALS OUT: REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: October 28, 1986 NO SR NR NO SR NR _ County Attorney X V Weld County Health Dept. Engineering Department County Extension Agent Office of Emergency Mngmt _ Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220 _ City of Greeley -Planning Department 919 7th Street Greeley, CO 80631 X ✓Tri Area Planning Commission P.O. Box 363 Frederick, CO 80530 NO-No Objection SR=Specific Recommendations NR=No Response 870589 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 915 10th STREET -y�. GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 .1 •. • COLORADO October 17, 1986 Robert A. and Betty L. Pohlman 7343 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pohlman: On July 1, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved revisions to the Weld County Subdivision Regulations delegating the authority to approve recorded exemptions to the Department of Planning Services. Your recorded exemption application is complete and in order and will be processed by our office on or before November 13, 1986. If it is determined that the application meets the approval criteria of Section 9-2 E. (1) (a) through (m) of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations, you will be notified that the recorded exemption is approved. If the staff determines that the application does not meet the approval criteria, you will be notified and asked to appear before the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing. You will be informed of the hearing date at least a week prior to the hearing. The Board of County Commissioners will then consider your application and make a final decision on the recorded exemption. It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Tri-Area Planning Commission for their review and comments. Please contact Rebecca Marker at 740-7100 for further details regarding the date, time, and place of this meeting. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me. Respectfully, Aid Iieitil Schuet Current Planner KAS:dy 8�y(� pp ! 0589 APPLICATION FOR RECORDED EXEMPTION PHONE: 356-4000, Ext . 4400 Department of Planning Services, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: APPL. FEE CASE NO. /b 99,7 RECORDING FEE ZONING DISTRICT RECEIPT NO. /3:4;77 ^DATE APPL. CHECKED BY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Print or type only except for required \c--- ' signatures) I (we) , the undersigned hereby request that the following described property be designated a recorded exemption by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ll 0c die S'otcth .5j`7C YeeF of the ,Sokf`ntc; 5-L Ore - pukr-4et- o-F :5�c.;-,ch /9 06vr, ,' Al. � ''rl/; il ��p ,� �- Ji2r,�e. � 7 >G�as— cat TOTAL ACREAGE: _3,3 grre5, 11/L . tI1E' (-1-11 A Al .) L Cie_Ict (7Ot[Ttfy6 C'c (cam ado . Has this property been divided from or had divided from it any other property since August 30, 1972? Yes No P----- Is this parcel of land under consideration the total contiguous land owned by the applicant? Yes ✓ No FEE OWNERS OF PROPERTY: Name: /1rApi-i- Acl,,A -.e 'fly L, Pr!7 /ma )1 Address: 7.."/ It itito IC1 Co. Rd k, Phone: ?33 — 357<` Ns 7- F . k Lc(J l n ll . (i .r641 /1/C ./di. - ?"'4,c)—� 9,10000 11 Address: Phone: Name: Address: Phone: WATER SOURCE: Larger Parcel C_\t/(1. GL/f) Smaller Parcel el:..)(. L.ij3 TYPE OF SEWER: Larger Parcel < p�i'ci Smaller Parcel Ce n1, C . PROPOSED USE: Larger Parcel Ye Sice ie4,14'«tm Smaller Parcel re.r,rc4,acir ACREAGE: Larger Parcel ,3f /m/t_ Smaller Parcel , , 4/ //M/, EXISTING DWELLINGS: (Yes or No) j/e 5 (Yes or No) P/c I hereby depose and state under/ the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with o contained. '-'ithin this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 4' COUNTY OF WELD ) .r:,6.:,_ - , . /}' C,;;/Crete./STATE OF COLORADO ) 2,- f�/ (e-f{---' Signatur,e�. Owner or Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this `,�„toom nrry .�O'Th day of 19j)‘. �K_,,... Q}, SEAL Qta-n/ W. 2-.aZ- iiN� ;°I/RUC ?o Mary Public 4j••••....ar•• r'., �Eu . v ,. pry p '\A4rir �'ssion Expires 7 atiy 1,., /99c 8�Q`S89 IIOUK • ['/1, C Recorded at... / a o'clock i AUG w 981 J`YJ Weld County, Colorado c, Reception No l8b'f188 Y �,,,� .G(ire ,.0,.,� Recorder. il THIS DEED, Made this 211t11 day of Au Qust , 19 R1, between Betty L . fodfrey and Robert A. Pohlman o of the County of Weld and state of Colorado,of the first part,and Betty I, . Pohlman and Robert A. Pohlman 7 -'/ 1,z' ld Ca Rd.'1e., of the County of Fy-.4 WW1 ,cb 8O(a /and state of - Colorado,of the second part, l" 1 n WITNESSETH, That the said part 1e s of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of DOLLARS,, to the said part to s of the first part in hand paid by the said part]e F of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha S remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by -i these t presents dee S remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part I e S of the second part, i their heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part 1 e S of the first part have in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Weld and State of Colorado, to wit: Hi All of the South 557. 0 feet of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 20, Township 2 North , Range 67 West of the 6th P . M. , Weld County, Colorado , further described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 29 ; thence North 00 13 ' Fast 557. 0 feet along the West line of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29 ; thence South 80 1R ' Fast 2 ,639.6 feet , more or less , to the Fast line of said Southwest one-quarter of Section 29 ; thence South 00' 09' West 557. 0 feet along the East line of said Southwest one-quarter to the Southeast corner of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29; thence North 89' 18 ' West 2 ,640. 5 feet along the S-outh line of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29 to the POINT CF BEGINNING. County of Weld , State of Colorado TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part ies of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part ies of the second part, the i.theirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part le of the first part ha ye hereunto set the i rhand and seals the day and year first above written. .4 ` _"7.1- N .!k:/e -..3Y/i) [SEAL] Signed,Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of /�' 271 el /7'.' =�i�.C It�:t::`z. `--L. �. ,1`.L..a•..t-.ter.—[SEAL] • [SEAL] [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, , 'r r • P .. g, ''County of <c _( c• fit,, tf,oing ingtrument was acknowledged before me this /i ] ] L ,�19 g:tbr' ' , d* i day of l i i.-� l V :-O N. ti{y./c in.lookIi qipires C F,. C-1 I - E 5 , 19 .Witness my hand and official seal. Jrc• 0i- C��,v 0q,u„,i,no,`" `L.rII,S "1 _) ;\l t Notary Public. No.933. QUIT CLAIM DEED.—Ilrnd(.md Publishing Co., ISl21-I6 Stout F, .-i Denver,Colorado (573.56I I) 176 870589 4C_H( ' '(- ' C 9se- " r kc- Rio n M .Y Wz -‘13 n o -0. o A r0 ` � a co fa en y ±1 ! ; p xk 9. oi`• O °c w 9 n o @ o tl 0. til P e R s d ato aa M ----- 870589 • #4. The reason for dividing the lot into two separate lots , is so that our son could acquire enough land to build a house for his residence . Eventually, he would like to use part of the lot as a landing strip for an airplane he is building. He is a licensed pilot and flies- out of Tri-County Airport. The airplane is an FAA registered experimental , and would be flown strictly for recreation, and not for everyday use. It ' s Configuration is similar to a glider with a motor, and requires 300 feet for takeoff and landing. It is not an Ultralite. The plane is still under construction, and no flights would be conducted with- out the approval of the governing bodies . #5. She lot separation is consistent with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, because it will not cause degradation of valuable cropland. The land is listed as class three and four irri- gated as per the land use map included in the comprehensive plan. Irrigation water must be bought in " Shares " , and is rather expensive . The land is marginally productive with irrigation, and non productive without it . -6. The proposed lot separation is consistent with the intent of the zone district , because of the location being so close to the town of Frederick, and the availability of local utilities such as water and electricity. #7. There are several other residences in the area with small acerages similar to this proposal. #8. The proposed lot separation is located in an area that is annexed on two sides by the town of Frederick. Building close to , if not in town, is encouraged by the comprehensive plan. #9. The proposed lot separation would produce another lot similar in shape to the original, with more than sufficient access to Weld County Road #15. Also the length of this lot would allow enough room for a runway. X10. The water for this new lot would be provided by Central Weld County Water District . There is a 14 inch main that runs past the front of the property. The sewage disposal will be a septic system. In the event that Frederick expands it ' s sewer system to the adjoining annexation, our son would consider connecting to that system. #11 . This property under consideration, is not located in a flood- plain, geologic hazard, or Weld County airport overlay district. 870589 Co.noUS r Gas 9 U-1;/ir ,'es Ear e-.n e.,.+5 4orAe 2,5deref l?0.'v LOT J cc, Ile / 0_: /z mn/a LT; �I c II o.N.1 IS LOT A' rr.rsee �— ••e LOT'B' o SA..p 5 ' 9e Stens Sea/e 36e. /00 ' b O n on",se n H. a 71 Cn.Hd 11 II- E.vistl.,, fSullcb-n,s f Ace :s t.e5r+i e..tI Y 557' 870589 • Co. Rd. /S LDT A' Prop used Access $ house /Ga.-tie Location 6) c 870589 Co to NTS` • tom S eenxl trrxrr . • patrol red sea Beam, -1fl u. I SECOND LEVEL , r I II r -� It;' ,;"';'. . ` r • I II'' i Potts I a 4 I yr i r I r I' I T117 I II , Par =a_, 2-1141' - Fra�m.13'1rr I 1 1 cc_1 aL— FIRST LEVEL .r/M.V • l i I Ztli _ • • - I III'n `. r��d RI �I nra(ett et+,cnle+•f^++ " e` `L lI h'�� .),1•...:). .. ��: '•' 3 F IP Z Qom' ti a. :vrT .fit$ }y z s 11� �t r a l) y 1� iii L tS�ii� LSy S.. 11 lllb, A \ ,,,:i.` .g.. i I rlweaaws. as .,,, _ II li'kRM• c:_1W 1/4/ :1440... 870589 - CIRTIFICATE OF CONVEYANCES WELD COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO ) DERARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES COUNTY OF WELD The Security Abstract Co. of Weld CoTJTLE INSURANCE or ABSTRACT COMPANY hereby certifies that it has made a careful search of its records, and finds the following conveyances affecting the real estate described herein since August 30, 1972 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of the South 557 . 0 feet 9f the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29 , Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, further described as follows : Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 29 ; thence North 00 °13 ' East 557. 0 feet along the West line of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29 ; thence South 89 °18 ' East 2, 639 . 6 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Southwest one-quarter of Section 29 ; thence South 00°09 ' West 557 . 0 feet along the East line of said Southwest one-quarter to the Southeast corner of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29; thence North 89°18 ' West 2, 640 .5 feet along the South line of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. County of Weld, State of Colorado. CONVEYANCES (if none appear, so state) : Reception No. 1718105 , Book 796 Reception No. 1775166 , Book 853 Reception No. 1834933 , Book 913 Reception No. 1834934 , Book 913 Reception No. 1834935 , Book 913 -Reception No. 1867188 , Book 945 Reception No. , Book Reception No. , Book This Certificate is made for the use and benefit of the Department of Planning Services of Weld County, Colorado. This Certificate is not to be construed as an Abstract of Title nor an opinion of Title , nor a guarantee Title, and the liability of Security Abstract Co. of Weld County COMPANY is hereby limited to the fee paid for this Certificate . In Witness Whereof, Security Abstract Co. of Weld County COMPANY has caused this certificate to be signed by its proper officer this 29th day of September , A.D. , 19 86 , at 7 :45 A.M. o 'clock. Security Abstract Co. of Weld County COMPANY By: �KA .kA , ` ..crf.Q ./3\C. ��— AUTHORIZED COUNTERSIGNATU E 870589 -+ -BOOK OCJ Rzoned.t�-L' _p_�_eels,. 0 . IL,___ IIT 41977 0 4: I ,W a.nre a No--.....17.101Q5. ,.. lad_lV _ __.__...rtatK,A,at.fylOiT1M. .Esneder. 340c5 e" 'lac DEED. Had. on 22nd day of April . se 77 'abaft EOSar J. our. and PI M= A. ZAZQL o. I o. Star Demme rotr Pa °f a' Ms NAY 4 1977 0 Can of and Sated d the m t and Colorado, tint per = •4..S�? • OD N J. Sant andr.4 el the H. H RTON Coe de,d the axed port: • WIT lagrH,That the pia Pawn d the Sot porkier maul easkinatiou of dr eesd • a Ninety-fin Thousand and no/tooths----_,.ww�.-__ —en- -Pa � t- to the saw port !as o the sleet port is hod pow by rld pert Loa d the..ease part,tar--.. t waaart L In CO oas t dso t w oetaswl.dgod,he ow d w n greeted,bargained,. sn,ed,and by the pssats de r o runt terra,sail, q d eav team,mats the aid part ins of the second part*br t.ur. d oars fol. O O ear,an the fallowing ante,described lot or penal of lend, o:e,lying sod bend Is the p County of Void sad Hats of Coloreds,to wit: tn All of the South 557.0 tan of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29, Township ' gl gl 2a North,rth Range 67 Yen of the 6th P.N., Vold County, Colorado, further described I Ei Q., Heslmlas at the Sotthes.% corer of said Section 29; thence North 00° 131 fan i 557.0 feet aloes the Yen line of the Southwest aae-starter of Section 29; theme>g 1 rikt South 09° 1St Nast 2639.6 foot, more or lops, to the East line of said Southwest I am-quarter of Section 29; themes South 00w 09t Yen 557.0 feet slang th° Est 40 line of said Southeast asywrter to the Southeast corner of the Southwest oau- quarter of said Section 29; thence North 09° let Wiest 2640.5 feet along the South line of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29 to the POINT OP 50. . rDNIDIO. TOO1TSCR WITS 2 tires of the capital stook of The Pavers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. t Notes The grateea nailing address is 7343 Veld County Rd. 16, Pt. Lutes, Cease 00623 TOGETHER with as d sisals: the ha-tlter-s w spwetaunae thaw. bsYylsb or a Wass O gesraaLg.d the mama d reeadme,r w.�aledas,rat,lass ad promo thaw!,d as as acts,right title,hsta.t dada w domed wheese.er of the old partials of the first pat,either a law se nay,of,a w te the absa barpid pr at,with the berallteaemte d apprtmaea. TO HAFN AND TO HOLD the add pars shoo bargained d drat with as appataama,erne the C aid saline d t�h!t!d pat their heirs d aadps taunts.And the aid pan Lap d the Ord pat use the Wna,`�6a,matea,and arkslaletraters,do aonaat,punt,barges,and apes a d with at odd partiaa of as road pattbeirlalo and salad,that at the thin of the soft ad delivery of tbesg amt.' eye Ind abed of as prods=shore wooed,as of good,an,sated,absolute d bdtmdM est e at IeMnune .is law,in he dmpl,ad Ian good right,fell pas and lawful scaaay t to peat tape,sell ad any W a la soar sod in a donaid,d that the fur an Les d dear boo all tans ad star pets,beagles,ado,lies,asst,aeearosen-d taeabeas at whatever Ida/er mta.a.. . Einept taxes end assonants for 1977, des and payable in 19701 of recorder Iase,-if lsta 'j oud swept walla' created by tuelu, easements end restrictions m of ab property in any tszaissesetag districts, and con* all mineral reservations as coatsiaut In Patent recorded is Boot 20 at Pap 75, of all mineral lands, should ape sashbe That bit on not construed to lauds coal and iron leads. aal the then barpad premises a the.dot w gnaw p sepia of the said panels of the send pat ti their labs w naps spire at ad envy pace or Saar lawfully olaloag or to&Ma the whsle or On sat Owed.the aw pains of the fest pat shall w will WARRANT AND TOM=a®EIID. DI WITNESS WHEREOF,are said pot Ida des lest pert he n hamate at their hod e ad seal deb w year first above watts -.- -' .. (ANAL) • STATE OF COLORADO, l - Coyd Netld°r' lla ` . The unstrung Ira abmwLyd es tatae this 'f'k 2R .1 Car d 1n . le R J. Z-iel end Phyllis A. Yodel ��CC ^^^^" �v�,_4a,t 4ztflçj ^lam' +"a�A,a ST`e' N.. waseaeaes.sa.atemmar lla.atr°r Seas- - sun arses _um (� p 870589 Raoeptlen No +'�J�d '� WI _—/-/ w•fd calattvae"` alrorodo !Ice .-+ • ., THWIDMantillalbMantillaFILING 1St day of December .078 STAMP ' e-/ .ii -' WILLIAM J. tiDRRYd and CAROL H. manic a 0 Sgt • Stale Documentary Fee Qv is dMa Cwntrof Weld ' End ateted Colorado,ofthe nut part.and Dar off: B 1978 • o Jam? ALLEN LAMBRECHT and BEVERLY ANN 1AMBRECH1• $ /l..S-0 ' • .a O is IA whose kcal/tress is 7343 Weld County Road, Ft: Lupton - 1 • dtM cosset,of Weld and State of Colseado.dthe ascend part ■ • i WITNESSETHI that the said party of the first part,for and inconsideration tithe sum of •. ONE }BMW FIFTEEN TH0 SAND App KO HUNDREDS (115,000.00) o N DOLLARS N N andthe ether nod and valuable considerations tp said party of the first part in hand paid by the said parties of the o scored part,the receipt whereof I.hereby confessed and acknowledged,has granted•bargained,sold and contend.e el co O, by thew presents don grant,bargain,sell,convey and confirm unto the said parties of second part,their heirs ad o assign forever,not in tare O - dory in common but in Joint tenancy,all the follorHngdeseribd lot or parcel of • le Weld nd,situate,lying and beiugin the Count?of and State ofColored.,tovrnt W - 0o .A11 of the South 557.0 feet of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29, Townshi m 2 !Barth, Range 67 West of the 6th p.m., Weld County, Colorado, further described as follows: # ; . )ogliming at the Southwest corner of said Section 29, thence North 00°13' Heat _ iln `r :.553.0 feet along the West line of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29; t .Soars 89018 East 2,639.6 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Southwest- , t tat In-- equarter.o Lion 29; thence South 00°09' West 557.0 f t 1 Fast s ' rs st a totem. thg scp�er��a]nn�u- .„t./ I aa' • �}uUnjne 4uafi e }tdth�itonWel crib tee of k TOGETHER with all and singular ly the hereditament,and appurtenances thereunto belonging,or In an Yen Inning and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders•rents. issues and profits thereof;and all the --. estate.right,title,interest.claim and demand whatsoever ofthe said party of the first part,either in law orpuity,of.In and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditamenta and appurtenance TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described•with the appurtenances,unto the said parties of the second part,their heirs and assigns forever.And the said party of the first part,for himself.his heirs, esseutore,and administrators,does covenant,grant,bargain and agree to and with the said parties of the second pert• their heirs and assume.that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents,he is well seized ofthe premises • above conveyed,as of good,sure,perfect,absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law.in fee simple•and has good right,full power and lawful authority to pant,bargain,sell and convey the same In manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants,bargains,sales,liens,taxes,assessment,and encumbrencts of wh tever kind or naturesoeveq subject to reservations, restrictions easementsand rights-of-way as the same may be of record or in use, if any; any lien aria by reason of the inclusion of the premises within any Special Assessment Districts • or any Water Districts; lien for 1978 taxes, which, by reason of proration, the • grantee assumes and agrees to pay; also, any taxes for subsequent years; :I • ' and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said parties of the second part,the survivor of them,their assigns and the heirs and assigns of such survivor,against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof,the said party of t he first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND.The singular number shall include the plural,the plural the singular,and the use of any gender shall he applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the firrt part has hereunto set his hand se I the day and year Ant above written. /, `{/, - Signed.Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of 7�tiLL rz.r�! IWEAL, iii am J. tlarto�n / • m. o_ r-e-1r-4�a-• . (PEALS .. 'SEAM . wren O►fbLOR'DO - - .• �e4}•p•.G.,C!' *s •Weld 1 //JIB,. ,,.f�4 vas acknowledged before me this / •S± day of,LL CM""r"� Jae. `tti'. .: 3rtpa and Carol H. Horton -`~4 ' oo " 4:All /T 3von' .Witness my hand and Whin was.. ?% (/ �; e� th4�.• ....... Apr f� • fir coc ,r - ---__ h.t. • No.nit waaa nn Data SolWar._pe,va VIM sr.en,e passe,.,ca.IS-441 sa.n sits n.e.eedu.saetar sto —an 870589 • g lea r Yi£�r,t SEP 3 OOD 813 • a Ra,Ma W. 1t _�' '1 TM Dia, 1441 Ws 3rd• day dSeptasib•r .a 80. _. , Itbaah`JERRY ALLIW LAWERECHT and ' ' dam= ANN LAMBRECHT , I i d W Geri d Weld and sated Calera* 1 • e1tle tMpa%al PRANK J. VOGL ' 5535 Weld County Road 23 III l.' Port Lupton 80621 • I' • M • II stem Oat)d Weld d state d Colonels,,d ttheal se prat. • WrR 'NINSI 71a eat add proles d w fierr part;for d m eeedLrataa d the ma d DMUS, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 0 oa the aid swiss tithe ard_pet is head paid by tM add party of the axed pelt,the mealy:whored 4 o beat eafeerd d se>aswla,d,ha we punted,baepked,add and tanned,and by thee nobs do sap.hrgsls,all,convey d ea i a,ate the aid party of the mood pap lots ad seam forever;as tie fescwaig daorhed tot or panel of land,daisy lying d big is the y+ ; Gab d Weld and State of Colorado,to-wit: M e(,' An undivided 83-1/3% interest in and to the following described G5- ' . , real estate: All of the South 557.0 feet of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 67 West -0f the 6th P.H., - Weld County, Colorado, further described as follows: .Eeginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 29; thence . ' North 00.13' East 557.0 feet along the West line of the South- west-ope-quarter of Section 29; thence South 89°18' .East 2,639.6 ' ' feet, more or less, to the East line of said Southwest one-quarter i':1 of Section 29; thence South 00°09' Wtst 557.0 feet along the East line of said Southwest one-quarter to the Southeast corner of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29; thence North ,89'18' West 2,640.5 feet along the South line of the Southwest '• . one-quarter of said Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ' County of Weld, State of Colorado • �tf ., t': ••uLY yv;t. t.qe.-. .u.. iv, ...,..0....,..,/, ni :..0 ..,• `;.Y,ijt J, u l,,'+t5, `^ 1Ji �.a . Zr• SY4 . ..1 'h -. :l t47od*' .,r»vr t-. . q:send:` to tl+#Altt}ml,?,t.N I rY` Wilk bE d Sala the 6nsdWaate and apsalteseaa,elrr*r} e e�!ti/sMsM ' �MI� MifA►maids d:aaasier,reaeleder d tr•-YYa:alsvls•ta11S .00 • Iril, ,: arilii.,�,.�t�da+�',11-use-dbtr d Lased wlatarwe ei.as ma pn4et f..l �l4 asta ORPlaoa�adadpeaahn a.withthebievama ae{e•df•e err • r :� , : : r Na M. wlaeaaT sea- abel aeear in—• •Pala;a.twee swat loo as data lli adaele , ..3 Triligri ill 11:11 870589 • • • • e 913 1934933 • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premless above bargained and duuuOed,with the apoartdere,ate the aid Patty ��th�h}},�eecsad Part, his Min and assigns forever. And the said parties it the 8nt part, far therealves)'`5ihti.rxrwtors,and administrators.do carat, grant.barn and sine sa'and with the said party of the second part.his hale and assigns, that at the time of the a'reeaihtg and dslkuy of theme presents they are well ssWd of the premises above conveyed, u-of good, eme, perfect, anoints sal indefeasible estate of Inheritance,In law,In fee simple,and ha ye good right,fall power sad lawful authority to flat. bargain, sell and convey the same in meaner and form as aforesaid, and that the same an tree ad clear from all fanner and other grants, bargains. sales, love. taxes, assessments and encumbnswr of whatever -. kid or nature soerer., except easements, restrictions, reservations and rights- of-way of record, if any, and 1980 taxes, e • . and the above bargained-premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second pert. • his heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof,the said part ies of the first part shall end will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said parties of the first part have hereunto settheituds and sealS the day and year first above written. �/ao� /� n.� Signed,sealed and Delivered In the Presence of ..Y.Ak.. 6:«.:f^_�C..k&t_.4..ccX/..__—[SEAL] Pgkry Allen l,ambrecht --"—.--.._ / _ �y^ /A�� --.._[SEAL] •Beverly n l.ambrecht •"""'•••.$7ATE OF COLORADO, ) Canty of Weld �'•. (• / was 9uuvment acknowledged before me this 3rd day of September W12koci • , • il .d... M �C ALLEN LAMBRECHT and BEVERLY ANN LAMBRECHT. y Gb�i.aidd sit*. 19 Witness m hen � w • II i is ' 1 ' ' • • • I ' I 'I , I I i I ail 5 9 z i ey Ca j i p 2 I let j . •It I • y i qp. . 1 118 1 I II ti x I 11 R } T e ; r w e is y • t : i i �� 9 ! i k O J 3 I I I , w , A 'S l ;II d i I? I " I I 't:t t.• i !15 t• 9k ,1 4 870589 • se X913 Recorded.z.___ 6.1.' SEP .1900. . -- Sc Reseptlw No...._ S34.9.34. _.._..._.... ......_....__..____ �._...--._lt.wedr. O A 9 Wsld County, Cdorado X19 DUD. N.daL,s t awns- ---� 3rd X01 September ' U8O 'Mtn.. FRANK J. VOGL • a Seal. Docuteroa ary Fes nor SEP 319 • • °f the County of Weld and state of • /U, DO 0 .. 0A°ad0.°1 rh°IIrrt preset.and BETTY L. GODFREY and , ROBERT A. POHLMAN • 7343 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton 80621 • of the Counts of Weld and State of Colorado,of the second part: • WITNESSEPR,that the said party of the first part,for and in emddeatlon of the stun of • en ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS, 0. ttr vt to the sae party of the first part la hand paid by the said parties-of the second part,the receipt whereof in o hoaby°onfessed and admowledged,has ranted,bargained.sold and conveyed,and by these presents do Es G grant,bargain,aell,°envy and contra.unto-the said parties of the second part,their heirs and sedges fore. ,sot o in tenancy in mermen but be Joint tenancy.W the following described lot or parcel of land,sitwte,lying and being in-vs County of Weld and State of Colorado.to wit: 8,3 ton An undivided 83-1/3% interest in and to the following describedton W real estate: h Co, All of the South 557.0 feet of the Southwest one-quarter cf Sec- tion 29, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.N. , Weld County, Colorado, further described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 29; thence Nor 00'13' East 557.0 feet along the West line of the Southwest one- quarter of Section 29; thence South 89°7.8' East 2,639.6 feet, mor or leas, to the East line of said Southwest one-quarter of Sectio 29; thence South 00°09' West 557.0 feet along the East line of said Southwest one-quarter to the Southeast corner of the South- west one-quarter of said Section 29; thence North 89°18' West 2,640.5 feet along the South line of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. County of Weld, State of Colorado 9F 02, • ' Yocit lit with as and singular the hereditament§ and appurtenance thaaente belonging, or la answlw apPatelte- sad the rsem.hn and re.aedo°s, remainder and remainders,runts.is and paaits lint and .' all the arlate tight,title,&tenet,calm and demand whatsoever of the said piety d the tnt pert, either In taw fie"S.d,f sad to the above bargained promises,with the hhrditsmate and appretiaas. . laPiuPwassrara 870589 . . " • ems` 913 1601934 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said endow above bargained and described, with dm applotmaaee.,ante the had persiste of the second part, their heirs and assign. forever. And the mid party of the-tint part. fa him ,si f, his Mink eeeVtmf,and administrators, des amass; rant, bunts and wile to and with the mid partite.f di.second part,their heir.and esdgn.,that at the time of the anwlt g ad dolt of these enemata, he is well seined of the premises above conveyed, as of good, a n,Perfect, aheai.te and tndefemmM estate of inheritance in law,in fee simple,and has god right,full power and lawful mltlnty to gnu;bargain.sell and convey the same in meaner and form aforesaid,and that the same an free and char Lem W formes and other grants,bargains,sales,Seas,tans,esuemer.te and tmombranees of whatever tld or sabre, Nevm. except easements, restrictions, reservations and rights-of-way of record, if any, and 1980 taxes, and the above bargained premises In the Quiet and peaceable possession of the said parties of the sewed pan,their heirs and. g..,against all and every puma or persona lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said tarty of the tint-part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said party of the first pan-has hereunto set his band and seal the day and year first above written. Wine&Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of ( Ll .__._.__.._.__._...-[SEAL) ' STATE OF COLORADO. 7 it ..........,. Ccany of Weld /Is. ;. aalMag tnotromant was acknowledged before me tide 3rd day of September i��: 0.110,M? 'THANK J. VOGL. �// O: OT &esm agree q— / .19.9V .Witnwa my hand and official.eel. :WC .c` : 1 i i PUDL�� ro t . 3 S Jill. ' l'•h�rF of'f,_�. ..�. . yeses. •s le aarn1 pas r.ea tae Vest aa.t or w:It to ear anise Is ne.ewru,e ere-dn,W eases*or an auwagraaa. Ss Yvat oar et eau a areer..Vaw-I.-6.t w ever newels er danI I,a:At by stria et esessestles.the meet sans of eon me r amra r the pawkiest r ether talc a at seek arm•.la mates h ' ' i ° I I _J 1 a 1 : .r ii- 1-1... r, , mo o tl e . t nos 's o '' i 2i o c., C., aI .. . F . • o H n� d • 3 i , aE I � o$ uc z i M i 870589 • • se o i? se 4too. 8aeerded.t ..._ N r Z-1 wide rn.,tsy rni sswsusrs S..0 THIS Dan, Mods this 3rd dor of September 1580 .betwse JERRY ALLEN LAMBRECHT and BEVERLY ANN LAMBRECHT Su a Doaumeloff Pee Dam SFP 'i 10E/1 • of theCesaty of Weld esi state of $ -r.7.A 0 • Cobr•do.aft*aratpart,ad BETTY L. GODFREY and ROBERT A. POHLMAN • 7343 Weld County Road 16 • Fort Lupton 80621 oleo County of Weld and State of Colorado,of the second gent • WITNESSETH,that the said pastes of the tint wt.for and in consideration of the sum of • a TWENTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS, 0 j tst to the said parties of the tint part in hand-paid by the aid parties of the second_part, the receipt whereof to N I o hereby confessed and acknowledged,have granted,bargained,sold and conveyed,and by them presents do great,bargain,sell,convey and arm unto the said parties of the second past,their heirs and-edges forayer,net -0 in fears is canna bat In lot[tan.W the following described lot or panel of land,dtoate.lying sad being l•the Cased of Weld and State of Colorado,to wit: j M An undivided 16-2/3% interest in and to the following described ti real estate: LaJ N All of the South 557.0 feet of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., 'Weld County, Colorado, further described as follows: ' Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 29; thence North 00°13' East 557.0 feet along the West line of the Southwest one- quarter of Section 29; thence South 89°18' East 2,639.6 feet, more . or less, to the East line of said Southwest one-quarter of - Section• 29; thence South 00°09' West 557.0 feet along the East line of said Southwest one-quarter to the Southeast corner of the South- west one-quarter of said Section 29; thence North 89°18' West 2,640.5 feet along the South line of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. County of Weld, State of Colorado •Vs*/ • '7tts ,n n with an and singular the hereditament* and appurtenances teresats betagtt er m a•7wra aiNtUYf rag. an the reversion and man remainder and rem°tders, rents,Ynaa an print Ilmint sod sitIn fled■*%ur.,Seat.claim and demand whatsoever of the said pastes of tie art prat, *eye m la-el non.4 band te the above bargained premises,with the hertlmmem ad appertea in ° N.Wt.._rites 7 a'.- r..n r w.;WNW MOWN.a.w.worn=-..n - r 870589 X13 1834935 a-a TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described,with the appurtenances,unto the said parties of the sseoed part, their heirs and amine forever. And the said parties of the first Dart, far • them alms,their heirs,executors,and edmialaraton. do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the mid parties of the segued part,their heirs and aelgns,that at the time of the sosesllmg and debseq of them presents. they are well seised of the premises above conveyed, as of good,sure,Perfect. absolute . and indefeasible estate of inhettane in law,in fee simple,and have good right,foil power and lawful authority to grant,bargain,spa and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid,and that the same an free and dear from all former and ether grants,terrains,sales,liens,taxes,assessments and inemmbnees of whatever kind or opus, eerer.except easements, restrictions, reservations and rights—of—way of record, if any, and 1980 taxes, and the above bargained premise In the quiet and peaceable paeesion of the said parties of the weed part,their hairs ad ensigns,against all and every person or pumas lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said porkies of the flat part shat,and will WARRANT AND FORE"ER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said part iesof the first pen have hereunto let their hands sad seals the day and year flat above written. ` �) �� Signed,Baled and Delivered in the Presence of 6--. a t& // ____..__(SLAL] Jerry Allen Lambrecht --- ------....— ----.... -----.—.._.._.._.._ASEAL] (, ' A Beve=l Ann rech M.(SEAL) STATE OF COLORADO, l ',...,ee.u,.,,,,,, Canty of Weld k t'0,H:../t .k , Z•'•"Hun sticsir(ypamet was acknowledged before me the 3rd day of September fuicay9Vrchrtyatfisty ALLEN LAMBRECHT and BEVERLY ANN LAMBRECHT. Is i lip-empielesoceires 1-- / .198X .Whore my had and oaths set -..-.)eime--ikalizi...W., ... ...,._ as •B e rani sear pore Mrs era as or r m:It 4'sees rid.S,eabebe at easel amra or as allinpilliailk ars bast as et pea or sagest.ea ab-lat•o r rum area•r 4—inirolor:if br either at gene.Sat bra err t eau tea r ageism,r the sesass now mien t nob ewaua aabt a d 3 o I 1 ss yy I� ' ! I I b 9 ._i -- i g i i "s a t 5 4 z• .{ I Di I i lIt! Z I ;, . ;I I ail:;1 i 'l l...l.. vt i , i. t _w� e3V/xg I 'K a F. w �, 870589 I. BOOK / o ,(7........... AUG 2 4 1981 . 5 ltoeorded at. ooQq /lr� Weld County, Colorado •,: C'1 Reception No 18671 `.L ys e.._..__._.' Recorder. ,. / lsev t Tms DEED Made this i ha. i i , tt day of ail mu ID ; Y between :dotty T.. ror.frev and a' nobert A. dohlman of the County of We 1 d end state of Colorado,of the fist part,and Fetty : , P0h1Ta' and Robert F. or" -. • .. O of the -'J. C. Z/.,I1 N�a/:. County of p'T ,( H�c ,T'^r wn(y' .l and state of Colorado,of the second part, M e l r. Cr WITNESSETH.That the said part i*P of the first part,for and in consideration of the sum of c. to the said part top of the first part in hand paid by the said part l e r of :he second DOLLAES, t— part, the ipt andwhe by Is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha c remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by 4-, these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part ins of the second part, their heirs,successors and assigns,forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part i e s of the first part ha ve in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of yin I d and state of Colorado,to wit: _- All of irate "oath, as7.1 foot of th.' S'outawest one-quarter of Feed or 20, TewoFhir ? 'ort- , ?"-re 1.7 e=rt of the Ath P.M. , Weld County, r!tlerado, fli-than rrri bog aF ';'Howe; b°Ainnir? at the f nut -went orraar n 7 Fair. tirr 20. thence .i. North On + a' fast cc- ,n font rlorr tho .. I - of the Southwest one-quarter of . e.^tiro ?ft cr,.•h • Fast 2,630.6 feet, more or lass. Tp the r.'e f 1 ; rf °aid 9 '--..west one-quarter of Sertirn 20; r.ho rr= rn',lth ,., opt coo,(, ''ort along the Fast line of Fair. foutbwert -,to_: lartor to the , r,;thoae corner of the Southwest one-quarter cf aniAPortion 20; thnrce North 90 19' West • 2 5li0. S feet alonr the Tour- ' inn -f The Southwest one-quarter of said Section 20 -:o ':he or V c &FrI:."i1N—. 1 County of We1 ), State r`, ' Colrra.lo TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with a and singular the appu-tenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining,and all the estate,right,title, inte.rest_and claim whatsoever,of the said part 1 e s of the first part, either in law or equity. to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said r part les of the second part, t,na i theirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,The said part r of the first part ha '• hereunto set the i rhand } and seals the day and year first above wrtten. 1 —ItFl ii(/ 7>'ii --' [SEAL] Signed.Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of J 11. ,rC ii:.( . `.. %GC4.LswQ-.1REAL] [SEAL) I [SEAL) ' ............... ...... ....... .-'. RADO. • n.umect was� eLcknowitdged . re i n t its day of l k ' - j tyi „ by 4J • iti./eVaaediegoisipires - . lb . %rnvss my hand and official seal. F---.2.-i.2... e 01 el Newer rely, ll • No.gDd.YpIT CLAIY pP6D. ii...'. . .Li,nurt •.bra n.. d..... .P..n..,.,'.I.ra.L. LWI, iD. • . 870589 4-act,--- .. mg O To Weld County Planning Date/, � October 22, 1986 COLORADO From Health Protection Services . 0 Case Number: RE-947 Name: Pohlman, Robert & Betty L. Subject: Health Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for approval, subject to the following condition: 1. If the Town of Frederick, Colorado can not provide sewage disposal then a Weld County Septic Permit is required for the proposed new septic system and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. By Direction of Ralph R. Wooley, M.D. , Director U I L :DJ I i ! L \\'/ I 1 IJ !' r ..' J : , . 1986 iii �.JI c. .__ .. _._.._ . .__.�'! -I $'7®589 weir Cu. PI:noiw baloin:o l DEPAR ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES C.F_____-: i , l PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 to 515 10th STREET GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 4r,, COLORADO ?�yf��j��[( /,q� ��/�'.�0 COLORADO CASE NUMBER RE-947 October 15, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Robert and Betty L. Pohlman for a Recorded Exemption. The parcel of land is described as part of the SWI of Section 29, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is east of Fredrick, north of Weld County Road 16, and east of Weld County Road 15. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendations. If a response from your office is not received within fourteen (14) days of mailing from our office, it may be interpreted to mean approval by your office. If you are unable to respond within the fourteen (14) days (but wish to do so at a later date) please notify our office to that effect. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. Please reply by October 28, 1986, so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. 1. We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 2. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted prior to 3. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Signed: Agency: Date: Keiti? A. "Schuett' / Current Planner $70589 r' • III::POilt CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT October 14, 1986 Robert Pohlman & Betty Godfrey 7343 Weld Co. Rd. 16 Yt. Lupton, CO 80621 RE: Water Service Dear Mr. Pohlman & Ms. Godfrey: This letter is in response to your request for the availability of additional water service for the following described property : South 557' SW% Sec 29, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Water service is presently available to the above described property by tap number 859 Additional water service pan be made available to this property provided all requirements of the District are satisfied . Central Weld County Water District requires that contracts be consumated within one ( 1 ) year from the date of this letter , or this letter shall become null and void unless extended in writing by the District . Very truly yours , CEN RAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT -i 7,/ Lorene G. Hirsch Office Manager LH/caa r--T r--_.------. — 1Q �.D f"lfy� 870589 2235 2nd Avenue • Greeley,Colorado 80631 • (303)352-1284 • Dale D.Olhausen,Secretar alAger''�;i�'l'�' �'•��lilU�":1l u 40- APPLICATION USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 1- I-Phone - 356-4000 - Ext. 4400 Case Number \ASR b i�y 1lp : BCe .51 Date Received 124 2.4 1 8 (* Application Checkied by C%c_. Mylar plat submitted l Application Fee R Z.-1'S,9O Receipt Number ‘62.540;6842 Recording Fee Receipt Number TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary signature) I (we), the undersigned, hereby request hearings before the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed Special Review Permit of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County Colorado: of LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA:Part of N W''/a Section 33 T Z N, R 67 W LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Review Permit is proposed:Part of NW'/Section 33 T 2 N, R 67 W Property Address (if available) N/A _ PRESENT ZONE OVERLAY ZONES TOTAL ACREAGE 48 PROPOSED LAND USE Radio Tower EXISTING LAND USE Agricultural / Oil SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW: Name: Suckla Farms, Inc. Address: 4468 Weld County Road 19 city Ft. Lupton, CO Zip 8062f— Home Telephone 0 .. Business Telephone 0 Name: Address: City Zip Home Telephone it Business Telephone it Name: Address: - City Zip Home Telephone 0 Business Telephone 4k_ _ zill APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above): I t ei� e DEC 29 1986 Name: Address: City Home Telephone 0 Business Telephone 0 �+Bg csiol Veld to.lima List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject properties of record. Name: Suckla Farms, Inc. _ Address: 4468 Weld County Road 19 City Ft. Lupton Zip 80621 Name: _ Address: City Zip Name: Address: City Zip I hereby depose and state under the penalities of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD ) STATE OF COLORADO ) Signature: Owner of Authorized Agent 'Akagri a—and jwun n to before me this/f day of /206,00, b p/ 19 r . + _V SEAL - r. NOTARY/1'146LIC (/ I �•:2 I _y %l AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property: See Attached Legal Description STATE OF COLORADO ss. _COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED , being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property ( the surface estate) within five hundred ( 500) feet of the property subject to the application. This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records , or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30 ) days of the application submission date. e Paul Montoya She foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this �y - day of �n � J , 1986. WITNESS my hand and official seal . My Commission Expires: t ea otary Public MontAffi I.JT 870589 NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET Please print or type NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION Il Suckla Farms, Inc. 4468 Weld County Road # 9 131133000008 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Susan J. Trout. Marian J. Botinelli & Carla Johnson Hobbs % Johnson Farms 14491 Weld County Road # 5 Longmont, CO 80501 131133000034 870589 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land containing 48 acres, more or less , located in the Northwest quarter of Section 33 , Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th PM; Weld County, Colorado. 870589 AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE Application No. Subject Property: See Attached Legal Description STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder' s Office , or from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney. 2C// a / i Paul Montoya The foregoing instrument was subscribed -and sworn to before me this ;y ' day of x(ett....- , 1986. WITNESS my hand and official seal . / My Commission Expires: PM- : Notary Public e � MontAffII LJT 870589 NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MINERAL OWNERS LESSEES OF MINERAL OWNERS ON OR UNDER THE PARCELED LAND Name Address Suckle Farms, Inc. 4468 Weld County Road 19 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 Union Pacific c/o John J. Mullens 1401 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80202 Names SJT LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land containing 4B acres, more or less , located in the Northwest quarter of Section 33 , Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th PM; Weld County, Colorado. 870589 USE BY SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 2. Description of Operation The proposed project is a 1,250 foot state-of-the-art transmitter tower and a 2 ,116 square foot one story equipment building located on a 48 acre site approximately three miles east of Frederick on Weld County Road 17 . The transmitter tower will initially be used for the transmitter for station KY0U-FM throughout the Weld County region. There will also be space on the transmitter for transmitters for four additional FM radio stations , and 115 two-way radio users . The connection of any new users to the tower will not involve any major new construction. Suckla Farms, Inc. has applied for this use to sell the property to Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. will use the property in order to increase the coverage of the signal of KY0U-FM and to allow Surco of Northern Colorado, to move its transmitter from the existing KY0U-FM tower site located at 11981 Weld County Road No. 54 . The use of the new tower will increase the listening market for KY0U-FM and improve its signal in Weld County. The ability to add other users will help meet the need for new transmitter sites in Weld County. The subject property and surrounding properties are farmland with the exception of a small oil well site located on the subject property. The crops grown on the subject property and the surrounding property are generally wheat . The nearest residential structures north are located a distance of . 25 miles from the property. The nearest residential structures west are located a distance of . 5 miles from the property. The nearest residential structures east are located .b5 miles from the property. The nearest residential structures south are located . 5 miles from the property. The maximum number of users for the proposed tower would be five FM radio stations and 115 two-way transmitters . No 870589 employees would be located at the tower or equipment building on a regular full-time basis . It is anticipated that one person will, once a week , go to the tower site and spend approximately an hour checking the equipment contained in the building et the base of the tower . No water source is proposed for the tower site, as there will be no need for running water located in the building. Access to the tower and equipment building will use an existing access road to the oil well located approximately 200 feet from the proposed equipment building and tower . That road will be extended to the equipment building and the tower base. No other road construction will be needed. The oil well road leads directly to Weld County Road No. 17 . The vehicular traffic which would be regularly associated with the proposed use will be a once a week visit by an employee in either an automobile or pickup. No sewage facilities are proposed. No bathrooms will be installed in the building. Fire extinguishers will be maintained in the building . No other fire protection will be needed. There will be no animals associated with the equipment building or tower . There will not be any waste, stockpile, or storage areas associated with the property. There will be no storm water retention facilities associated with the proposed use. Debris, junk and other waste accumulated during construction will be removed during and at the completion of construction. They will be trucked to approved dumping facilities . The waste products generated by weekly inspections will be taken from the site by the person making such weekly inspections . At the completion or construction, the subject property will be continued to be used for agricultural uses . No special landscaping or erosion control measures will be necessary as there will be very little surface disturbance. What little surface disturbance which occurs will be on land which will be —2- 870589 returned to agricultural uses . We anticipate that construction will be completed approximately 150 days after the final permits are issued by Weld County. 3 . Written Materials The plan is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It makes good use of existing roads to disturb as little farm land as possible. The property remains sensitive to agricultural uses as it will continue to be used for agriculture after completion of construction. Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. has agreed to lease the property to the present owner for continued farming uses . The health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood is not an issue. The nearest resident lives . 25 miles away. If , for any reason, the tower should fall , the tower will fall in segments so that there would be no damage :o any other person or property. The use is compatible with the existing land uses in the area as the primary use of the property will still remain agricultural . All of the surrounding property is agricultural . The property is not subject to a comprehensive master plan for any municipality. Its use remains consistent with the comprehensive plan for Weld County. The property is not located within a flood plain, geological hazard district or Weld County Airport district . No water supply is necessary as no water will be used for the facility . -Attached hereto is a copy of a contract from Suckla Farms , Inc. to Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. pursuant to which Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. will purchase the subject property. Suckla Farms , Inc. is the applicant for this other use by special review permit appuluaLLon. Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. requests that the Department of Planning Services waive the requirement for a noise report . The equipment building and tower will not generate any noise. -2- 870589 A copy of the soils maps prepared by Weld County are attached. These maps indicate that soil types within the subject property are types 47 , Olney fine loam, 52 , Otero, and 77 , Vona sandy loam. Descriptions of those soils types are attached. All of the soil types are appropriate for the continued agricultural uses of the property. Neither soil type has any constraints which would affect the construction and maintenance of proposed tower and equipment building. The certified list of the names , addresses and parcel identification numbers of property and mineral ownerships within 500 feet of the subject property is attached . The minerals under the subject property will remain with Suckla Farms, Inc . , the current owner. Also attached are the Federal Aviation Application and Federal Communication Commission applications submitted by Surco of Northern Colorado, Inc. for the proposed tower. 3831Permit MAS 212 8'70589 -4- 32 SOIL SURVEY are Rocky Mo��aatern redeedar ' tle years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range -pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. he condition-deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, -shrubs best-suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, a Siberi- and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, -an peashrub. and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade Wildlife is an important secondary use his soil The the site as range condition becomes poorer. cropland areas provide favorable habi for ring-necked Management of vegetation on this soil should be based pheasant and mourning_dove. Many,ztOngame species can on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- grams, blue grama, and pubescent wheatgrass are suita- ment,-especially in areas of intensive agriculture. ble for seeding. The grass selected should meet the Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into has resulted in u�lfanization of much of this Olney soil. a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a This soil has good potential for urban and recreational firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has development.-The only_limiting feature is the moderately proven most successful rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally hazar4'of ground water contamination from sewage suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well Capability establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- cleso I irrigated. tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of 47—Olney fine sandy loam. 1 to 3 percent slopes. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation This is a deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of may be needed at the time of planting and during dry 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in mixed outwash deposits. periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival Included in mapping are small areas of soils that have a are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa dark surface layer. Some small leveled areas are also in- pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The eluded. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish an peashrub. brown fine sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The is yellowish brown and very pale brown sandy clay loam cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked -about 14 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can inches is very pale brown,calcareous fine sandy loam. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape Permeability and available water capacity are cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or tial and-should be included in plans for habitat develop- more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- low. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be In irrigated areas this soil_is suited to all crops corn- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, manly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An exam- Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area ple of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa has resulted in urbanization of much of the Olney soiL followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, This soil has good potential for urban and recreational or beans. Land leveling, ditch lining, and installing development The only limiting feature is the moderately pipelines may be needed for proper water application. All rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow irrigation is hazard of ground water contamination from sewage the most common. Barnyard manure and commercial fer- lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability tilizer are needed for top yields. subclass fie irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, range site. barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to winter wheat. The predicted avenge yield is 28 bushels This is a deep, well drained soil on plains at elevati s of per acre. The soil is summer followed in alternate years 4,600 to 5,200 feet It formed in mixed outwas eposits. to allow-moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is Included in mapping are small areas of so' hat have a too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. dark surface layer and small areas soils that have Stubble mulch fanning, striperopping, and minimum til- sandstone and shale within a dep 60 inches. lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. Typically the surface layer this Olney soil is grayish Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. brown fine sandy clay 1 about 8 inches thick The sub- The potential native vegetation on this range site is soil is yellowish bro and very pale brown fine sandy - dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrasa, and blue loam about 12 ' s thick. The substratum to a depth of grams. Needleandihread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, 60 inches is . pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential Permeabiity and available water capacity are production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favors- ; p--- 870589 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO,SOUT-HERN PART 49 and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, an peashrub. and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade Wildlife is an important secondary use of Chi oil. The the site as range condition becomes-poorer. cropland areas provide favorable habitat fo ing-necked Management of vegetation on this soil should be -based pheasant and mourning dove. Many non a species can on taking halfand leaving half of the total annual produc- be attracted by establishing areas fo eating and escape tion. Seeding is desirable if range is in poor condition. cover. For pheasants, undisturbe esting cover is essen- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tial and should be included ' plans for habitat develop- grama, blue grams, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested ment, especially in areas intensive agriculture. Range- wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected land wildlife, for exa e, the pronghorn antelope, can be should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can attracted by dev oping livestock watering facilities, be seeded into a clean,firm sorghum stubble. or it can be managing lives k grazing, and reseeding where needed. drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in This soil good potential for urban and recreational spring has proven most successful. develop L Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The Windbreaks and environmental plantings generally are only ' sting feature is the rapid permeability in the sub- suited to this soil Soil blowing, the principal hazard in st m, which causes a hazard of ground water con- establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cut- ' don from sewage lagoons. Capability subclass Ile tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of onirngat • y vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation 77—Vona sandy loam. 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a may be needed at the time of planting and during dry deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,600 to periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival 5,200 feet. It formed in eolian deposits. Included in are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa mapping are small areas of soils that have a loamy sub- pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The stratum and areas of soils that are noncalcareous to a shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac and Siberi- depth of 60 inches. an peashrub. Typically the surface layer of this Vona soil is grayish Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The brown sandy loam about 8 inches thick The subsoil is cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked brown fine sandy loam about 15 inches thick The sub- pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can stratum to a depth of 60 inches is sandy loam. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting,and escape Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- inches or more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- hazard is low. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops com- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, monly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of This-soil has good potential for urban and recreational the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in development Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The irrigating close grown crops and pasture. Furrows, con- only limiting feature is the rapid permeability in the sub- tour furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row stratum, which causes a hazard of ground water con- crops. Sprinkler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping til- tamination from sewage lagoons. Capability subclass IIIe lage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to con- irrigated, VIe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. trol erosion. Maintaining fertility is important. Crops 78 Weld loam, 0 t., 1-5c.cenf slopes. Inds is a e respond to applications of phosphorus and nitrogen. well drained soil on smooth plains at elevations of 4 to In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, 5,000 feet It formed in eolian deposits. In ded in barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to mapping are small areas of soils that have subsoil of winter wheat The predicted average yield is 28 bushels loam and light clay loam. Also included some leveled per acre. The soil is summer (allowed in alternate years areas. to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is Typically the surface layer of s Weld soil is brown too low to make beneficial use of fertilizer. loam about 10 inches thick. Th ubsoil is brown and pale Mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum tillage are brown heavy clay loam "ght clay about 20 inches needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. Terrac- thick. The substratum to depth of 60 inches is silt loam. ing also may be needed to control-water erosion. Permeability is slow Available water capacity is high. The potential native vegetation on this range site is The effective root' depth is 60 inches or more. Surface dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue runoff is slow, the erosion hazard is low. grams. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grams, This soil is sed almost entirely for irrigated crops. It and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential is suited t all crops commonly grown in the area includ- production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre-in favors- ing co , sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range an pions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, ed b corn, corn for silage, 870589 co N 0 m f -- -- - _--- NZ 1 I NIJ allinT/`— N\ s. N P. �- v� o vn �� w > s 401 i . , r s771 -ks H—"u?:,- +r ` J Ok c di — '. : : 1.4 tol :i). -* Ilir� � t ,tatt - y :— 1 4474 - ► 1 I 1 N al.-.*: • i. .. �—i� to • To ® m . .0 ri, con' C:Th ') 5\;:i l 1 4 \�.. O ^ n Sfl jg ti.), . 15 ir:ig CPLn F. j' f N....... .• m♦ r',� n kiI in III to 1 I v III--��/ O 0. r,- a .. T \ n m ...�a4 s n n m m 7.y N ^� • in • J / / \ mom T � c. Fr., t:al ^ Federal Communications Commission : 3060-0027 P%le No. Washington,D.C. 20554xW,ee 12/31/87 APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL BROADCAST STATION (Carefully read instructions before filling out Form—RETURN ONLY FORM TO FCC) Section I General Information 1. Name of Applicant Street Address SURCO of Northern Colorado, Inc. (1,6,5 South Union Ste 6 0 6 City State ZIP Code Telephone No. (Include Area Code) ID e n v e r IC,OI 18 0 2 2 8I-I (303) 989-9980 Send notices and communications to the following named person at the address below: Name Street Address SURCO of Northern Colorado, Inc. 1 1 6 5 S o u, t h Union Ste 6 0 6 c/o J. Kent Nichols , President city State ZIP Code Telephone No. (Include Area Code) P e n vtetrl t I I IC CiOI 18 0 2 2 iiiit-pli„ t i (303) 989-99-80 2. This application is for: O AM ® FM _O TV 2 (a) Channel No.or Frequency: '5 mHz (b) Community of license: xlty State IO. r. e, e, l, e, Y, , , , , , , , , , , , , I IC I° Id Check one of the following boxes: Change in existing station Amendment to pending New Station Major Minor Application Modification of ❑ O Construction Permit Call Letters 1K, Y, Q U, I-I , I Give reference No. NOTE: It is not necessary to use this form to amend a previously filed application. Should you do so,however,please submit only Section I and those other portions of the form that contain the amended information. - - 3. Is this application mutually exclusive with a renewal application? ❑YES EN NO If Yes,state: Call letters: Community of license: City State I , I-I -I I 1 L __ I FCC 301 870589 April 1985 Section VI Equal Employment Opportunity Program VA 1. Does the applicant propose to employ five or more fulltime employees? O YES O NO If the answer is Yes,the applicant must Include an EEO program called for in the separate 5 Point Model EEO Program(FCC 396A). • Section VII Certification 1. Has or will the applicant comply with the public notice requirement of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules? gl YES O NO The APPLICANT hereby waives any claim to the use of any particular frequency as against the regulatory power of the United States because of the previous use of the same,whether by license or otherwise,and requests an authorization in accordance with this application. (See Section 304 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended.) The APPLICANT acknowledges that all the statements made in this application and attached exhibits are considered material representations, and that all exhibits are a material part hereof and incorporated herein. The APPLICANT represents that this application is not filed for the purpose of impeding,obstructing,or delaying determination on any other application with which it may be in conflict. In accordance with Section 1.65 of the Commission's Rules,the APPLICANT has a continuing obligation to advise the Commission,through amendments,of any substantial and significant changes in information furnished. WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. US.CODE,TITLE 18,Section 1001. I certify that the statements in this application are true,complete,and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,and are made in good faith. Signed and dated this 24th day of September 19 86 BUNCO of Northern Colorado, Inc. Name of Applicantsig Lure~ President Title FCC NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT The solicitation of personal information requested in this application is authorized by the Communications Act of 1934,as amended. The -principal purpose for which the information will be used is to determine if the benefit requested is consistent with_the public interest. The staff,con- sisting variously of attorneys,accountants,engineers,and application examiners,will use the information to determine whether the application should be granted,denied,dismissed,or designated for hearing. If all the information requested is not provided,the application may be returned without action having been taken upon it or its processing may be delayed while a request is made to provide the missing information. Accordingly,every effort should be made to provide all necessary information. Your response is required to obtain the requested Authority. THE FOREGOING NOTICE IS REQUIRED BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974,P.L.93-579,DECEMBER 31,1974,5 U.S.C.552a(e)(3) AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1980,P.L.96-511,DECEMBER 11, 1980,44 U.S.C.3507. 870589 FCC 301 - Page 19 -April 1985 By this application, SurCo of Northern Colorado Inc., Licensee of KYOU (FM) Greeley, Colorado, seeks a Construction Permit for a minor modification of facilities. By this application, the Licensee also consents to the immediate reclassification upon grant of the station channel from a Class C channel to a Class C-1 channel. SurCo of Northern Colorado Colorado chard J. Pa e Vice President 870589 ENGINEERING DATA AND ANTENNA . AND SITE INFORMATION 3 Application for Construction Permit SurCo of Northern Colorado - KYOU Greeley, Colorado Request to change: Effective Radiated Power • Antenna Height Above Average Terrain Transmitter Location Prepared by: Paul Montoya September 22, 1986 11110011111.1 s—ate NM1IMNI/iNt---1 ems---= -p IIIn 870559 Section V-B FM Broadcast Engineering Data Nameaf Applicant Surrey Broadcasting Co. 1. Purpose of authorization applied for: . .. D Construct a new station 0 Install Auxiliary system Change: ® Effective radiated power 0 Frequency • M Antenna Might above enrage terrain M Transmitter location ❑Studio location outside community of license ❑ Other(Summarize briefly the nature of the changes proposed.) 2. -Station location: State City or Town • CO Greeley 3. Facilities requested: Frequency Channel No. Class(Check one below) 92.5 MHz 223 ❑ A ❑ e MC 4. Geographic coordinates of antenna Ito nearest second) North-Latitude 40 ° 1)5' 50" West Longitude 104° 6. Effective radiated porn: Polarization Horizontal Plana Maximum(Beam_tiit only) Horizontal 45 kW - - kW Vertical 45 kW kW 6. Height of antenna r diation center. Antenna height above: Average terrain(HAAT) Mean Ste Lent Ground • Horizontal 1300 ff. 6281 ft. 1225 ft. vertical 1300 ft. 6781 h 1225 ff. YES NO- 7. Is a directional antenna being proposed? Q If Yes,attach es Exhibit No. an engineering statement with all data specified in Section 73.316(d)of the Commission's Rules. FCC 301 —Page 11 ry January 1982 870589 8. Transmitter location: State CO "" County Weld City or Town Street Address(or other identification) 3 mi. E. of Frederick Rd. 17 between Rd. 16 Sr Rd. 1.8 9. Overall height of complete structure above ground(without obstruction lighting). 1255 ft. 10. Attach as Exhibit No.E 1 moots)(Sectional Aeronautical charts or equivalent) of the area proposed to be served and tow thereon: (a) Proposed transmitter location and the radials along which the profile graphs have been prepared; lb) The 3.16 mV/m and_the 1 mV/m contours predicted; (c) On the maps)showing 3.16 mV/m contour,clearly indicate the legal boundaries of the principal community proposed to be served; (dl Area(sq.mi.)and population (latest census)within 1 mV/m contour; (e) Scale of miles. YES NO 11. Will the proposed 3.16 mV/m contour completely encompass the principal community,without major terrain O obstruction? _ • If No,please submit justifications. 12. If the main studio will not be within the boundaries of the principal community to be served,attach as Exhibit No. a justification pursuant to Section 73.1125 of the Commission's Rules. N/A 13. Attach as Exhibit No.EZ map(s)/7.5 minute U.S. Geo;raphic Survey topographic quadrangles if available)of the proposed antenna location showing the following information: _ (a) Proposed transmitter location accurately plotted with the latitude the longitude lines clearly marked and showing a scale of-statute lines. (b) Transmitter location and call letters of all AM broadcast stations within 2 miles of the proposed antenna location. 14. If Mere are any FM or-TV stations within 200 feet of proposed antenna or non-broadcast radio stations(except amateur&citizens band).established commercial and government receiving stations in the general vicinity which may be adversely affected by the proposed operation,attach as Exhibit No._the expected effect,a description of remedial steps that may be pursued if necessary,and a statement from the applicant accepting full responsibility for Me elimination of any objectionable effect on existing stations. N/A FCC 301 —Page 12 January 1982 87058s • Section V•B (page 3) FM Broadcast Engineering Data 15. Tabulation of Terrain Data. (Calculated in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 73.313 of the Commission's Rules utilizing 7-112 minute topographic maps. if available). Radial bearing Height of antenna, Predicted Distance (degrees true) radiation center above • average elevation of To the 3.16 mV/m To the 1 mV/m radial (2.10 mil contour contour Feet Miles Miles o° 1435 32 46 45' 1391 32 46 -so° 1317 31 44 135° 1294 31 44 180° 1182 29 43 225° 1113 28 42 270' 1286 30 4a 315° 138Z —32— 4 1.) 28° 1411 (•) Radial over principal community it not included above. Do not include in Average. 16. Environmental Statement,See Part I,Subpart 1 of the Commission's Rules. Would a Commission grant of this application be a major action as defined by Section 1.1305 of the Commission's Rules? 0 YES ®NO If Yes,attach as Exhibit No._ a narrative statement in accordance with Section 1.1311 of the Commissions Rules. If No,explain briefly. Exhibit E3 I certify that t represent the applicant in the capacity indicated-below and that I have examined the foregoing statement of technical information and that it is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Paul Montoya Name 9 - 1 2- �l /yam Date Signature(deck appropriate box below) • 165 South Union Blvd Suite 606 Address(include ZIP Code) • Denver, CO 80228 (303) 989-9980 Telephone No.(include Area Code) IN Technical Director fl Registered Professional Engineer 0 Chief Operator fl Technical Consultant 0 Other(Specify) p C 870589 FCC 301 —Page 13 January 1982 Broadcast Application FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSI"N Section V-0 ANTENNA AND SITE INFORMATION Name of Applicant Call Sign Station Location SurCo of Northern Colorado KYOU Greeley, Colorado-- Purpose of Application(Put"X"In appropriate box) Facilities Requested li New antenna construction Panel mount FM antenna on 1255' guyed tower. ❑ Alteration of existing antenna structure ❑ Change in location 1. Location of Antenna: State County City or Town Colorado Weld 3 mi. E. of Frederick, CO Exact antenna location(street address). If outside city limits,give name of nearest town and distance and direction of antenna from town. Rd. 17 between Rd. 16 and Rd. 18 Geographical coordinates(to nearest second). For directional antenna give coordinates of center of array. For single vertical radiator give tower location. North Latitude . 40 05' so" West Longitude 104' 54' 05" 2. Is the proposed sits the same tranarnitter.entenna site of other stations authorized by-the Commission or specified in another application pending before the Commission? O YES 12 NO If Yes,give call sign: 3. Has the FAA been notified of proposed construction? ® YES 1O NO If Yes,give date and office where notice was filed. Northwest Mountain Region/April 27, 1986 4. List all landing areas within E miles of antenna site. Give distance and direction to the nearest boundary of each landing area from the antenna site. No public landing areas. Landing Area Distance Direction (a) Private/dirt 3 mi. ?AR° (b) (c) 5. Attach as Exhibit No.5 e description of the antenna system,including whether tower(s)an selfsupporting or guyed. If a directional antenna,give spacing and orientation of towers. Tower 41 42 at1' 44 #5 06 Overall height above ground(include obstruction lighting) 1255' Overall height above mean ma level (include 6311' obstruction lighting) 7(➢5t39 FCC January 982 Section ./-G (page 2) Antenna And Site Information - 6. Attach as Exhibit No._�a vertical plan sketch for the proposed total structure(including supporting building,if any)giving heights above -ground In feet for all significant features. Clearly Indicate existing portions,noting lighting,and distinguish between the skeletal or other • main supporting structure and the antenna elements. • I certify that I represent the applicant in the capacity Indicated below end that I have examined the foregoing statement of technical informa- tion and that it is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. .. Paul Mont ova f303) 989-9980 Name Telephone(include area code) fir/ /02 September 22, 1986 Signature(check approrate box below) Date Technical Director O Registered Professional Engineer O Chief Operator O Technical Consultant • • • • FCC January 1982, f! • 8'70589 Approved by OMB OMB No. 3060-0027 Expires 5-31-88 CERTIFICATION OF SITE AVAILABILITY • 1. The applicant certifies that it has reasonable assurance in good faith that the site or structure proposed in Items 1 and/or 2, Section V-G, FCC Form 301, as the location of its transmitting antenna, will be available to the applicant for applicant's intended purpose. YES X NO If no, explain fully: 2. If reasonable assurance is not based on applicant's ownership of the proposed site or structure, applicant certifies that it has obtained such reasonable assurance by contacting the owner or person possessing control of the site or structure. ( ) Name of Person Contacted Telephone Number Person contacted (check one): Owner Owner's Agent Other (specify) o September 22, 1986 Applicant's 'gnatur Date Richard S. Paye 870559 STATE OF COLORADO .__' i .1 . I`•_��_-• -� w -f - • -_ ... - u =. I � t J . ::r . 3" Y ' . / i `pi a+_' l �y�` pia' i • --\„....."---",,,..+42 i i I O ... \V 1 \• i ` i % 4 • — �— p , • • - .._., -". _• fat Wm �" 'a •:•• :( w ' e` D ~t` .� - ;�. .. Greeley:-- ► i, •, ir _ r '1 ,` JIB /.. ' !t •� - : r • • - _ '-•- - = .,� Proposed Tower — -- � sl' , - Site Location .°�� — ..270. `1' `I - - :1.:.'^ �,• - "'1•e� I, '.' t `I / _ : ' l"e Y . . it . N • / i. �=, _ — r' l- �. sue-,. s, i P 4: ti LPI A t a _ c m- i . ,-.-..._."--d --..<---;--?--'.3.71-7- IN -: Y YCcm••.jot . .. I-' " • -I". • lam_ -� _ �,.Cs •ENV .� ._.�. . ,' . - M, . - _CLEAR..'-_QREE' - • , .F: 3 — \-...------1 — +•••'•-e t •\r -L_-. -:� . ...1,, ,m rte--' ti.a• :3 . A. �.w . .:.. - . •' O • - - ' . MM IS._ .- ' • : . a ...•••••••--' 1•••••• • IngoI I_ i' ,e vi- '•••—• r•. q, -ciLE F - P SO N I ' -- ; . _L � _ - ' -1 '. ..- • •- - S. i n:.,. .•=».t:� -..,.•I• •�1...,r 1 •_ •F '�• t . 4 t 1 t 1 mV/m Contour —= sp • r ' p E: . ! 1 Population 1.646,645 .,, ' -C,' \� ,1 I I. • "-1 ' I ,r , , • I' it Arealsq.mi.l 5,976 `_` i-' •!�.•...f ' � . }-_ II r ,' •' U .•"' I ,. D` O ;W: G " Sl.,iI ' i7 •'E :l et/ E ‘?...1/4:—..e. •� --, . r r=.__' T�( I - r . . . ,��1 . 1, r—,— . . i �t , ` . to • • ` •�. .•• scale 1:1.000.000 f . R , K » f r___ . r e r. T— . . ` • 11. ». a '• _ „ r - a. »' rue.... _ l --. I - •- PREDICTED COVERAGE CONTOURS 87 05239 FREDERICK QUADRANGLE - LORADO • 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) • ' 507 5$' 508 , 509 i 2 170 000 FEET . 4 510 104'52:3O' 40 07'30" �' ! ; a ; ( '� ,\ s r��` ?/ rte\ X41 li° • ;003__ ..J '� BM1 - /� i I /, / I a c• h I ./..... /• /( r • • - - k /- < _=y ' � 1� in ) .- 5050 'I 4P. .\ I. xa la===a= O r a lI sue" I• �\ �f Y• 0 = `0 . '- -� Proposed Tower -‘7°7""\ . ,i �i, --1 _ - - - ;, t• Site Location I / 280000 H. '�� I V -FEET `_--� 1 -. ..- - 1 W1O4° 54' 05" 1 /N�ti_ -//� -. i . Clermanap j - -. ..n 40°05' 50"r j7�1 ) if _,\' 34 = .:___---1.' /.*',IMP • ; I Spy X38 //� _ V 5 o .CAA ___/././ 5 I 7„...--)y— aim—�'� yo' Raaio Beam � /�_� k, . •R anMln •l_4(' ,- ----sc., h zI. -..�—, ., — . 1991 ~I / _y 4437 ^I y • • 5000 42 \ i e GY'/ �.� ' JI�" �l • 1 i I4O°O5' OO" ( • QPT . t, I/ II 'I a. l'./ F / 'J sta r . s t as e I . • 6-7.Y2 I----4 1--1 }--y 1--1 1---1 I 1 1/2 0 1 m"° 87O589 0 The Commission grant of the application would not be a major action as defined by section 1.1307 of the Commission's Rules. The facility will not be located in a designated wilderness area, wildlife preserve or a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Further, the facility will not be located in a floodplain or involve significant change in surface -features. While we areproposing the use of high intensity white lights, the facility will be located more than 3 miles from any residential neighborhoods. Due to the high elevation of the FM antenna, no radiofrequency radiation hazard will be presented to either workers or the general public. • 870589 / SURREY BROADCASTING PAGE 1 DENVER, COLORADO FM STUDY (NEW RULES ADOPTED 3/1/84 ) MARCH 18 , 1986 a TITLE : }QUI DATABASE: DW 03/14/86 ;ANNEL 262C ORDINATES : 40-05-52 104-54-05 EASE NOT FM TRANSLATORS MARKED BY " ! " HAVE ERP IN WATTS .UTION: ONLY KILOMETERS CONSIDERED TO BE EXACT DISTANCES. LL CITY CHANNEL ERP-W/KW LATITUDE BEARING DIST. REQ. ATUS STATE FCC FILE # CLASS EAH-FT LONGITUDE (MI) (MI) REAP CHEYENNE 208 ! 41-08-58 2 . 9 72 . 65 . 0 P WY BPFT830124MV D 104-49-52 • KWBI 72 . 65 'CU PUEBLO 260 75 . 0 38-44-47 178 . 6 93 . 24 65 . 2 ,IC CO C 2000 104-51-37 28 . 04 CLEAR 'CU PUEBLO 260 96 . 0 38-44-47 178 . 6 93 . 24 65 . 2 PP CO BPH-851029IB C 200O 104-51-37 28 . 04 CLEAR LCC KIMBALL 261 41-14-06 39 . 2 101. 97 105 . 0 NB A 103-39-42 -3 . 03• SHORT !EE KIMBALL 261 . 7 102 . 83 105 . 0 '? NB BPH-840725IC A -3 103-39-49 -2 . 17 SHORT : 61AJ SNOWMASS-AT-ASPEN 261! 39-13-11 241. 0 122 .97 . 0 ..C CO BLFT215 D 106-54-31 KQIX . 00 :61AK BASALT 261 ! 39-21-10 246. 9 127 . 97 . 0 IC CO BLFT258 D 107-06-06 KQIX . 00 : 61AI GLENWOOD SPRINGS 261 ! 39-33-48 254 . 7 133 . 62 . 0 _IC BLFT278 D 107-18-59 KQIX . 00 :EIAU WHEATLAND 261 ! 42-16-20 349 . 2 152 . 84 . 0 ' :P WY BMPFT820302IA D 105-27-42 KKAZ . 00 :61AM RIFLE 261 ! 39-30-41 256 . 1 158 . 50 . 0 IC CO BLFT791101IA D 107-46-55 KQIX . 00 CI DENVER 262 100 39-41-06 197 . 3 29 . 83 180. 2 %IC CO C 0 105-04-05 =150 . 37 SHORT ** CAUTION - WATCH FOR CLASS C BUFFER 20NE ** 'AJI DENVER 262 100 DA 39-40-21 209 . 8 33 . 82 180 . 2 CP CO BPH-831118AJ C 1302 105-13-04 -146 . 39 SHORT 870589 -SURREY BROADCASTING PAGE 1 DENVER, COLORADO FM STUDY (NEW RULES ADOPTED 3/1/84 ) FEBRUARY 6 , 1986 OB TITLE : KYOU SITE1 DATABASE: DW -01/30/86 fANNEL 223C1 OORDIN-ATES : 40-05-52 104-54-05 This product is provided by DW, Inc. dba DATAWORLD, solely for the standard business uses of SURREY BROADCASTING Copyright (c) 1986, DW, Inc. Disclaimer: DW, Inc . assumes no liability for any errors or omissions in the information hereby provided, and shall not be liable for any injuries or damages ( including consequential) which might result from use of the said information . TEASE NOTE: FM TRANSLATORS MARKED BY " ! " HAVE ERP IN WATTS AULION: ONLY KILOMETERS CONSIDERED TO BE EXACT DISTANCES . AIL CITY CHANNEL ERP-W/KW LATITUDE BEARING DIST. REQ. [ATUS STATE FCC FILE # CLASS EAH-FT LONGITUDE (MI) (MI) uWR LARAMIE * 220 50 . 0 41-18-39 341 . 1 88 . 56 65 . 2 LIC WY C 1150 105-27-12 23 . 36 221AM BOULDER 221 ! 40-01-03 254 . 20 . 67 . 0 LIC CO BLFT780808ID D 105-16-37 KPKE . 00 ADX CASTLE ROCK 221 . 72 39-25-39 177 . 7 46 . 27 46 . 0 LIC CO A -620 104-52-00 . 27 CLOSE ADX CASTLE ROCK 221 . 45 39-25-39 177 . 7 46 . 27 46. 0 CP CO BPH-831117AL A 790 104-52-01 . 27 CLOSE IEW FRISCO 221 3 . 00 39-36-50 242 . 0 70. 40 46 . 0 APC CPH-831027AF A -838 106-04-02 24 . 40 CLEAR :EW FRISCO 221 3 . 00 39-36-50 242 . 0 70 . 40 46 . 0 APC - CO BPH-831027-AG A -866 106-04-02 24 . 40 CLEAR .5W FRISCO 221 3 . 00 39-36-50 242 . 0 70 . 40 46 . 0 APC CO BPH-831027AN A -826 106-04-02 24 . 40 CLEAR 221AJ BRECKENRIDGE 221 ! 39-27-35 232 . 7 72 . 25 . 0 LIC CO BLFT217 D 105-58-40 KPKE . 00 :EW FRISCO 221 3 . 00 39-35-59 242 . 0 72 . 58 46 . 0 APC CO BPH-831028AR A -601 106-06-14 26 . 58 CLEAR 870589 ANTENNA SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The proposed antenna system would be side-mounted on a 1255 ft. guyed tower. While this tower is not constructed, FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation has been applied for. The tower will be located at the following geographic coordinates: N 40° 05' 50" W 104" 54' 05' (USGS 7% minute Topographic map) • 870589 LO I , I 1 1 • 6311'AMSL / 5 Lewd FR panel antenna Center of ■ • Radiation ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1255' ■ ■ ■ ■ 1225' • ■ ■ it ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I / II ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 5O.56' II Proposed Antenna & Supporting Structure 870589 DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS -Form Approved OMB No.2120-0001 © Aeronautical Study Number 1 ,uD,pann rmisis4mnee,, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION watts man Aseremeas, 1. Nature of Proposal -2 Cam a esul • Ass B. Clan Pet Ption of Structure C. Work Schedule Dates A. Includeellecbaoed power and assigned frequency of CS Now Construction la Permanent Beginning R—Rr, MIexisting,proposed or modified AM,FM,or TV broadcast O Alteration ❑ Temporary (Duration ,_months) End 12-86 stations utilizing this structure. 3A Name and address of individual,company, B. Include size and configuration of pow transmission lines corporation,andZip eta proposing the and their supporting towers in the vicinity of FAA facilities construction or alteration. (Number,smart City,State and Zip Code) and pudic airport. < 303 ) 98909980 • C. Include informat sh ion owing site orirrotion,dimensions. awe cab Telephone Number construction mutate d the proposed structure. KY0U-FM / Greeley Surrey Broadcasting Co. 75 Kw. 165 S. Union Blvd. / Suite 606 92.5 Mhz. Denver, CO 80228 L. Tower will be a guyed Attar. - Patti Montoya steel structure. Tower a Wphone number of proporenra representative if difkard than S above will have a seven foot face. 4 Location of Structure more space is required.continue on a camas ahem) A. Coordinates B. Nearest City or Town,and State C. Name of nearest ai S. Height and Elevation (Compere to the nearest toot! /To nearest sec• ond/ or seaplane base (port,hy+ppn,iligntpark. A. Elevation of site above mean sea level Frederick 5056' of ,' Teri-('nnnYv 40 OS 50 (1)Distance from structure to nearest point of B. Height of Structure including all latnuda three hues nearest runway appunenernces and lighting(if any) above oi II 10 miles ground,or water if so situated 1255' 1!,54 ,' 05 (2)Direction from structure to°a pan C. Overall height above mean sea kiwi(A•8) 224 T 6311' D. Descnptionof location of sitewith respect to highways,streets,airports,prominent terrain features.existing structures.etc.Attach a U.S.Geological Survey quadrangle map or equivalent showing the relationship of construction site to nearest airport(s).(if more spaces required continue on a separate sheet o1 paps and attach to this notice.) ( Exhibits El and E2) Site is 3 miles east of the town Frederick. There is a private dirt landing strip apprx. • 3 mi. at 228° T. The nearest public airfield is Tri—County apprx. 10 mi. at 224° T. Notice is required by Pan 77 of the gFederal deArAviation neoncee ulanona(74 C.F.R.Pan77)pursuant toSection 1.701 al the Federal Av,aronAct of1958.as amended(49U.S.C.11011- Personswhoknowinglyandwdlin requirementsof Ran 77an subpet to a One(criminal p51781(y)o(normore than$500 forth.firstolfense and not more than$2000 for subsequent onenses.pursuant to Section 902(a)-o/the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,as amended(49 U.S.C. 7472(8)). I H EBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge.In addition,I agree to obstruction-mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking& lighting standards if necessary. Dale Typed Nane/Tltle of Person Fang Notice Signature 4-27-86 Paul Montoya/Corporate Dir. of Engineering FOR FAA USE ONLY -,7., r ,rr.>w 4 --.. , a- "-FAA will either return this form or issue a separate acknowledgement. The Proposal: i Supplemental Notice of Construction FAA Form 7460-2 is required any time the project is abandoned.or ' f. - . ❑ At least 48 hours before the aten of construction. ` v !❑ Does not require a notice to FAA. ✓ +•`s ❑ Within Mole days after the construction reaches Its greatest height. ,s ❑ Is not identified as an obstruction under "t any standard of FAR.Part _77,Subpart C, `s, This determination expires on a s: and would not be a hazard to air navigation. - unlsa ^ rx (a)extended,revised or terminated by the issuing office, --a - ❑ Is identified as an obstruction the 'e{`-(b)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission end an standards of FAR,Part 77, under application fora construction permit Is made to the FCC on or before the above expiration date.In such would not be a hazard to air navigation.but ' case the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction,or on the date the FCC denies the application. ., 4., _ ❑ Should be obstruction❑ marked. NOTE:R p❑IigMedperFAAAtivisoryCircular equest for extension of the effective period of thin determtnation must be ostmerked or delivered to 70/7180-1,Chapters) . the issuing office at least 15 days prior to the expiration date. 'lit he the structure la subject to the licensing authority of the FCC,a copy of this determination will be sent to that ❑ Obstruction marking and lighting are not necessary. ~., AgancY• - . Remarks: • • Issued In Signature Date FAA Form 7460-1 (4-83)SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION ��®58 yin'. DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS •:, ' , " .--r\-, .. 7-• 4•• • • •• ••• 7: : . :• il .3•• .•. • • • • ';‘, -. : OD. 4!is me t IL 6-1-1- �L- 2 •73,---... ilk it �i-'�,.. I r„...•11-- -J • I .� r • '�'� v 1 �� • s s D • V. V • •• • - an N • 4çLi. • —• • `` I' o. co se • �_ °i "— — 'mow- _ ` ''� • __/,f� _ - _._._. J!n ' _ _� aim ; . . . rr . 7° , " o—.' q°. •,u" \_ • •_ * ,+., Jar • , . ..' — \ g� + n . I i.I/ I •p .I • • • • • *e..-:',.-',... .-- G�II�c N 1"::Vp-• . '. A1 N if! n o 0 a j -.- ' .. . ... ol, ✓i 3 = .. �,. 2l. 0 l t- n 0 9 e •o ClRI el ---_ — �- e ii , o e '� p y � ) `1`r IT..f , ', I I II •\tQ1:)?1c •r� �� 'cI '�,I c-0,6,*.L c',';--' ,v “:1. _111u'ti I\M //� `mil bb 32B �'; I. +'IIII�]1f i/ 11,1 '+x,/ 1 _ � �GRIeIEI �bnb 1_ I� �1..,. '� ++7i� l a (FLIL J,8 000 ' ^� ai l d f zt r. . kA,I, t ,� '�. i Y/ -1 : ^"- (6lXY) I - 000 <�` s 1 Sr. .`E S'� I� �I � dA9 - I FI ti B 1�� '993 �� 1� ��A 002 °r / • f / J 1 R�r Ems^ ]� CEi.1▪ �. 1_I er. dt� ]cJl ”-.1:43;44 r��{ � �/44 -.- I iii `L()1�1 Fz, S =� r,<▪ ' -: — A ' �, �.+'Ses�CN.vAItF, VIEW l "O•. tddl,lc 2 -V,- __ n01 1 FV�`J `f) 54 • i� 7`n� I a P ^tl . sIIROHc / U5o e W. 954)a- � ol � 8h- Nm 032I / 4.'WHIH Hit, ee NC, �N g �- .o - ao � P IP t,-;::.,,, h 'k+� ml ` ,-z- V I nz t s; . �. Ct' ]1.' - p J I o+l.e �`' � /. ., lr ac ,.., f ,J) • ti` / 119:ill �.=--ter1 .4• }-P a / -'J _bIa -'___, I� R 2 04 --• 1� � , Y I �� SNOI P1� S d920 ]+ 123J1 kl1{I.1 ,_/, �IOr j L,.�'91�J v. iII [ t) IA1IIPd� /PL;t Ili, K---7— mg ,0 Ii + y,fR I -yro7II ass 3T ,t,] V �. 54 1J For I �i1 L (212)8( )0001'�`/ J n > E 3 (i8 v` 1u coo _ _ -,,-11 A .I �' :\.), l;ten r_ 1 1 7� i „ iN` I ' ) I 1 I�tj( rpeu v°ucr I c 1..[ y:Jt fln5 O h J, 1 1 l i,In o /v' E11 :,.22 i - f 11 1,, 7 v !� "fin, h .lf.uts' „I f20/ ? 1'11° `{ `�ii// r µµ� 13 0 rata /1.1)T/1,.EE�. O_ 2,-Z5f4-1 2 1 I vaf+Zi[ , 1,*) ? —L 1 y iL !J'FcrCe7.r,f.dF l 123r: '1,44V� nJ . $51- . 1 �51� • r-^,` 1' 1V6 85 oOv i__,),4111 o� IJ off may. ,j _ �b lOV[[ rV I r 1 �] 4S///EEI CIjEr ARr 42/ ?•I R -,Rtn IRIP1dy/,1 jl, 56<]1� F' _7.;:r7- 08V� I IIii00 1,9 52 / a 57 e-1 '{ / ,a,wn, {'C �`r H 1I7 EI.5 l,69 Jr // ' IP 2N5 PII VZ ---ilr\ 1 l_ ) �Sl b 530/5 �4 .. I .,. 5180- 5 5571 !- l B ✓F C9•/I }19 1 Rai 1 dDly�y� a o � v s574 J9i44no` ffieop-.',a o > . r 60 1 100 I/ ` 110,--I, i {r I: .J„o� I,.0 4P —\ ^> �1--� h ` ' • 70-..71.01 alStsC e� � �esSC� 1 01 COO q5;32 1 o tic ° ER" " / / COmA„I re H. , Illo tn.l MI. L�. JI EUG I aNGE 1 '�] \ur�5 1 p ti ft..b21)nrIl_ t -' t5d ee ryl fg. !2[.] cnw...,FLIRM IJ0 i �/ 3i /� r _.i i k1 �T' .. - /�.rD I net 1 IONS RCUFItY �� ` 'l 1E S + ' !.1 (�1.1�1) t°�0oo I // 10 AVUID(EIGFI to ? A / dc_ t—� 1 _ J1A082 4 s AI151 \ 5 J 1-1 0 295' 1 +CGmarlCHE Y 4 °JJ U$1.REA�5 G 559` IC"44. R R 4In t�7N I �g� ° 53 Su -JO �A 1' i 5 DE vEP ,fr, pys F, n:oEn�i +O�IIDJI , u 11 _�I�3L 9 Di 4 �/`/'.� ice. ,( .�-11vA 0.)� / ? '+i^^,M�'\\al' a '0 `IIr U',l.A _1U I (, -. / A I. ` (j'1�'• J//SG0 IPCIi \ / ^-_S.ill-\� r`$f' '`.\\ V3 7°1- Y (DEr1)<OO ��..t-f ) . .!: 0\UURRGGAI I) a1554'r�1+ It 1 O B rt2.u' 155 } `- 1 - bN0 14) 112.8 :Eiaa i I r jPVo\\ 1 i yi Y11 P, �° f I,F[}; E_, I1GB. i J '\IJOd1 , ULL-n 1 . nl '➢pr Pogo A I L� ,. �.. 5 v -•43v).‘)‘411\•< �f -1 I ' ` yY ' 5L;00'"';712' /w Ir 5'- 1 I - I `591. bi "Sna /3t ci 110 M H..5906 it . 6'36 — J ss o � E-,�,^n IF-, c ''��'�� N. `'mI 1:8/--11_, �r� II.:12235 LIh6\ yr� 6 T �" . "T- bol dSl� "� 4 T � b%s�Y • .,� �;s ,, t) o �a '..F'�9�-lll) ' i/ \' ai r f 'Ifn .y. 1�. /,y� f'1 ., 4 � (((?1rT_ 1.JJ1 M tal!"�' CEE. h i ` (A PA)28O ictr .\ \. , m 0 �' - r\` 737°6 10) • CI 110 .y6,120.3 1 �-S' 11z �)I ,l p ee s a y `r Y, ' 80 )/ 1, P . 11 / , N N uu 1 tl lrc' 1V1 199 I , uA�- FL1�1+� /y BO t9-I �i 1 � � � LSGG tii +,"}19rAms • " 1052 e5� / \\) Jed^1 • 1 .C2.1 — Id 51 Oal nr + 2+Jo 1 \ .� °J 8 +r ' 0PERA11o1.1S v t e / i 0' c. 35e i3, _--A o �.. .� I � -. 1� ��. Ile _A UOJIUC 0t >5.E A _ <, IFO�a AJITHIrJ 95 ml�s \ D,0 ri,il,lo Cr. 8 7059 ((((1111 '�` / �� - /.� tI b �nt/ ' 11 f, � � ,�' .dv1�!Li lO� �f r_. / Wag II ) rogrifer 1 <<, ® PRZIE -x PRIV PILAW SEPTEMBER 1973 870599 PREFACE The Colorado -Legislature has required the development rand adoption of a Comprehensive Plan for Weld and all other counties throughout the State. r As defined by State law: The county. . .master plan shall be made with the general purpose of guiding and accom- plishing a coordinated, adjusted and har- monious development of the county. . .which, in accordance with present and future needs and resources, will best promote. . .efficiency and economy in the process of development, including such distribution of population , and uses of land. . .as will tend. . .to reduce the wastes of. . .resources which will result from either the excessive congestion or -excessive scattering of population; and will (- tend toward an -efficient and economic utili- zation, conservation and production of the supply of food and water. . .and other facil- t ities and resources. 91 -Section 106-2-6, CRS , I1963, as amended Webster' s Collegiate Dictionary defines the words "corn- prehensive" and "plan" as follows: "Comprehensive" - (1) covering completely: INCLUSIVE, and (2) having wide mental com- prehension. "Plan" - (1) to arrange the parts of: DESIGN, or (2) to devise or project the realization or achievement of, and (3) to have in mind: i INTEND. It is the purpose of this Weld County Comprehensive LPlan to comply fully with both the legal and the dictionary definition. It has been "designed" to "cover completely" all parts, populations, resources and needs of Weld County. 870589 v 1 It describes a program for the future development of the county that will accommodate and enconraae thnge arf;v;t;Pq that contribute to the well being and welfare of all the citizens of the county. At the same time it provides fnr the preservation and protection of the properties, invest- ments, economy and environment that makes up the "good life" enjoyed by most of us today. c The Comprehensive Plan is not a regulating or control- ling document. It does not require any existing citizen, business, group or organization to perform any act in any given way. It neither requires nor restricts the activities of the county citizens; it is simply a plan. As a plan, it describes an evolutionary process which ' promises the greatest contribution to the well being of the greatest number of present and future residents of Weld County. As a plan, it anticipates and predicts certain major changes in the existing populations, facilities and resources of the county and describes a method by which these changes can be guided and controlled to work to the benefit of all the county. As a plan, it is founded on the history and traditions L of the area. To this have been added the physical, political, cultural andeconomic facts and trends in evidence today. F As new facts are developed and new trends evolve, the plan L. must be changed and improved to more precisely match the 1 vi 870589 needs and wants of the citizens. As a plan, it is basically a statement made by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Commissioners in behalf of the People of the area. It is a proud state- ment r of what we are and what we want to be; how we live and 1- how we want to live; how we work and how we intend to work; ( what we enjoy and our desire to preserve our pleasures. It is a practical statement because it acknowledges and accepts the fact that change is inevitable. At the same time, it is an idealistic statement; for it strives for the best of all worlds. As a plan, it can only have meaning if it is implemented; and it can only be implemented by other physical, economic and political acts which cause things to develop along the paths proposed by the plan. In short, it is a guideway for future activities and changes which are certain to come. Although it is a document without authority, it can be a most powerful tool for the preservation of the "good things" of our area while promoting the orderly, efficient and practical development of the economy, resources and population of Weld County. To implement the Comprehensive Plan calls for the adop- tion and enforcement of compatible zoning regulations and land use specifications. The existing Weld County Zoning Resolution sets up various zoning districts and lim;ra tnP uses allowed in each district to separate, but compatible vii 870559 uses. Zoning is designed to prevent undue Dona a ion gestion, to restrict areas that are ur.guitabte and even dan- gerous to build upon, and to protect land values by 'nsu ina citizens that land use changes will be made in a coherent and logical way. Once an appropriate land use has been established for a given parcel through zoning, the subdivision and develop- ment of that parcel must meet certain specifications. These specifications are set forth in the subdivision regulations. The Weld County Subdivision Regulations establish procedures and set standards which insure that developments have ade- quate domestic water, sanitary sewers, other utilities, good drainage, public access and other necessary improvements. The Weld County Commissioners and the Weld County Plan- ning Commission are continuously reviewing the zoning map and the subdivision regulations. Whenever a new development is proposed that cannot he arrnmmnriafed by 4-he existing doc u_ [ ments, it is within the power of the county to either grant a variance, change the county regulation, or deny the devel- [ opment. The Comprehensive Plan will provide guidance for these actions by the county officials as well as the citizens `-- and private developers of the county. The Comprehensive Plan makes a broad evaluation of the county' s many resources and the forces of growth and change which tend to alter these assets. The Plan presents the probable adverse results of change if the ever-present forces r. viii 87®5589 are not guided and directed in a logical and coherent way. The Plan anticipates and accepts the fact that Weld County is entering into an era of unprecedented growth and development. As a result of the analysis of resources and assets, the forces of change to be encountered and the var- ious alternatives open to the county, a program for develop- ment has been described which protects our present assets and promises to keep Weld County as a desirable place in which to live, work, play and grow. The guidelines for growth are divided into two basic parts: the rural segment which is tied to the protection and -expansion of our agricultural economy, and the urban segment which describes an efficient and orderly expansion of our existing urban communities. The body of the Plan P consists of more explicit guidelines related to agriculture". urban development, water and other natural resources env. - ronmental protection, `-��..=. . 1OA Oi our Ci;O uuury, open space transportation, public utilities, goods and services. Alto- gether, the Plan describes a logic of land use and future development which provides the citizens of the county with a balanced and attractive environment; a stable and expand- ing economy; control over present and future growth; and a practical, yet flexible, method of improving the Plan with experience and changes in the national, state and local trends. 870589 ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A. NATURE OF THE PLAN The Weld County Comprehensive Plan is a guide for the I future development of the county. The Plan was prepared by the Weld County Planning Commission, assisted by the Plan- ning Commission staff and numerous public meetings with many organizations, groups and citizens throughout the county. After weighing and assessing the 4 9 present conditions, current economic, political and environmental trends and the alternatives that are apparent, the Planning Commission adopted the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as a policy rec- ommendation to guide the day-to-day land use decisions that ' must be made by the elected and appointed officials of Weld County. The Plan is comprehensive, in that it deals with all facets of development within the county. Resource manage- ment was considered in terms of the national, state, regional and county significance. The many ramifications of these development recommendations are discussed under separate headings in Chapter III of the Plan. It must be emphasized that the Weld Counts, Comprehensive Plan is not a set of dicta, but rather a direction for clever - . opment based upon two fundamental (j Pt-.n i f aF l na. 11 \ f hnt agriculture has historically been and should remain as the, basis for Weld County' s economic and ecological well being, - 1 - 870589 and (2) that urbanization can best be served by existing municipalities. r. Our agricultural economy and the ecological benefits which accompany it must be protected by adoption of develop- i ment programs that allow the farmer-landowner to reap a rea- f sonable financial and environmental benefit from his labors ` . . and properties. While every reasonable effort must be made �` . . to keep our highly productive irrigated farmland in pro- duction r of farm products, the farmer-landowner cannot be expected to subsidize the urban dweller by providing agri- [r cultural open space and greenbelts without compensation. ` pro ;on o o +r gricultural lands from complete conver- sion to urban development must be accomplished in such a, )Wanner that it benefits both the rural and the urban citizen. [ Further urban development and growth will inevitably [ occur throughout Weld County. This Comprehensive Plan out- lines a couroc of action which assures urban growth in accor- dance with the concepts and desires of each existing muni- cipality. At the same time, urban development will take L_ place with a minimum of impact on the environment and with a maximum of economy in providing public utilities and ser- [. vices. The net result is a controlled expansion of our f. existing municQalities into well planned, coherent commun- / ities that blend into and complement the surrolipdina acri- [ cultural environment C z - 87058 9 . f disregarded. There is a growing recognition that the same planning which characterized the success of the Greeley [ Colony must now assume a larger and more meaningful role in Weld County's government. D. POPULATION The size, distribution and characteristics of popula- tions, along with growth trends, are fundamental factors in planning the county' s future. These factors greatly influ- ence the amount, location and significant characteristics of future growth. The western boundary of Weld County is only five to ten miles from the foothills of the Rockies. TTY southern boundary is only 15 miles from metropolitan Denver./ 1 This proximity to the mountains and to Denver is very ron- venient for Weld County residents, but is also a strong fag- tor in the rapid population influx of rSs€[is.,.v..aElJesia The U. S. Census shows that the 1970 population of Weld County was 89 , 297. Recent c11rveyc by the Ct_te Punning nafc-- the Regional Transportation District and Alan M. Voorhees , Consultant, all agree that this figure will double by 1990 . [ Table 1 shows the 1970 populations for the county, the indi- vidual towns, and the unincorporated and rural areas. As confirmed by Table 1 and the Population Distribution [ Map, the largest concentration of population is in the Greeley area. Nearly one-half of the county's population C is situated in this area. The Windsor area is expected to develop rapidly, due to its proximity to the Kodak plant I.. - 9 - 870589 J k «71 C C 4 N N Cr- c, d f-• CC cc U N O d I W� m ^ moo a EC a gce j D ¢ N o Q U U _i� li. D„TsI( U _ o W C 4. CC G u Q / C.1 C o I n"ii: as o ¢ V N O U 41 :J (I us c C 0 O w .r IC fr.O ....":1 °3 m a 3 F. .•1"-:. I o it (Y_ fi i Z ' Wu >� ! 0 dS O I I in C7- S CC :x W^ Il m� - tr d N c I I W W a I Z Y . I 1 W a I_ 1 F W_ 1 n m C oN o J V v � ri o as �N �n Z F- - A ZIS J elf W J_ Q I u Q JOB - 1-a.1-Z c d t - I-� _c '-‘1 -�` �m a.a co cz d ti,j a» Q a W.13 NW '16- p <- a > o J Q F g tra):6 rn o a' w c ,'l a. 0 '' Y 11 �' (Om ., a v„ Z S �� 3 z_ o _ _ W dll C _ O _�� 3S o oY.- a N J $ c Z -tit„ ic-WO .t.' r - 870589 -13- CHAPTER V rSUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (� A. SUMMARY. of the conte Included here is a brief outline summary nts / of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This summary is inten- ded to outline the Plan and to bring together the important points included in the Plan; not to act as a substitute to the main text. The facts, details, and logic upon which the ` A Plan rests are presented in the main text and can be found by referring to the appropriate sections. y 07, Chapter 1: Introduction: The first chapter explains '" the comprehensive nature of the Plan and describes Weld Coun- ty in terms of geography, history, and population distribu- tion. The county has developed a strong agricultural economy over the years based on its rich soils and highly developed y, irrigation systems. There are 27 towns in the count ;g of which are basically rural. There are growing pressures j for residential, commercial, and industrial development. Chapter 2 : Trends and Alternatives: The second chapter describes the present trends in the County and the Front Range area of Colorado towards urbanization, and describes l._ alternative ways in which Weld County can face these trends. i ' y The alternatives are seen as being: 4 1. Unlimited Growth Policy 2. No Growth Policy R„ 3. Planned Growth Policy '.Sr ' `� a. Planned Dispersed Growth f` 870589 - 127 - r4 C b. New Towns / c. Growth Around Existing Towns ✓ v/Chapter 2 ends by arguing that the last of these alter- natives is the best choice. A planned growth policy based L on the basic pattern of ring growth around existing towns in the county serves two basic ends: (1) The valuable agri- r cultural base of the county can best be maintained by follow- ing this choice; and (2) The future urban population of the county will derive the greatest benefits from this choice. Chapter 3: Resource Management Policies: The third chapter of the Plan examines different components of the county and lays out basic policy statements for each. These policy statements are aimed at achieving the planned growth pattern around existing towns and avoiding problems associ- li ated with other alternatives as discussed in Chapter 2 . The basic policy statements are outlined below: L 1. Agriculture: r a. An uses of rime irri ated farm land fa X uses o er t an agricu tura wi be critically reviewed. b. The expansion of agri-business and industry will be encouraged. c. Industrial business, commercial, and residential development will be encou- raged to locate near existing towns. ✓ bevelopment of these non-agricultural interests in the rural areas will reau)re planned unit dev 1nnment Snq- posted by economic and envirnnment31 impact statements. d. Transfer of water from agricultural to other uses will only be encouraged when the water is surplus to agricultural - 128 - 870589 • needs in the local area. e. Only those developments that donot,, v/- contribute to wafer air or surface encouraged. ma f. Rural development of non-productive lands and water will be encouraged, particularly where productive, irri- gated farm land can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts and open space. g. Construction in flood plains, seep areas, geological fault areas, and other dangerous or undesirable build- ing areas will be discouraged. 2. Urban Development: ( Residential: a. New developments not served by existing ( municipal utilities will be discouraged . b. New residential developments adjoining ( existing municipalities will be encour- aged in accordance with local compre- hensive plan. c. Existing municipalities will be encour- aged to expand their facilities to serve new residential developments. Commercial: a. Only those commercial developments that z cannot reasonably be located in the existing municipalities will be allowed to locate in unincorporated areas. b. Commercial development serving agricul- ture will be encouraged where proximity and time are important. c. Auto-oriented commercial services will ( be encouraged to locate within exist- L ing municipalities or at well-planned and located areas along major highways or thoroughfares. d. Detailed development plans will be required along with economic and 870589 - 129 - E environmental impact statements prior fr; to approval of any commercial develop- ment er outside the incorporated areas. E Industrial: (E a. Zoning or, industrial use in areas outside of planning areas of towns shall be encouraged only for low- employee, agriculturally related, or other industries that cannot reasonably be located in the planning areas. b. Highly productive irrigated farm land will not normally be rezoned for indus- trial uses. c. Industrial development with the plan- ning areas of the towns must comply with the local comprehensive plan and an annexing agreement provided betore a zone change will be granted. d. All industrial zoning requests must be supported by a detailed develop nyent plan and an economic and environ- mental impact statement. 3. Water and Other Natural Resources: Water: .;F a. In all land use decisions, LLIC uioau effect of transfers of water usage which may result from the proposals at hand shall be taken into account. b. An adequate water supply shall be a primary prerequisite for any new land development. tL c. Strong communication lines between the county and the various agencies which control the water supply shall be developed and maintained. d. The public cost of providing domestic I and industrial water shall be minimized. Mineral Resources : a. Access to future mineral resource r 130 870589 . development shall be considered ( in all land use decisions. I b. Lands shall not be mined unless a rehabilitation plan is approved by • r the Board of County Commissioners. ( 4. Environmental Protection: r ✓ I a. Flood plains and other unsafe or l unsuit- able areas for building shall be kept open and free to accommodate the acts of nature. b. Anv land u e that will pollute anv stream, body of water, subsurface aquifer, aquifer recharge, the air, t/ or the surrounaing surface will, require the development of a proper treatment tacllit or environmental •ro ec ion opera on •r- sai• an4 use can be allowed4 I c. All proposed changes in land use will ✓� be suonorted by an environmental impact ' statement orgpared by recognized expertsr 5. Open Space: ` a. Maintain the flood plains of rivers, L. creeks, and gulches in an open state through the adoption of flood plain an' ----roe conservation zoning. b. Protect other lands defined as suit- able open space areas. c. Maintain the integrity and soundness f �" of existing communities by encour- o aging permanent open space "greenbelts" around each town. 6 . Transportation: Transportation Goals: a. -The thoroughfare system shall be developed on a regional scale. b. Thoroughfare facilities shall be fieveloped as a unified, integrated system, which includes controlled-access - 131 - 870589 of when that time has arrived. It is the people who must decide what quality of life they desire in this community, not only for the present generation, but for future gener- ations as well. In the end, it is the people of the commun- ity who will decide whether or not this plan will be imple- mented. The time to implement such a plan is now; not after irreparable damage has occurred. Unlike many communities which are now feeling the frustration of uncontrolled urbaQ ✓ growth, Weld County still has a choice. However, the alter- natives available are reduced with each day that unguided growth is allowed to occur. Now is the time we must make a • decision to control and eliminate the many problems which [' other communities have experienced as their cities grew and. countrysides disappeared. P. F" - C - 136 - 870589 WELD COUNTY WIDC COLORADO 7^111111tin ORDINANCE dolt 1 , 1995 870589 22.4.4 The Board shall arrange for the recording of the Ordinance , and if approved, the full text of the amendment. 23 Site Plan Review 23. 1 Intent. The intent of the Site Plan Review procedure is to provide present and future residents and users of land in Weld County a means whereby orderly and harmonious DEVELOPMENT is ensured in Weld County. As a part of the Site Plan Review process the applicant shall submit a certification which states and affirms that the specific USES, BUILDINGS and STRUCTURES are designed and will be constructed and operated in accordance with the applicable performance standards and district requirements in this Zoning Ordinance, and in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the property was zoned or rezoned. No land, BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall be USED, changed in USE or type of occupancy, DEVELOPED, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered or operated in any zone district that requires a Site Plan Certification until a Site Plan Certification has been approved by the Department of Planning Services. The Department of Planning Services shall not issue a building permit for any BUILDING or STRUCTURE in a zone district which requires a Site Plan Certification until a Site Plan Certification has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Department of Planning Services. No Site Plan Review shall be required for 4 normal repairs and maintenance of an existing BUILDING or STRUCTURE. No Site Plan Review shall be required for alterations which do not affect the external dimensions of an existing BUILDING or STRUCTURE unless such alterations are made to change the USE or type of occupancy within part or all of the altered BUILDING or STRUCTURE. A BUILDING or STRUCTURE which was in place ptiul iu Lire effective date of this Ordinance No. 89 can have its external dimensions enlarged up to twenty—five (25) percent of those external dimensions in existence at the time said Ordinance was adopted, before a Site Plan Review shall be required, unless such enlargement is made to change the USE or type of occupancy within part or all of the enlarged BUILDING or STRUCTURE. 24 Uses by Special Review 24. 1 Intent and Applicability 24. 1 . 1 Uses by Special Review are USES which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than the Uses Allowed by Rieht in a particular zone districts Therefore, Uses by Special Review reeuir� additional consideration to ensure that they arc e§tablished and operated in a manner that ib romnarible with existint and planned land USES in the. ESGi)iQlk44i). Tom„ dddlCional consider%Lrion of 870589 20-17 24. 2.2.6. 21 Any irrigation ditch company with facilities on or adjacent to the parcel under consideration. 24.2.2.6.27 Any other agencies or individuals whose review the Department of Planning Services, the Planning Commission, or the Board of County Commissioners deem necessary. r 24.2.2. 7 Prepare staff comments for use by the Planning (I Commission addressing all aspects of the application, its conformance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities, sound land use planning practices, comments received from agencies to which the proposal was referred, and standards contained in this Ordinance. '4 .3 Duties of the Planning Commission 24.3.1 The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing to consider the application for the Special Review Permit. The public hearing may involve either the Special Review Permit application alone or may include the review of concurrent applications under Weld County's provisions for Overlay Districts, Section 50. The Planning i • Commission shall provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the disposition of the requested Special Review Permit. The Planning Commission shall approve the request for the Special Review Permit unless it finds that the applicant has not met nne er m re of the standards or conditions of Sections 24.3. 1 , ` 24.5 and 24.6. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of Sections 24.5, 24.6 and 24. 3. 1 are met. The applicant shall demonstrate: 24. 3. 1. 1 That the -proposal is consistent with the Weld County i,omprenensive elan. 24.3. 1 .2 That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is locateg. 24.3. 1.3 That the USES which would he permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES. 24.3. 1.4 That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with future development of thg curroundinp area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future develpptgen . m , projected by qe COM tEHENSIVE PLAN Q- tIP& PLANS of affected municipalitier_ 870589 20-22 • 0) 0 0 is. OD I Ca I W ra z 2 a Q F- o cn • cc 2 (n W • F- W z I- 3 = 4 J cn a a •-c W O Q W '-' U- r I- F- Q ) O V CO U W J W LL d J O O LZ = Q O O I- CC cC 1 w if-) VJ L1- .4::• 2 L-0 01 0 iI--. ~ C.7 l- O" 0 F- z I W z0 Q CC W' N W J Q W oa F- J [l CL o H O o O O cC F- cn V W F- Cn W Z 2 = W W i--; • I- Q I a o cc F- 0 W 1! 3 z U) W V W 2 0 Q W U_ 3 11) a I- I 0 F- a F- a O W .-. F- W CZ a = 1 Q W O W Q O I CO J F- W F- F- Z •-• W W = I O W cn Q 0 c cc W0 - F- --+ C0 CO I F- d CU cE F- J Cr F- F- a F- N LL a Q K Q Q V I W O cc W .V.. � W • Li... I CC ~ = J o a a O u. • F- cc W Q W d Q• I - COCn o ra-. W F- I ) W = W = CC K LL W W C9 W > V C D O = . -.> p = ' O J O a a 3 Cr a >- F- V F- - Z W V O <C J O >-- • • V F- F- Q a a Ca CO a W F- O O Ca F- W Cr O W W O O Z a Q F- cI od W F- O a d W F— En ¢ •—. z O d S J cc ., cn cn Z U = Ca O Cr W O CD J W E W Z F- a O = V) > Q cc F- U Cc Q Q S O V c — -- 0 a F- Cr LL V) • • O- J CCI W W W X F- •-. U Cr CO W o Q cn O = I— z W W J Q W O z O • O U .-i N fvl Ln co N oo cn Q U) Q J J 1 F— v cc rw) CO W v i z W cn z W 0 E O 0 3 Q J J I I Till- COUNTY AIRPuRT 350 Baron Court Erie , Colorado 8O516 666 435O _ - It rt Ss. � Department of Transportation December 14,1986 Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region 17900 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98168 ` w Attn: ANM-530 Ted Melland Dear Ted, I emphtically oppose the construction of the 1255' tower proposed to be located 1.7 miles Southeast of Firestone. Air safety will be seriously jeopardized by this tall tower on main thurough fare through Denver. The 985' tower could be Kr paralled by the new tower, and by shortening it to 985' also - .--Lt:..al uad.,t.QC_:cause any impact to air travel than the existing tower. • Thomas L. Pierce Tri-County Airport TLP/tm 870559 COLORADO BALLOON CLUB 13741 East Mississippi Ave . suite 103 Aurora , Colorado 80012 364-7447 DATE April 21 , 1987 MEMO TO Weld County Planning Commission Planning Department Board of County Commissioners REGARDING Case Number USR-775 : 86 : 57 Suckla Farms , Inc . Dear Ladies and Gentlemen , Thank you for the opportunity to present the position of the Colorado Balloon Club in the matter regarding the 1250 foot high radio transmission tower near Frederick , Colorado . There are 2 issues of concern to the Balloon Club . SAFETY The prevailing winds in Colorado are generally from the West , and this proposed tower is located about 2 . 5 miles east of a balloon port that has been in use for 10 years . It will have a major impact on ballooning , if pilots choose to continue flying in the area . There is a danger of pilots who are unfamiliar with the area flying into the tower not knowing it is there . A pilot could also contact the tower as a result of a moment of carelessness . Further , the tower is so tall that a balloon might not be able to climb above it as a result of a sudden major wind change , even though the pilot was flying carefully . Balloons are flown in the early morning because the atmosphere is most stable when the earth is cool . Because the sun will be at a low angle to the horizon , the tower will be most difficult to see when flying directly toward it ! For pilots who continue to fly in the area , it will be a substantial obstruction to navigation . We are required by law and good sense to avoid obstructions on the ground . 1 870589 The guy wires extend from the base of the tower 825 feet . We are required to give these 500 feet of clearance on either side , which will make the effective width of the tower 1825 feet . This requirement also applies to the tower height , which makes the effective height of the tower 1725 feet . To a balloonist the effective size of this proposed structure is just over 1/4 mile wide , and extends to an altitude of about 6725 feet msl ( above sea level ) . This is a significant obstruction to hot air balloons in the area . ECONOMIC Ballooning is a group activity , in that each balloon that launches brings with it a crew of four or five helpers . Often the crew members bring members of their families . We can ' t give exact figures but we know that balloonists and crew members eat in Tri Town restaurants , purchase food and gasoline , and at least one business in Dacono , has spent a lot of money to upgrade his propane equipment to refuel balloons . The people in the Carbon Valley area have been wonderful neighbors to the ballooning community for a long time , and we appreciate their support , and this opportunity to thank them on the public record . Martin Hill , Jr . President-elect Colorado Balloon Club 2 870589 O�FR£\ TOWN OF FREDERICK 2�, mod: lt)r Box 435 F I Frederick, Colo. 80530 Ph.833-2388 x P p e ca'?' April 21, 1987 �.00IAEv Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Reference: Letter No. 2 Ladies and Gentlemen: In addition to the points mentioned in our first letter we wish to advise that the Frederick Town Board eventually plans to annex the tower site. However, the potential interference to television and radio reception for our existing residences is great. The population of this town will be experiencing a greater rate of growth because the metropolitan area becomes closer each year. E-470 will be placing additional traffic on I-25--our western border. Our existing border on the east is within one and one-half miles of the proposed tower property. Recently, Frederick has annexed more than 600 acres of additional land. The population growth from 1960 to 1970 was 17%, from 1970 to 1980 was 22.8% and from 1980 to 1986 it grew at the rate of 22%. The Town Board urges that a different site which is not so objectionable be used for this new proposed radio tower. Sincerely, s),14-b, 1/ Pt-p Pt-pr, Joohn McGinn ( Town Manager JMG:gds 3';70389 714-R 191987 [1 COLORADO BALLOON CLUB 2401 15th St. , Suite 230 Weld Co. Planning Commission Denver, CO 80202 March 16, 1987 Mr. Ted Melland ANM-533 FAA - Northwest Mountain Region 17900 Pacific Highway South C-68966 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Proposed Radio Tower Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Melland: As I indicated to you on the telephone the other day, the Colorado Balloon Club is not in favor of the installation of the proposed 1250 ft. radio tower by Surrey Broadcasting Co. The tower would be located approximately 2.5 miles east southeast of the area used as a launch site for hot air balloons, and we believe it would become a major hazard for balloons flying in the area. With the prevailing winds coming from the west or northwest, we would be subjected to flying in the vicinity of the tower on a regular basis. The proposed tower is to be 1250 ft. tall and would have guy-wires extending out to a point 825 ft. from its base. As you know, balloons cannot be steered; we fly "at the mercy" of the winds. We must fly 2000 ft. horizontally away from and 1000 ft. above an obstacle such as this. With all of the adjacent land being agricultural, it is conceivable that we might be flying quite close to the ground, although at a proper distance from the tower. An unexpected wind shift could cause us to have many problems and potential emergency situations near the proposed tower in attempting to either clear it or land prior to reaching it. The dirt airstrip adjoining our launch site is used by light aircraft, parachutists and ultralight aircraft, all of which would probably experience problems with the installation of the tower. Surry Broadcasting Co. has offered to head-up a fund raising effort on its two local radio stations to raise money which could be used by the Balloon Club to secure a different, less inconvenient launch site. This is a generous offer, however, might not be workable. The current launch site at Frederick is not an "official" launch site of the Club, in fact the Club has no "official" launch sites. This site was found by some balloonists over ten years ago and an arrangement was made to use it on a rent free basis which has continued since then. If a new 870589 Mr. Ted Melland March 16, 1987 Page Two location were found, there is no way to guarantee it would be used in favor of the present site. The Balloon Club is not in a position to undertake a financial obligation in order to maintain a launch site. Also, over the years, both as a club and as individuals, we have spent a great deal of time working with the local landowners and in developing maps indicating the location of landowners who do not want balloons landing on their property. It would be a shame to have to start these efforts all over again in a new location. The Frederick launch site is very convenient to get to and one of the closest points to Denver where we can fly without being overly constrained by the Denver TCA. In short, we would not like to give up this launch site which we have used for many years. I believe I have fairly stated the position of the Colorado Balloon Club, however, is you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 477-3500. Very truly yours, H.C. Van Schaack. III President cc: Weld County Planning Commission Surrey Broadcasting Co. 870589 y or.>o �. e i C t t e.S° jbt z ,,out.n. i °er N—T H \ • u c • NIOn A .nor¢ li W •.. •x *CO • m - ° 1 .� ( — `— ' (L \ -' 1' ��N O (/ g is 1 v .,.Ct• N 1 ( (v/ II 1 ,o`. 13 li 11I N. j •,o - Y ' � _ �' -rt N / /�I.•-� -. ./ __. . it— 'jam \�� - �� AXE • y �& x � b ±8 as �/ �. .. ° ro / .--/ m� 4b fly �) 1 • h' m r_ r 1 T „ P.S ` J\ a, /" c b- ' ° I Fps' ii i / ) II)j i) ©© • _ •\ c} \ \ „Er 0u ,•:ct (... ... ,---‘,\,‘ it-p;ffil\• _ Ili v (r �� ) - 1• f N (� •� o ' �I °� I I � 'i•i • hi a N • 0 � J V � G G o • ,yam 1 A v . v 1 \ � \ �n� ��' � ) \ \,' o Q Ico N N kg i I , y 0 1 � fad • I V, 0,5 • a 9 Cli 4.1 I f el I 6 E9T. SBBS .��,� 19 (.--41 ",z,z0126 EL PASO COUNTY LAND USE DEP.RTMENrr 27 EAST VERMIJO COLORADO SPRINGS,COLORADO 80903 February 25, 1987 Ms. Diane Evans 7987 Weld County Road #19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Dear Ms. Evans: In response to your February 17, 1987, letter, please find information from our files related to the 1 ,350 foot transmission tower. Several things should be noted: 1 ) The tower is on land leased from the State Board of Land Commis- sioners. They were a co-applicant with Satellite Communications Corporation. 2) I believe Surrey Broadcasting bought into the tower. 3) El Paso County has revised its Land Development Code since the date of approval, and transmission towers no longer require Variance of Use approval, but now require Special Use approval . Attached are copies of our current regulations. 4) The tower is located in an unpopulated area, more than ten miles southeast of Fountain, Colorado, a city of over 10,000 population. I hope this provides the information needed. If I can be of further assistance, please call or write. Sincerely, /, /tz.,l 4.(.—/( o Lt5 E Mark Gebhart FEAR 1 31987 [I Senior Planner Enclosures Weld Ca. !laming i;0mWI Sion 870589 • I 91P(BJE9.c,\Q 11M/ R 1 7 1987 Nell lia rtt,uy y„9poriip y EXHIBIT `s I3//7/e7 ELLIS & WIEBE, P.C. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1010 SOUTH JOLIET, SUITE :04 AURORA, COLORADO 8001_' 870589 WHERE TO BEGIN When you consider the construction or significant modification of electronic communications facilities, you are committing yourself and your organization to what may often be a multi-million dollar investment. In a field as complex as telecommunications, with rapidly changing technology and federal regulation, numerous uncertainties may cloud your vision for this new enterprise. Which medium — AM, FM, TV, microwave, satellite or terrestrial two way radio — will best reach your target audience and achieve the goals you want to reach? How can you maximize your investment by obtaining the best possible coverage of the area? What features should be included in the initial design and construction to allow for potential future growth and expansion of your facilities? Which communities in your proposed coverage area are most important to enable you to maximize your sales revenue? Can your community economically justify the addition of a new broadcast or paging service? When comparing two broadcast properties for possible purchase, which one has the greater potential for cash flow? Can you save money by owning your own intercity voice and data link rather than leasing it? The consulting engineer you select to study your needs, design your facility, act as your engineering counsel before the FCC, and supervise the system installation to ascertain required performance will be a major contributor in answering these and other questions in the early stages of your project. Initially you may have only a general idea of the direction you wish to go. 'these ideas and dreams form the framework upon which your consulting engineering firm can build a coherent and comprehensive plan to achieve your goals. During the process of design, FCC application and actual construction, he serves as your advisor, coordinator and representative. Fora period of months or even years, your consulting engineer effectively becomes a part of your organization, a specialized extension to meet your needs and to help you achieve your goals. Selecting the right consulting engineering firm at the very beginning stages of your planning is critical. It is imperative that you have full confidence in the integrity, experience and engineering expertise of the firm which you select to assist you in this complicated area. Personal rapport with engineering counsel is important to insure good communication on the project. This confidence will provide the foundation for a close working relationship. Ellis & Wiebe, Y.C., is an established telecommunications consulting engineering firm with offices located in metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Founded in 1975, Ellis & Wiebe serves more than three hundred broadcasting and business telecommunications related clients in thirty-six states. Its professional expertise and experience includes the design and construction supervision of many types of communications facilities. The firm's capability in frequency allocations studies and directional antenna design is evidenced by the consistent granting of construction permits by the United St-ates Federal Communications Commission for facilities designed by Ellis & Wiebe. Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., has the experience, expertise and facilities to meet your needs in the field of communications engineering. The following pages contain specific information to acquaint you with our organization and demonstrate how we can contribute to your success. I Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 870589 BROADCAST SYSTEMS CONSI' "ATION Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., represents many broadcasters from across the country. We have assisted them from the early conceptions of their projects through the allocation studies, FCC proceedings, equipment selection and purchase, construction, adjustment of antenna system and the establishment of equipment preventative maintenance programs, ascertainment of staff requirements, selection of suitable staff, design and implementation of station operations, scheduling advertising time, billing and financial management. The experience and expertise of the staff of Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., extends well beyond the design of your facility to the close supervision of the actual construction. This strict compliance with specification details can make a significant difference in the quality and value of the property. Other field work capabilities, such as the adjustment of directional antenna systems, signal field strength measurements and antenna impedance measurements result in the optimum performance of your completed facility. Whenever possible, Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., will work with your technical staff to increase their proficiency in these areas, reducing your dependence on outside services. Our firm can establish or improve your internal management systems for production, traffic and billing. We also have significant experience in analysis of cash flow management and budgeting. 3 We have an intimate familiarity with all major sources of programming, including satellite delivery, conventional network systems, automation and live air personalities. There is no single best approach, and the merits of each should 3 be evaluated before a final plan is established. Our comprehensive data processing facilities can provide a wide spectrum of engineering and marketing information for a variety of uses. Our ongoing in— house software development gives us the capability to customize services when necessary to address your specific and unique needs. Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., has an established reputation in the broadcast industry. Our familiarity with all major equipment manufacturers insures that your project will incorporate state of the art hardware. Especially important are the continuing relationships with numerous communications attorneys. The staff of Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., consistently works in close coordination with your legal counsel to provide the best combination of legal and engineering representation. In addition to engineering excellence, Ellis & Wiebe provides evaluations of both tangible and intangible features of broadcast properties for purchase, sale, and insurance certification. These evaluations include technical aspects, such as the physical condition of the station and the quality of its performance, as well as important considerations regarding potential for future development, such as a possible increase in power, improving coverage, or adding additional hours of operation to a limited time station. The evaluation can also include a marketing and demographic survey of the area using our demographic data base. This analysis provides detailed and specific evaluations of the characteristics of the region, such as population, age breakdowns, income distribution, retail sales, merchandise sale demographics and many other categories to use in determining the potential advertising revenues that could realistically be generated by the broadcast property under consideration. I Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 I 870589 BUSINESS COMMUNICATIO? CONSULTATION Ellis & Wiebe has a broad background of experience in the area of business communications systems. Microwave and satellite applications for voice, data, and facsimile are widely employed to maximize employee efficiency instantaneous communication as well as reduction of ongoing costs of outside leased or rented services. Virtually any type of information can be supplied to any location in the world as a result of the technology available today. These facilities can be privately owned and operated for your business use or you can become a common carrier and provide these communications services to others on a fee paying basis. Prior to undertaking any major investment in communications systems, one normally should have a feasibility study done to clearly define the goals to be achieved as a result of the system installation, and establish both a construction time and cost estimate and determine whether or not the cost recovery payback is satisfactory. Once this study is completed, assuming the client desires to proceed, this firm is prepared to implement the plans by designing and supervising the installation of the system. EllThe following are examples of areas where we can provide professional consultation: remote control operation and data telemetry for all types of industry travelers information systems for parks, airports, parking facilities two—way radio system design for industry, police, fire, hospitals 1 remote television security surveillance system design paging system design mobile telephone systems design video projection systems for education, business and entertainment multi—point distribution systems (MDS) satellite master antenna television system for real estate development and apartment complexes (SMATV) instructional television fixed service (ITFS) for educational programs cable system head end design earth station design national teleconferencing expert witness in federal and state courts on telecommunications legal disputes insurance investigations of damaged communications facilities special studies, research and consultation aeronautical two-way and navigational radio facility design In addition to the technical facilities design and testing our firm can help you establish the necessary internal business management systems to see that the enterprise reaches the anticipated success. I I I I Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 I 870589 PROFESSIONAL BACRGROUP OF REY PERSONNEL larry D. Ellis, P.E. Mr. Ellis is the chief executive officer of Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., -Telecommunications Consulting Engineers. He has had experience in direct engineering consultation, design, and field engineering with communications facilities since 1971. His qualifications are a matter of record with the FCC, which has granted numerous construction permit applications which he has prepared. His experience also includes many economic feasibility studies and construction cost management on a wide variety of types of communication projects. j� Prior to entering the consulting field, Mr. Ellis was a project engineer for {� Ideal Basic Industries where he designed both analog and digital process control systems and power distribution systems for chemical and mineral processing plants. In addition to the design of these systems, he represented the company during negotiations with construction workers, conducted construction inspections to ascertain compliance with required specifications and executed plant start up. 1{3�� Mr. Ellis also was one of the three original founders of a firm that developed a computerized broadcast advertising scheduling and billing system and a broad scope of management systems to assist in the increased efficiency of broadcast operations. He constructed, and for several years owned and operated an FM broadcast station. He has been very closely involved in the buying and selling of many broadcast properties. Mr. Ellis has served on numerous panels and spoken at numerous state broadcasters association convention programs. He was a contributing author to the National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook (sixth edition). He is a licensed commercial pilot. He has extensive knowledge of both the communication and navigation procedure and facilities of the Federal Aviation Administration. He has executed hundreds of obstruction clearance proceedings, and coordinated complete relocation of FAA radio transmission facilities. 111 Mr. Ellis holds a Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, from the University of Oklahoma conferred in 1970. He is a Registered Professional Engineer and is an active member of the Society of Broadcast Engineers and the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. 111 I I I Ellis a Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 870589 , I PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUF Michael Wiebe, P.E. Mr. Wiebe is vice president of the firm of Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., Telecommunications Consulting Engineers. It Mr. Wiebe holds a degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from -Texas A&M University, conferred with honors in 1971. lt -He is a Registered Professional Engineer. lie holds a First Class Radiotelephone operator license issued by the Federal ItCommunications Commission. -M r. Wiebe has had experience in direct engineering consultation, design, and u it field engineering with communication facilities since 1979. Mr. Wiebe has had extensive experience in the design of AM directional antennas, terrain and path loss studies for FM,TO, and microwave in conjunction with optimum site selection and evaluation, and numerous comparative cov-erage studies for communication facilities. He has prepared a variety of studies, petitions for rulemaking and construction permit applications which have been filed with and granted by the FCC. Mr. Wiebe has personally developed an extensive data processing software system to significantly reduce the time necessary for allocation studies, specification design, directional antenna design and report preparation. He is thoroughly It familiar with the application of computer programming languages to the study and solution of engineering problems related to the use of the communications frequency spectrum. Prior to entering the consulting field, Mr. Wiebe served as the Base Electrical Engineer for Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri. His responsibilities included the design, construction supervision and maintenance supervision of the primary electrical distribution system additions, runway/taxiway lighting circuit replacement, and security illumination installation for restricted areas. He also supervised the base energy conservation program and the electrical service contracts with numerous power distribution companies. Mr. Wiebe is the author of "Laboratory Measurement of the Complex dielectric Constant of Soils ", a study of microwave propagation and attenuation characteristics published by the Remote Sensing Center, Texas A&M University, supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mr. Wiebe's broad background in electrical engineering with a special interest in radio wave propagation provides the basis for his expertise in communications engineering. I I Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 870589 ft PROF-ESSIONAL EXPE-RIENCE Ellis & Wiebe, P.C. has extensive experience in all areas of the communi-cations industry. In addition to the preparation of -routine FCC applications, the firm it. has had broad experience with unique, _specialized communications installations, as illustrated by the following examples: --The firm has installed and -certified to compliance with FCC estattlished standards the triplexed FM broadcast transmitting system Located at Sandia Crest electronics site near _Albuquerque, New Mexico. This sophi-sticated instal lation allowed three _commercial 1'M stations to share a common tower, transmission line and antenna, saving the owners thousands of dollars in constructi-on _costs. --Ellis & Liebe, performed the FM all-ocation study which resulted in the assignment of a new class -C FM channel to Evergreen, Colorado. The firm's -sophisticated data processing system made possi-ble the study -which showed that the new station -could le added to the already crowned Denver metro area market j by the concurrent reassignment of four other existing allocations. rr —Ellis & -Liebe, performed a coverage study for Service Electric Cable TV, Inc., of _Pennsylvania, to determine TV coverage area far _Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The detailed study included calculations for service contours for thirty—Sour television stations, accomplished accurately and rapidly with the firm's in— house computer facilities. --The firm has -done a number of unique research projects for clients that cover the areas of economics, edu-cation, ptotogrammetry, human factors and fiscal 1 management. --The fi-rm has developed a greet _deal of customized software for clients to analyse consumer -buying patterns and potential advertising revenues far broadcast stations. Detailed localized retail buying pattern can be analyzed by many types of studies. This information can be quite valuable when developing local and regional advertising sales strategy. --rite _firm served as a professional investigator representing an insurance company to ascertain actual damages for settlement of a claim for -massive storm damage. Many of the constraints encountered in these and other -Ellis & Wiebe projects are similar to the 'constraints which you may expect to encounter. Ellis & Wiebe, -P.C., has the knowledge, the experience and the familiarity -with the industry to meet your requirements -and undergird the success of your project. I a Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 870589 FACILITIES The professional experience and expertise of the staff of Ellis & -Wiebe, Y.C., it'1 is augmented by a sophisticated in-hous-e data processing system. The firm has been a pioneer in the dev-elopment and use of in house data processing in the field of telecommunications consultation. IBM-PC microcomputers -a-re employed providing state of the art data processing capability for the staff. 141 Conventional magnetic tape facilities and multiple hard disks provide on-line mass storage resulting in instant access to compre-hensive data bases of ell j existing and proposed AM, FM and TV facilities in North America as well -as } extensive U.S. Census demographic, retail sales statistics, and price _schedule of numerous telecommunications equipment vendors. Customized software used to manipulate and analyze this massive amount of data rapidly provides-precise information concerning areas and jr cov-erage g potential interference problems, as well as numerous economic evaluati-ons to determine the most cost-effective equipment package to meet specified coverage requirements. A special iz-ed 1 ibrary of computer programs has been 'developed aver -the Last twelve yearn. The adaptation of programs written for or by the FCC which supplement this library include digitized ground conductivity maps and Equivalent distanceme-thods of prediction of field intensity contours. -The software developed within the Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., osg-anization includes directional antenna design programs which _utilize both mathematical and graphical analysis for rapid and -precise design of antenna systems. These capabilities enable the firm to address complex allocation and economic requirements heretofore unable to be met with the -rudimentary manual approach. Clients benefit not only in greater accuracy but by also having increased flexibility in the soluti-ons be-cause examinations of multiple options are now -economically feasible. The rapid examination of a multitude of possible engineering alternatives makes the computer facilities of Ellis & Wiebe, P.C., a valuable tool in providing a sound basis of judgement for Engineering and and management decisions. Because computer programs are -written to draft results in a presentation format, the time required to prepasenecessary document-s for filing with government regulatory agencies is greatly reduced from that normally required by a manual system of report -preparation and drafting. Extensive word processing is used in the preparation of required FCC engineering reports. In addition to the state of the art data processing facilities, Ellis & Wiehe, P.C., maintains a full complement of test equipment necessary for measurements and adjustments of transmitting and receiving facilities, including field intensity meters, oscillators and impedance measuring equipment as well as video taping facilities for documenting any necessary activities or circumstances on behalf of clients. Ellis & Wiebe maintains a growing video tape lending library covering assorted topics on the telecommunication industry for the use of the firm's clients. I Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 101-0 S Joliet _Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 I 870589 PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS Arkansas KDRS/KLQZ - Paragould } Jonesboro, Inc. - Jonesboro Arizona ti Burke Electronics - Phoenix DBL Communications, Inc. - Phoenix KAAA/KZZZ - Kingman KCEE - Behan Broadcasting Co. - Tucson California KRIJ — Jibo Broadcasting - Paradise KGEY - Turlock KLYD - Bakersfield The _Ralph M. Parsons Company - Pasadena The Trono Company - San Louis Obispo Colorado Baker Broadcasting Co. - Walsenburg Jandi Broadcasting Co. - Fruita KADX - Denver K&RQ AM and FM - _Denver KDKO/S.R.O. , Inc. - Denver KIIX - Alf Landon Stations - Ft. Collins KIMN/KYGO - Jefferson Pilot - Denver KMJI- menver KLMR - Lamar KNUS - Sandusky Broadcasting - Denver KRCC - Colorado College -Cnlorado Springs KUNC - University of Northern Colorado - Greeley KWBI - Colorado Christian College- Denver National Cable Television Inst. - Denve.r RCA - Lakewood Ready Mix Concrete Company - Denver Stapleton Airport - -Denver TCI - inglewoo-d Westek Communications Services - Aurora Florida WTXL-TV - Tallahassee Ellis & Wiebe, P0, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora L0 80012 (303)367-1626 870589 Indiana WPCO — Mt. Vernon Minnesota WLKX - Forest Lake Montana KYLT/KZOQ - Missoula Rocks Broadcast Engineering - Billings North Carolina Jefferson-Pilot Broadcasting - Charlotte Nebraska Maryland Casualty Insurance Co. - Lincoln KCSR - Chadron KEZH - Highwooid Broadcasting Co. - Hastings KGFW - Kearney New Mexico Don Davis Broadcasting - Albuquerque Christian Communicators, Inc - Albuquerque KCLV - Clovis KHFM - Albuquerque KLTN - Albuquerque KNMX - Las Vegas North Dakota KNDK - Langdon Oklahoma KHME - 152 Broadcast Group - Duncan KKCC - Clinton Pennsylvania Hensley Broadcasting - Shiremanstown South Dakota KDS7 - Deadwood Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joli-et Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 370589 Texas KACT-AM and FM - Andrews KQTY - Borger KXIT — Dalhart Utah KSOP — Salt Lake City Washington S.R.O. Broadcast Div. — Belleview Behan Broadcasting Company — Seattle Wyoming KBES - Buffalo Communications Corp. - Buffalo KGOS/KERM - Torrington KIML - Gillette KVOC — Casper Wyoming State Journal - Lander Ellis & Wiebe, PC, 1010 S Joliet Suite 204 Aurora CO 80012 (303)367-1626 870589 Special Use review to exercise the discretion not only to deny Trans- mission Towers but also to approve them. Under the present regula- tions, denial of a variance request for a Transmission Tower is the only legally defensible position. The hardship required for a Variance of Use is nearly impossible to prove in a tower request. In the case of approval of such variance request, the County is placed in a very precarious legal position. Consequently, when a variance for a tower is approved, that action amounts to a piecemeal amendment to the Zoning Regulations. Courts do not look favorably upon such action, even . though the County Zoning Regulations have created the problem by excluding the use from most of the zones or imposing- height restric- tions. The zones in which Transmission Towers would be permitted by Special Use are typically the larger lot districts located away from the more populated areas. the requests for such towers have also been in those areas of the County. The development requirements and proposed Sec tion 35.11 incorporate many of the standards used to review previous tower requests and also the standards contained in Planning Advisory Service Report No. 384, "Regulating Radio and T.V. Towers", American Planning Association (1984). THE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMITTEE at the April 25, 1986, meeting unanimously recommended approval of the amendments. (See attached Minutes). LEGAL.PUBLICATION: This requested amendment was published in The Security Advertiser -and Fountain Valley News on June 4, 1986. • THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY recommends the following amendments: Chapter III, DEFINITIONS - Addition of Definition: Transmission Tower: The structure on which transmitting and/or receiving antennas are located. This term shall include the following: VHF and UHf television, AM and FM radio, two-way radio, common carriers, cellular telephone and fixed-point microwave. Amateur radio and citizens band radio shall not be included within this definition. Proposed deletion of Definition: Communication Facility: A facility. used to aid communications, as by reflecting or relaying a radio or •television signal. This term shall include radio and television studios. Amendments to Sections 5, 5A, 7, 8, 9, 11 , 18, 19, 21 , 22, 23, 24, and 25. • 870589 ( t Section 5 - F (Forest) District: Addition of Transmission Tower, Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval. Deletion of Communication Facilities from Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use) Section 5A - F-1 (Forest E Recreation) District: Addition of Transmission Tower, Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Deletion of Communication Facilities from Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 7 - A-2 (Agricultural) District: Addition of Transmission Tower, Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 8 - A-4 (Agricultural) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 9 - A-5 (Agricultural) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 11 - A-35 (Agricultural) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 18 - C-1 (Commercial) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Deletion of Communication facilities from Subsection B. , Permitted Principal Uses. Section 19 - C-2 (Commercial) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 21 - PBP (Planned Business Park) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). • Section 22 - PBC (Planned Business Center) District: Addition of. Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 23 - M (Industrial) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). Section 24 - PID (Planned Industrial) District: Addition of Trans- mission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). 870589 • Section 25 - PHID (Planned Heavy Industrial) District: Addition of Transmission Tower to Subsection C. , Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use). PROPOSED ADDITION - Section 35. 11 - Development Requirements for a Transmission Tower: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . A transmission tower may be approved in those zones where such use is permitted by special use. 2. In addition to meeting the special use standards set forth in Section 35.8, a transmission tower shall also comply with the standards contained in this section. • 3. A transmission tower shall be excepted from the structural height restrictions of the zones in which such a facility is permitted by special use. 4. Accessory uses to a transmission tower shall not include offices, broadcast studios, or long-term vehicle storage. B. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE APPROVAL OF A TRANSMISSION TOWER 1. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the tele- communications equipment planned for the proposed tower. 2. The tower shall not constitute a hazard to aircraft. 3. The tower shall be placed on the property to contain on-site all ice-fall or debris from tower failure. 4. The proposed tower shall provide for shared capacity, if technically practicable. 5. The tower shall have the least practicable adverse visual impact on the environment. 6. The proposed tower shall not emit radiation that will ad- versely affect human health. 7. The proposed tower shall be the minimum height needed to accommodate the antenna. 8. The proposed tower shall comply with all applicable federal and state regulations. ' 870589 (° • 9. The design of the proposed tower shall insure structural integrity. 10. The proposed tower shall have adequate measures to minimize the attractive nuisance potential and to insure the security thereof. • • ENCLOSURES: • Regulatory Review Committee Minutes d. 4/25/86 Planning Commission Resolution ' Prepared: /86 870589 7. VA-85-30 VARIANCE OF USE 471.11 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION A request by Satellite Communications Corporation/Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners for Variance of Use approval to allow a communications facility in the A-35 (Agricultural) Dis- trict. The 1 ,350 foot communications tower would be located 1/2 mile north of Hanover Road and 7 miles east of Interstate 25, in the South Central part of the County. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The request was approved (6-3 - Com- missioners Field, Pfalmer and Carlson voting in opposition) at the July 15, 1985, meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following conditions: 1. All climbing apparatus be removed from the lower ten (10) feet of the tower. 2. The base of the tower be fenced to prevent unauthorized climbing. Mr. Field stated he voted against approval because he feels the process has been reversed and he is uncomfortable with it. He believes the County should set the criteria regarding zoning, location, limitations, aesthetics, etc. and the applicant should comply with them. Mr. Conover said the points made by opposition's attorney were well taken and he does not feel this is an appropriate zone for this use. Ms. Lipskin said, even though they cast opposite votes, she agrees with Mr. Field's comments. Such guidelines would make the Planning Commission's job easier and more reasonable if they existed. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' ACTION: This item was heard by the Board of County Commissioners on August 8, 1985. Upon a 2 to 2 vote on a motion for denial the hearing was adjourned until the fifth Commis- sioner was available to vote. SPEAKING FOR: Kent Lillie, President; Ron Peters, Vice President and Director of Engineering. SPEAKING AGAINST: Bill Leone, attorney representing Jon Frost, rancher in the area who also leases this land from the State and grazes cattle on it. Mr. Leone said this proposal is not compatible with the current use of the land, does not meet the criteria of the Land Development Code, and would be a case of "spot zoning". - 7r - 870589 PUBLIC NOTICE: The property was posted on July 24, 1985. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Adjoining property owners were notified of this meeting on July 26, 1985. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSES: Two (2) adjoining property owners were notified, with one (1) responding in favor and one (1) in opposition (stating he does not want to see the area urbanized). ADJOINING LAND USE AND ZONING North Vacant Grazing Land A-35 (Agricultural) District South Vacant Grazing Land A-35 (Agricultural) District East Vacant Grazing Land A-35 (Agricultural) District West Vacant Crazing Land A-35 (Agricultural) District HISTORY: A Board of Adjustment height variance was approved on July 11 , 1985. A Utility Location Approval was granted by the Planning Commis- sion on July 15, 1985. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL: Satellite Communications Corporation proposes to construct a 1,350 foot tall television broadcast tower in south central El Paso County. The tower is required to serve the • Pueblo and Colorado Springs market for a new television station. FCC regulations require a 20 mile separation distance between the facility and an existing transmitter on Cheyenne Mountain, hence the easterly location. A 1,200 square foot unmanned transmitter building will be located on the site. The tower and transmitting building are located on a 100 acre parcel that has been leased from the State of Colorado. The property was zoned A-35 (Agricultural) District as part of the south/ central area zoning in December 1983. The following agencies had no comment on the proposal: El Paso County Department of Transportation Regional Building Department Mountain View Electric El Paso County Volunteer Fire Department El Paso County Soil Conservation Service �1 870589 THE EL PASO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT noted that the site was to be unmanned. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AIRFIELD COMMANDER indicated that there was no foreseeab a conflict with Butts Army Airfield terminal air traffic or the planned broadcast frequency. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE indicated that any tower more than 500 feet tall would be an oobstructfon to air traffic. They recommended the item be reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration for impact determination, THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION commented that the proposed structure wou ave no su stantia averse impact on the safe and efficient utilization of navigable airspace. They noted that the ap- plicant is considering joint use of the tower facility, a concept pilot associations and the FAA endorse. A copy of their letter is attached. SECTION 35.9 STANDARDS GOVERNING THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL Of A PETITION FOR A USE VARIANCE The Planning Commission may recommend approval or disapproval of a petition for a use variance to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners may either approve or disapprove a petition for a use variance. As a minimum, all actions shall be based upon standards set forth in this Code. The power of theBoard of County Commissioners to vary the provisions of these zoning regulations is permissive, not mandatory, and shall not be exercised in such a way as to frustrate the scheme or intent of the Zoning Regulations. The power to rant variances shall be exercised sparin ly and in exceptional situaT ti— ons w ere t e strict app ication o any o t e pro- visions o t se onin e u ons would result in practica tcu ties or un tie ar s op upon t e owneru 'a o t er nproper y d onal THE LAND USE DEPARTMENT notes that the only zoning districts that allow communication facilities as a Permitted Principal Use are the C-1 and C-2 (Commercial) Districts. Communication facilities are Special Uses in the f (Forest) and F-1 (Forest & Recreation) Districts. The applicant has indicated that FCC rules and regulations will prohibit this television transmitter from being located within 20 miles of an existing facility on Cheyenne Mountain. A 20-mile radius of exclusion around Cheyenne Mountain would encompass all F and F-1 zoned property in El Paso County. —17O - 870589 Limited areas of C-1 and C-2 zoned property lie outside the 20-mile radius, entirely in the northern portion of the County and the Black Forest. Most of those parcels are too small in size to safely accommo- date a television tower, and locating there could result in transmission difficulties in reaching the Pueblo market. Although it.appears the FCC and FAA regulations ultimately dictate or limit the location of a communications facility of this type, there would not appear to be any hardship associated with the land where the tower is proposed that would prohibit the land from being utilized in a manner permitted by the A-35 (Agricultural) District zoning regulations. • • • • • ENCLOSURES: Vicinity Maps Letter of Intent FAA Letter Board ,of Land Commissioners Letter Site Plan Planning Commission Resolution Prepared by: Mark Gebhart 8/14/85 ,_. ;� , : . . • ..a... _ • • ••.— . • ..... 9. ... 111 Pr " • val - , • • • - • ... . - fi' pa. I� It . .P r r - ' . ° 'Iii I _ ►I �-`r ,; I • 1 1. , Ili ..sy . :amt.,. 11 , i.rti• rc' T03, 4•••• t WA; •;•:, -gliri 4. 7..z..: .. • a .. .• ..„.SW.b . *it. • 1 .-LI r in. . ln` ,m, _ `` art es i 7.. _ ,.. . ,„..� i ',.,:; - : : monams,„. • .. st — ' .11° ° '.........4.-ne ♦ ...... , :;.: -; : s QIN : a'c ..••• • ... i ; r 6 f %.ill (6 Pr .....: Y3J !' : tr- ti ) T —AIIIV II -Ifill y •• 'I I *,,:t - 2 is . .„ .. . , 4.'.e. • • - • ) , I r.,.. .... ./no i.„:i' a ' • -, . a MN .6%. ' ) . . . .* . • • :. a tat:. _ a, ,..„, c.,. . . _ . . ....4 es . :-. .:.; ••: .. t• I „ „.7: .,,:i. ,- Wir' is ♦ �. • i lea • • ii) O i c•-: 6\lifer a )1 . '\ • , I.- ., .val File No. BOA-85-69i No. •is VA-85-30, U -35 - 10 )Map 471 . 111 Z Title Satellite • a - i-?- Communication Corp 870589 t.:; • f ) ) • May 31, I9dS El Paso County Land Use Department 21 East Yermijo Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 RE; Proposed Broadcasting/Communications facility to be located in a portion or li the W 1/2 of Section II. township IT S. Range 64 V of the 6th Prime Meridian, El Paso County, Colorado. Arapahoe Silent Majority, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Satellite Communications Corporation, has received a construction Camnunitati ohs Commission (FCC) to construct a UHF Television Station • 1 the assigned Channel 26si frequency. permit from the Federal i process, 9 y. As part of the localgovernmental [o elope we are requesting approval of the following height ghtlopment _ variance, site location and variance of use. applications: The proposed site consists of approximately 100 acres and will be located on state owned property (see property survey). The Board of State Land Colnnissioners has approved the issuance of a lease for the above referenced property An easement kwill be leased from the State to provide access to sne t. site from Hanover Road. Because there will be no employees stationed at the facility no public water, sewer or parking improvements will be necessary, [here are a number of requirements which make this particular site the best possible location for the communications tower. First, it fs the responsibility of the FCC licensee to provide sufficient signal strength to Its viewers in the licensed market. Due to FCC rules and regulations, the assigned Channel 26 transmitter Cannot be located within a 20 mile radius of the Channel currently located on Cheyenne Mountain. This particular site is outside l n e the 20 mile limit. Any location further south or east would reduce the signal thus not providing the best quality signal reception to the consumer. Second, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the proposed site represents no hacard to air navigation. The use of this site for a UHF Tower will provide economies of scale with construction and an optimum signal to the consumer. • Within the El Paso County, only C-1 and C-2 Zone Districts principally • communication facilities. Unfortunately, most, If not all such in the urbanized and permit ina the rds more populated areas of the countzones are located health drsasfetyi is bsest served by locating these type We feel that in more public we have selected meets thes requirements.• In mwrc There should be no adverse impact to surrounding land use. Adjacent existing land uses consist of agriculture and grazing. In order to provide the required coverage In the Pueblo/Colorado Springs market. engineering studies show a need to construct a tower of a minimum height of 1,350 above ground. A tower of this height will provide transmission from aa t above average terrain which will provide each community with noise free signal quality- 1 Thank you very much for considering this matter. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact me. Mew Veih2L1i.•y.,,l-W.,w4l�.[/IVY' Respectfully, . • • SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION i 1, • ens e, rest eat • KEL/kd • 870589 • I ) ' ) u5Dep°rineTt Department of Transportation o4 Tr°nspalobon Federal Aviation Administration a rnOsA EE cTO A Federal pvlatlon Northwest Mountain Region AEt10NAUTI AL aruot Admirtistretlon 17900 Pacific Highway South No. 85-ANM-0379 C-68966 Seattle, Washington 98168 ATTN: ANM-530 DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION I _ CONSTRUCTION LOCATION o Arapahoe Silent Majority PLACENAUE 10200 East Girard ° Building C - Suite 256 Denver, Colorado 80231 Hanover, Colorado EATITUOE rtoNglTUOE oEscnlgr oN 380 35' !10" 104° 3l ' an _CONSTRUCTION NEl,NT(IN Fall• PROPOSED Television transmitting antenna & structure---- AeO1349' --O ABOVE 49-! -An aeronautical study of the proposed construction described above has been completed under the provisions of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.Based on me study it is lound that the construction would have no substantial adverse effect on the sale and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.Therefore,pursuant to the authority delegated tome,it is hereby determined that the construction would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following conditions are met: Conditions: Dual lighting systems in accordance with I=AA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1F, Chapters 7 & 9. Supplemental notice prior to actual construction must be receiv by the FAA for initiation of actions necessary to raise minimum vectoring altitu charts in the Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado, areas. Supplemental notice of construction Is required any time the protect is abandoned(use the enclosed FAA form),or a Al least 48 hours before the Stan of construction(use the enclosed FAA form) a Within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height(use the enclosed FAA form). This determination expires on December 3, 1985 unless: (a)extended,revised or terminated by the issuing office; (0) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission and an application for a construction permit is made to the FCC on or before the above expiration date.In such case the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction,or on the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be postmarked or delivered to the issuing Office at least IS days poor to the expiration date. This v determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition on or before May 24, 1985 .In the event a petition for review is filed,it should De submitted in triplicate to the Menage, Flight-tn(dnn.lion an6pbsuuctiona Etraecn,AAT-210. Federal Aviation Administration.Washington,O.C.20591,and contain a full statement of the besisaupon which it is made. This detemination becomes final on June 3, 1985 unless a petition for review is timely filed in which case the determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition.Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. An account of the study findings,aeronautical objections,if any,registered with the FAA during the study,and the basis for the FM's decision in this matter will be found on the following page(s). I1 the structure is subject to the licensing authority of the FCC.a copy of this determination will be sent to that Agency. This determination,Issued in accordance with FAA Part 77.concerns the effect of this proposal on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft and does net relieve the sponsor of any compliance responsibilities rotating to any law,ordinance,or regulation of any Federal,State or local government body. This proposal was previously studied under aeronautical study number 84-ANM-1193-OE. The structure would have been located approximately mid-way between the City of Color Springs Municipal Airport and the Pueblo Memorial Airport, in Colorado. Because of t impacts on Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations, the 'proponent decided to look for another site location and the study was terminated on April 5, 1985. (cont'd. on rev( soNEp Arthur H. Corwin art4i t5egutt TITLE Airspace & Procedures Specialist, ANM- u u,PH io ON Seattle, Washington, April 24, 1985 FAA Fpm 7440-9 ankh Sue(nsE(As Pervious tut IiON Page t of-_Pages 870589 ) On March 29, 1985, the proponent submitted this proposal for a site located approximately 3nm northeast of the previous location. This proposed structure would be located approximately 14.8nm southeast of' the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, Colorado, just beyond the mid-point between Colorado Springs and Pueblo Airports. This location is approximately 6nm east of the major north/south VFR route (Highway U.S. 85) and approximately 4nm east of the VFR direct route pilots use between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado. The structure is identified as an obstruction to air navigation since it exceeds the obstruction standards of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, as follows: 77.23(a)(1) by 849' - A height more than 500' above ground level (AGL) . Operation of the television transmitting antenna will be on Channel 26 (542-548 mHz with effective radiated power of 5.0 megawatts) . This proposal was not circularized for public comment. Instead, negotiations were accomplished with the local and national pilot groups who had objected to the previous proposal . During negotiations, the proponent announced that joint use of the structure by other broadcast groups is probable which would reduce requirements for additional towers between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado. The pilot groups acknowledged that one tower, serving several broadcast companies is highly desirable from the standpoint of flight operations and did not object to this proposal . The FAA also endorses multiple use of such towers as a means to reduce impacts on aviation on a long range basis . The aeronautical study revealed that the structure would not have an adverse impact on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures or operations . The minimum vector altitude used by Colorado Springs approach/departure control and Pueblo approach/departure control in the area of the proposed structure would be raised from 7400' mean sea level (MSL) to 7700' MSL. Also, the minimum IFR altitude used by the Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in the vicinity of the proposed structure would be raised to 8700' . The study revealed that these increases would have minimal impact on aviation and therefore, construction of the structure would not be contrary to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft . The structure would be beyond any airport traffic pattern or transition route predicated on visual aids. The structure would be located within 1 mile of airway V81, however, the maximum height of the tower/antenna would be more than 2500' below the minimum en route altitude for the airway. Pilots transiting this area VFR tend to follow the major VFR route (Highway U.S. 85) which is located approximately 6nm east of airway V81. It was concluded that the proposed structure could be made conspicuous by obstruction lighting as specified in the conditions specified earlier so pilots could see and avoid it , and as such, would not have a significant effect upon air navigation. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft and would not be a hazard to air navigation. ie. 8'705519 • STATE OF COLORADO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS 620 Centennial Building Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman S[., Denver,Colorado 80203 �}�/� 1 ,� .,` OP.COzO ag•P(303) 866.3454 u 9 Y •.. Q July 24 , 1985 H p El Paso Count * X876 Planning De y co nm;,.lo^ef5 Board of County Commissioners PartmGnt El Paso County JOHN S. ILK ES III TOMMY N EAL 27 Vermijo S.WAKES III Colorado Springs, CO 80901 Attention: Mark Gebhart Land Use Department Gentlemen: Re: Arapahoe Silent Majority The State Board of Land Commissioners as owners of that portion of Section 11 , T. 17 S. , R. 64 W" , El Paso County on which Arapahoe Silent Majority (aka Satelite Communications Corpora- tion) desires to place its communication tower and related facilities, support the approval of this request before the El Paso County Commissioners. The Federal Communications Commission, the Board of Adjustments, and the Planning Commission approved this land use and accepted this facility on the state land. A denial of this approved use will result in a major loss of income to the school trust fund of which El Paso County Schools benefit. Thank you for your consideration. STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS(N42,,Rowe a Rogers, -s ' nt `— omm Ne. Reg ' ter `�• S. ilkes III, Engineer WJK: jah xc: Satelite Communications Corp. (Ron Peters ) Craddock Development (Dave Smedsrud ) _ 870589 ANTHONY SABATINI Administrator THOMAS f NHETZ ROBERT IIA P(;OOD Minr,als Director Deputy Regulcr N --_-. ` i • 2 1 ! •t.� •y •r r 'µ+a ri r„ r r1 �J. ; �W S •S 1u,1. 1 -- qrZ��.A•� �y ♦ r yt, _. �. 1� '� X� if )Y» . r Pk - Yi Jn :ilk' r y1 1 • r1 ,� - by ..,.,.,••.rr r � e F Yr :rlY Y )' � i':%� hy� t7 �t�� iL'J!.et''i ,, Y .� L s c..i... n� 11 r11•;7-4;:-::".•,... lrl. i: 9•,.irat`a...�j ll+ ( ..y, r a t .> . . . .. + M n r - r�'. )v• ,.r. r 1 € rb it ,...,i1:•:4;;;<•;,..";;:••• •`••;:t.%•y 4 �:r r--{ . • II� 9 r 1 j • i I I 4• Fs-I I, :i .7 F n5 r r . 1 AR c a2 _ 2 -. ��\ b _ 1 � o k •••D F7 Wh9 M - FS- 870589 VARIANCE OF USE (Approved) Commissioner Hughes moved that the following Resolution be adopted: BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF EL PASO STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. VA-85-30 ' WHEREAS, Satellite Communication Corporation/Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners did file an application with the Land Use Department of El Paso County on or about May 31 , 1985, for approval of a variance of use within the A-35 (Agricultural) Zone District to permit a communications facility where such is not permitted; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this Commission on July 15, 19850 and WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, exhibits, study of the master plan for the unincorporated area of the county, comments of the El Paso County Land Use Department, comments of public officials and agencies, and comments from all interested parties, this Commission finds as follows: 1 . That proper posting, publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the proposed variance of use conforms to Section 35.9, Standards Governing the Approval or Disapproval of a Petition for a Use Variance, of the El Paso County Zoning Resolutions. 4. That the proposed variance is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the master plan for the unincorporated area of the county. 5. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and per- mitted land uses in all directions. 4124 870589 6. That the proposed land use does not permit the use of any area containing a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. 7. That the strict application of the El Paso County Zoning Resolutions would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of the property. 8. That for the above-stated and other reasons, the proposed variance of use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of El Paso County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the petition of Satellite Com- munications Corporation/Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners for a variance of use within the A-35 (Agricultural) District to permit a com- munications facility where such is not a permitted use for the following described unincorporated area of El Paso County be approved: A portion of the West 1/2 of Section 11 , Township 17 South, Range 64 West of the 6th Prime Meridian, El Paso County, Colorado. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions shall be placed upon this approval: 1. All climbing apparatus be removed from the lower ten (10) feet of the tower. 2. The base of the tower be fenced to prevent unauthorized climbing. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution and recommendations be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County for its consideration. Commissioner Hyer seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Field - no Commissioner Hughes aye Commissioner Hyer aye Commissioner Woodward aye Commissioner Pfalmer no Commissioner Lipskin aye Commissioner Royal aye Commissioner Carlson no Commissioner Conover aye 4124 �f � 8 S 0589 The Resolution was adopted by a vote of 6 to 3 by the Planning Commission of the County of El Paso, State of Colorado. Mr. Field stated he voted in opposition to approval because he feels the process has been reversed and is uncomfortable with it. He believes the County should set the criteria regarding zoning, location, limitations, aesthetics, etc. and the applicant should comply with them. Mr. Conover said the comments of the attorney representing the applicant were well taken and he does not feel this is an appropriate zone for this use. Ms. Lipskin said, even though they cast opposite votes, she agrees with Mr. Field's comments. Such guidelines would make the Planning Commission's job easier and more reasonable if they existed. DATED: July 15, 1985. 4124 -�/- 870589 Ln r .v ) I-��---I -I- ,---IoZ iv• '', 1 l— I _.._L: _ 1 f l 00 J � 1 I•f•( I'-1, =1--2:.� g I�-,1E :ItI ..'\_I I i I C h- I 03 0 L_.. 4-1 .. 'c •I t i � s �., I iLi3i 1 •--' I gq I fi^.-f — e Y ,ov [-- Mil.I `- _ if�.' O ' '' -" ..�. r 1 3 £ I 1 /'} W C L �,• J I g1 i— r .. • 'o T- . Ut -T—"j';—L m 3 9 CI-C 1 1 c v -�' --- 12�' -o w l 1 •1. ..� 1 3 . W O %,,, V c sF, rove ��CO 1 . _..irI •I . 1 1 • I' .I_ 1.• . . W•.- - -p 3 p w d W e -F..,.4o I. E - I c o1. L. .I:, Z e I;\ • v tL O a I.' I- l9 •• I _r`t• - o` ) ' t" 10_ I • Y.•.Irl \ z A ' -1L4- A ' e • i /..'�; 1 0 , = I I \ W , � E • r va/ roO I . _. 1 .1-- ( / / /• 1 = -� I € ( I ate.- ^CL . JD CI Ic.rc11 1 L/ / r '—�— -� Iyti � — `� �.• } Y ° ° = Or—.— I:.- I �I I . I 1--:., `4- � 3• - 1 e=.—1 \ �i , - 3 _Is— #—l_L _� — a p E I ri • I! , � • I I ' a" s•' . lao .. O _-1 . 3 E g' ..\ 10 . . I I — .I )1 i J7A"�` 'T`. ;. • o tiJ E in 3 0, 0 3 3 \ / 1 , • '-�g-'J- _1--'I . /•-Y'' f J . \ s'i-1- > • e e .8---+-- --r--1 a s _ —LS1 f. .1 f y�j,/ • 1 ! . 3 r - 2_ 111 Imog I cakv e I '1. a ^ i v.. / `YTT , 1 I!P - 1I 1. ✓/-- o "1 - ` r �. s LLI-IA�_�--_ I. a ^I �� 3 Cnvic e.y Ca .i.. 3<3...........; 451• J t Q_ /_./ . •o .£ .CJs LLI /L ..`..,,;-v-.5- ar alzilli ---"C` .. t5. :Fa, _ ��- • 5'nM / H y !V( .ch.! ~ Q om/ r SI "11 la/ - •�i. �.4. R 7.7 • N 3 I e O Q /. , r o%•_; J V Im 4TH t �' I LI ' `ojbAr 2. .: L ifo �W ‘\ L " o ;` i \ .•_., /1 _ - a ✓ , 1 \ hn/\a ,, /,/ .�,�^ `,n r:;:;-• - L_ 1 ' r /.Il .- •z f irr '^0'-- + l V it I � /•.'i r I \. r A. i•2 ._O;_t �/M r- Z 1 vat- . Q 1.-- J /c ( .I 11 1 j 7- Ck'�r',5 on Id/ \�` �. - C '''f', f '{`r w ) )j r" r i r F A (2C--N-.)._L_.0.-A-,1-. � 3 ( i n C q 01,,_LL,,,_,.,, b1'YKib- _')_4±-C_„,_, j\�-Q-CJU..- Q4_• ,, mac,_ r c n 1 i ,,,,,D. -1- A-1 C— II 1-� .5 __ _r ; 3 a. ' -1- .. -, Q , , ,r, 2__ �l9-Lf0(\ J C3 n� /� v��ca �Ci. -1...6---k kA,,_ CIC- )\ 'VA_LO-lQ. I9- ,^, ••�4 Q,,>5:z..4 c -\5'J1--; aJ.4_ci,_ )—z L rif eq NW/ li u_ �`> Z4 G ` C�.��c_,.,. r��` FEB 31987 V �. l 1 Weld Cu. Planame t;ummiSSiva 870589 February 3, 1987 Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 915 10th Street, Room #342 Greeley, Co. 80631 RE: Tri-Town Planning Commission Dear Commission Members; Being Weld County residents, we would like to give our opinion regarding the proposed site for a broadcasting tower that would be located a very short distance east of the town of Frederick. The proposed tower would definitely be a daily eyesore for our community. The transmissions from this proposed tower would interfere with resident's home entertainment systems. This tower would interupt the flight patterns of the balloonists and parachutists from the area; which we all enjoy watching, Most importantly - being home owners in Frederick, we are very interested in how the community develops. We take pride in keeping much of our business (banking, shopping, etc.) in the tri-town area. Since the inevitable growth of the Denver Metro area will reach the tri-town area; we want the develop- . ment of the area to be positive. The proposed tower would not bring any employment to the area. The tower would not enhance the serene atmosphere our community presently enjoys. To us the proposed tower will not be a positive step toward our community's development. In the past year our community voted to build and fund the operation for a community recreation center. The center will provide a much needed indoor pool and greatly expand the ability for the Carbon Valley Recreation District to provide more programs for the community. This is the type of positive growth the community wants and will be a valuable asset for the community. Presently, our community is beginning to consider the consolidation of the tri-town area. This step may well be what is needed to make a more stable tax base for the area. This will in turn make the tri-town area a better proposition for business and residentual growth. With the community making positive decisions on how to invite a balanced growth into our area; we feel that the land immediately surrounding the tri- town area should be developed with residentual areas and businesses that would bring jobs into the community. The proposed tower would not fit into either category of growth. We are proud of our community and enjoy living in the small town atmosphere where neighbors appreciate each other. We have what we believe are realistic visions for our area and hope the commission will listen to the community and turn down the proposed tower. On behalf of my husband; Matthew D. Richers; and myself I appreciate your time. Thank you! Debora G. Bohe 750 Oak Street Frederick, 80530 1(,' x89 l J MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOULDER COUNTY, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1986 (86-R-085) The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County met in regular session in full conformity with the law and resolution of said Board at the S regular place of meeting in the offices of the Board of County Commissioners, Fifth Floor, Courthouse, Boulder, Colorado, on Tuesday, December 9, 1986. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Vice Chair Heath with the following present: Josephine W. Heath, Vice-Chair 10 Herbert E. "Buz" Smith, Jr. (There was no Board of County Commissioners' meeting of Thursday, December 4, 1986, due to the Commissioners' attendance at the CCI Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Also, Commissioner Stewart was excused for the first item on the agenda this date due to illness. He arrived at 10:00 15 a.m. and was present for the rest of the day.) 9:00 - 10:00 Land Use Matters: PUBLIC HEARING re: Updates to the 1985 Uniform Fire Code for the Louisville Fire Protection District and the Allenspark Fire Protection District and adoption of Resolution No. 86-170, regarding the 20 Louisville Fire Protection District Fire Code, and Resolution No. 86-171 , regarding the Allenspark Fire Protection District Fire Code. (9:03 - 9:12) (Tape No. 153) Notice of hearing was printed in the Longmont Daily Times Call and in the Boulder .^.wily Comoro on No✓.aI be;1 J, 1025.. 25 Presenter: Gary Goodell, Chief Building Inspector Present: Bill Dewey, Fire Marshall, Longmont Fire Protection District Speaker: Bill Dewey, Fire Marshall, Longmont Fire Protection District 30 There was no one from the general public to speak for or against these matters. ACTION Commissioner Smith, "Madam Chair, I find that the recommendation of Staff is complete, and I 35 move adoption of Resolution No. 86-170, regarding the Louisville Fire Protection District Fire Code." Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. 870589 VOTE: SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed ZA-86-4 AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS EL PASO COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TRANSMISSION TOWER REGULATIONS CHAPTER III - DEFINITIONS; • SECTIONS 5, 5A, 7, 8, 9, 11 , 18, 19, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 25 (F, F-1 , A-2, A-4, A-S, A-35, C-1 , C-2, PBP, PBC, M, PID, PHID); PROPOSED SECTION 35. 11 - DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRANSMISSION TOWER A request by the El Paso County Attorney's office for approval of the following amendments to the El Paso County Zoning Regulations: Chapter III , Definitions, Adding the definition of "Transmission Tower" and deleting the Definition of "Communication Facility"; Sections 5, 5A, 7, 8, 9, 11 , 18, 19, 21 , 22, 23, 24, 25, Adding a Transmission Tower as a use requiring Special Approval (Special Use); Sections 5 and 5A deleting Communication fa- cilities from Subsection C, Uses Requiring Special Approval (Special Use); Section 18, deleting Communication Facilities from Subsection B, Permitted Principal Uses; proposed Section 35.11 - Development Requirements for a Transmission Tower. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The request was approved unanimously • (9-0) at the May 19, 1986, meeting of the Planning Commission. In making her motion Mrs. Carlson commended the County Attorney's office for preparation of this amendment, stating she felt it was good to remove it from requiring a Variance of Use approval. Mr. Woodward endorsed her commendation. SPEAKING FOR: Tom McNish with the County Attorney's office; Don LaMora, attorney for Compass Communications who said they support the new regulations. SPEAKING AGAINST: None. • BACKGROUND: Current Zoning Regulations do not provide any zoning districts accommodating Transmission Towers without the necessity of having to apply for a height variance, use variance, or sometimes even both. Although the F, F-1 , C-1 , C-2 and M zones allow Communication Facilities either as a Principal Permitted Use or as a Special Use, the structural height limitations for each of those zones usually requires the applicant to request a height variance. Whether intended or not, the practical effect of requiring variances from the zoning regulations in order to allow Transmission Towers amounts to a policy of prohibiting such a use. The proposed amendments would allow the County through 870589 • 40 Commissioner Smith, "Madam Chair, I move adop- tion of Resolution [No. ] 86-171 , regarding the Allenspark Fire Protection District Fire Code." Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. VOTE: SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 45 2-0. PUBLIC HEARING re: Docket #BCCP 86-2, 1985/1986 Annual Amend- ments to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Map and the Road Systems Map (Map 8) to reflect recent construction projects. (9:12 - 9:20) (Tape No. 153) 50 Notice of hearing was published in the Longmont Daily Times Call and in the Boulder Daily Camera on December 2, 1986. Presenter: John Hinkelman, Land Use Department There was no one from the general public to speak for or against this matter. 55 ACTION Commissioner Smith, "Madam Chair, based upon the presentation of Staff, I move that this Board adopt Docket #BCCP 86-2, approving the ti amendments to the Boulder County Comprehensive 60 Plan Map and the Road Systems Map." Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. VOTE: SMITH , aye; HEATH , aye. Motion passed 2-0. 10: 00 - 10: 30 65 PUBLIC HEARING re: Amendment to the Service Plan of the Cherryvale Fire Protection District. (10:05 - 10:23) (Tape No. 153) Two notices of hearing were published; the first in the Longmont Daily Times Call and in the Boulder Daily Camera on November 14, 1986, and the second in the Longmont Daily Times Call and in the Boulder Daily Camera on 70 November 19, November 26, and December 3, 1986. Presenter: Rob Helmick, Land Use Department Present: Madeline Mason, Assistant County Attorney Robert Lord, Chairman, Cherryvale Fire Protection District Kevin Klein, Fire Chief, Cherryvale Fire Protection 75 District Robert Kirby, Cherryvale Fire Protection District Joe and Ronnie Lentsch, Columbine Mobile Home Park, 6292 East Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado Martha Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street, Boulder, Colorado gri Joe H . Piper, 500 Mohawk Drive, Boulder, Colorado 870589 Speakers: Robert Lord, Chairman, Cherryvale Fire Protection District Joe H. Piper, 500 Mohawk, Boulder, Colorado Kevin Klein, Fire Chief, Cherryvale Fire Protection District 85 Robert Kirby, Cherryvale Fire Protection District Ronnie Lynch, Columbine Mobile Home Park, 6292 East Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado ACTION Commissioner Smith, "Mister Chairman, I move that 90 the Board accept the recommendation of Staff, and I note, too, that we do have a resolution in support from the Planning Commission, and that we then approve amendments to the service plan for the Cherryvale Fire Protection District, Docket 95 #AR-86-13, finding those amendments consistent with the original service plan approved in 1978, and within the criteria of the Colorado Revised Statute 32-1-203 as amended, and in addition, move adoption of a resolution implementing that action, 100 and that resolution is (No. ] 86-175." Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 11 :00 - 11 :30 105 Virginia Aragon, Finance Director, re: 1 . PUBLIC HEARING re: Adoption of: The Proposed 1987 Boulder County Budget; A`.. A u -,t: fn tkn tnty tn w nd thn ctotr rtnr , RAW Levy Limit for the Social Services Fund for Fiscal Year 1987; 110 Resolution No. 86-172, levying general property taxes for the year 1986 to help defray the costs of government for the County of Boulder, Colorado, for the 1987 budget year; Resolution No. 86-173, summarizing expenditures and revenues for each fund and adopting a budget for the County of Boulder, 115 Colorado, for the calendar year beginning the first day of January, 1987, and ending the last day of December, 1987; and Resolution No. 86-174, appropriating sums of money to the various funds and spending agencies, in the amounts and for the purposes as set forth below, for the County of Boulder, Colorado, for the 120 1987 budget year. (11 :00 - 11 :07) (Tape No. 153) Notice of hearing was published in the Longmont Daily Times Call and in the Boulder Daily Camera on November 30, 1986. Presenter: Virginia Aragon, Finance Director Present: Martha Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street, Boulder, Colorado 870589 125 There was no one present from the general public to speak for or against this matter. ACTION Commissioner Heath, "Mister Chairman, I move that the Board adopt the Resolution No. 86-172, [a 130 resolution levying general property taxes for the year 1986 to help defray the cost of government for the County of Boulder, Colorado, for the 1987 budget year]." Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. 135 VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Smith, "Mister Chairman, I move adoption of Resolution No. 86-173, a resolution summarizing expenditure and revenues for each 140 fund and adopting a budget for the County of Boulder, Colorado, for the calendar year beginning the first day of January, 1987, and ending the last day of December, 1987." Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. 145 VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Heath, "Mister Chairman, I move that the Board of County Commissioners adopt Resolution No. 86-174, [a resolution appropriating sums of 150 money to various funds and spending agencies in the amounts and..nd r•for t e pupncac as set forth Y—• r"--- below for the County of Boulder, Colorado, for the 1987 budget year. ] Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. 155 VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Smith, "Mister Chairman, noting that this is a process that we've had to follow for quite a number of years, at least when I've been 160 on the Board, I see no reason not to continue, so I move that this Board approve and authorize the signatures on this application for the County to exceed the statutory mill levy limit for Social Services fund for fiscal year 1987." Commissioner 165 Heath seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH , aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 870589 2. Supplemental Funding Requests as follows: a. Land Use/Extension; $8,950; fringe benefits and 170 prairie dog control; b. Sheriff; $150,000; prisoner board; c. Community Corrections; $38,843; transfer of revenue for salaries (DUI program). (11 :08 - 11 :12) (Tape No. 153) 175 Presenter: Virginia Aragon, Finance Director Present: Martha Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street, Boulder, Colorado There was no one present from the general public to speak for or against this matter. ACTION 180 Commissioner Heath, "Mister Chairman, I move that the request for the supplemental in the amount of $5,950 [from Employee Benefits to Extension] be authorized and that the transfer from the unanti- cipated expenses incurred for prairie dog control 185 devices be covered [$2,000 from the revenue account as recommended by Finance] ." Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 190 Commissioner Smith, "Mister Chairman, I move that we accept the recommendation of the Director of Finance and that we authorize a supplemental of h_ ated fund halanre !for the Sheriff's request] ." Commissioner Heath 195 seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Heath, "Mister Chairman, I move that this be approved at the level recommended by 200 Finance [transfer $29,475 from recorded revenue and $9,368 from Community Corrections salary budget to DUI for salaries] ." Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and noted the additional recommendation from Finance that the Board consider 205 a policy decision at a later date relative to designated revenues received by Boulder County. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 870589 2:30 - 4:30 210 PUBLIC HEARING re: Boulder County Docket #325, International Electronic Development Corporation, Consideration-of:revocation of Special Use Permit for Communication Towers on Lee Rifle Boulder Heights (held at the American Legion Post, 4760 28th Street, Boulder). (2:35 - 7:03) (Tape Nos. 154, 155, 156, and 157) 215 Notice of hearing was published in the Longmont Daily Times Call and in the Boulder Daily Camera on November 6, 1986. A presentation by staff was held from 2:40 p.m. to 3:12 p.m. ; which was followed by the presentations by the lessees/owner of the property from 3:12 p.m. to 4:03 p.m. and a presentation by the neighbors of the facility 220 from 4:03 p.m. to 4:23 p.m. Public testimony was heard from 4:27 p.m. to 6:25 p.m. Additional comments were made by staff and by the Commissioners prior to the Commissioners taking action. Additional discussion between the Board, staff, and a few members of the public -was held after the Board took action and the hearing was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 225 Presenters: County Staff: Ed Tepe, Land Use Director Greg Oxenfeld, Land Use Department Larry Hoyt, County Attorney Owners/Lessees of Subject Property: 230 I homas Bromberg, Hall and Evans, 1200 17th Street, Suite 1700, Denver, Colorado, representing Sterling Recreation Organization (SRO) , Licensee of KHIH Radio (Mr. Bromberg also spoke briefly at the end of the public testimony) 235 Martin Hadfield, Director of Engineering, Sterling Recreation. nr.,onizo+inn (SRO) Rrnariract Division, 200 West Mercer, Suite 3004, Seattle, Washington, for KHIH Radio Bruce Johnson, Attorney, 2010 14th Street, Boulder, 240 Colorado, representing Roger McGrath, Owner, Lee Hill Leasing (Mr. Johnson also spoke briefly at the end of the public testimony) Brad Leach, Boulder County Sheriff (to Tape No. 155) 245 Neighbors of the Facility: John Hart, 189 Mine Lane, Boulder, Colorado Lee Weinstein, Attorney, 4750 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, Colorado, representing the residents of Boulder Heights 250 Present: Joe Heslet, Station Manager, SRO Broadcasting/KHIH Radio, 7900 East Berry, Englewood, Colorado Roger McGrath, Owner, Lee Hill Leasing Madeline Mason, Assistant County Attorney Ken Ziebarth, Land Use Department 870589 255 David Atherton, Dispatch Director, Boulder Regional Communications Ken Replogle, Sheriff's Department Rich Lathrop, Public Information Carol L. Gardinier, Administrative Assistant 260 Judith Hart, 189 Mine Lane, Boulder, Colorado Phillip Battany, 5434 Sunshine Canyon, Boulder, Colorado Charles Taylor, 323 Peakview, Boulder, Colorado Bob and Alice Webber, 610 -Peakview, Boulder, Colorado Ed Herrick, 1183 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado 265 Rev. Elmo Fitz Randolph, 773 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado George Topakas, 333 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado John Alpers, 189 Overlook Lane, Boulder, Colorado Larry and Betty Viele, 235 Silver Cloud, Boulder, 270 Colorado Peggy Rollins, 907 Deer Trail, Boulder, Colorado Bill and Nancy Ranney, 1248 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Dan Page, 1535 County Road 83, Boulder, Colorado 275 Louis B. Feierabend, 1332 County Road 83, Boulder, Colorado Charles Rose, 1143 Peakview Circle, Boulder, Colorado John M. Otto, 304 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Bonnie Baker, 677 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado 280 Jean Phela, 677 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Mark and Pam Severance, 75 Spring Lane, Boulder, Colorado Russ Jaenecke, 5268 Sunshine Canyon, Boulder, Colorado John Hoffman, P.O. Box 1751 , Boulder, Colorado 285 Davis Webb, 333 Deer Trail Circle, Boulder, Colorado Katherine Shimer, 1381 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado ncn nd fin,-in Rn,.ar c 1ZS/1 rni,nt , Rnari Al, Rni ilrlPr Colorado Amellia Peach, 1823 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado 290 Bob Callis, 302 Deer Trail Circle, Boulder, Colorado Robert Tutag, 4300 Sunshine Canyon Drive, Boulder, Colorado Vince Hirsch, 1023 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Betty Terrell, 165 Brook Road, Boulder, Colorado 295 Ellie Reed Koppe, 301 Overlook Lane, Boulder, Colorado Robert and M. E. Brocko, 235 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Jeff Hiller, 111 Mine Lane, Boulder, Colorado Juri Toomre, 97 Meadowlook Way, Boulder, Colorado 300 Randy and Rebecca DiDomenico, 1335 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Dan and Jane Bowers, 124 Deer Trail Circle, Boulder, Colorado Bruce Nederieder, Sunshine Canyon, Boulder, Colorado 305 Steve Meer, Vice President, Systems Concepts of Colorado, 5595 Arapahoe, Boulder, Colorado 870589 • _ ry Eugene M. Thomas, 1600 Hillside Road, Boulder, Colorado; Owner of Thomas Telephone Answering Service, Lessee of Lee Hill 310 Bob McLaughlin, 6661 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado, with Astral Communications, Lessee of Lee Hill Vince Vel,tri, 836 East 18th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, with RAM Communications, Lessee of Lee Hill Marth Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street, Boulder, Colorado 315 Public Speakers: . Dan Rogers, 1350 County Road. 83, Boulder, Colorado Vince Veltri, 836:East.l8th Avenue, Denver, Colorado with RAM Communications, Lessee of Lee Hill Robert Callis, 302 Deer Trail Circle, Boulder, Colorado 320 Robert Tutag, 4300 Sunshine Canyon Road, Boulder, Colorado Vince Hirsch, 1023 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Martha Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street, Boulder, Colorado Ellie Reed Koppe, 301 Overlook Lane, Boulder, Colorado 325 Judith Hart, 189 Mine Lane, Boulder,- Colorado Phillip Battany, 5434 Sunshine Canyon Road, Boulder, Colorado Charles Taylor, 323 Peakview Road, Boulder, Colorado Bob Weber, 610 Peakview Road, Boulder, Colorado 330 Ed Herrick, 1183 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Rev. Elmo Fitz Randolph, 773 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado George Topakas, 333 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado - John Alpers, 189 Overlook Lane, Boulder, Colorado 335 Larry Viele, 235 Silver Cloud Lane, Boulder, Colorado Nancy Ranney, 1248 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Bill Ranney, 1248 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Louis B. Feierabrand, 1332 County Road 83, Boulder, 340 John M. Otto, 304 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado (to Tape No. 156) Bonnie Baker, 677 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Eugene Thomas, 1600 Hillside Road, Boulder, Colorado, Owner of Thomas Telephone Answering Service, 345 Lessee of Lee Hill Juri Toomre, 97 Meadowlook Way, Boulder, Colorado Randy DiDomenico, 432 Deer Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Steve Meer, Vice President, Systems Concepts of Colorado, 5595 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 350 Dan Bowers, 124 Deer Trail Circle, Boulder, Colorado Robert Brocho, 235 Sky Trail Road, Boulder, Colorado Bruce Nederieder, Sunshine Canyon, Boulder, Colorado Bob McLaughlin, 6661 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado, with Astral Communications, Lessee of Lee Hill 355 Jane Bowers, 124 Deer Trail Circle, Boulder, Colorado 870589 I Exhibits: A. Copy of the map of blanket area for the KHIH Tower submitted by Martin Hadfield, SRO Broadcasting, and and materials submitted by Thomas Bromberg for SRO Broadcasting as follows: 360 - Copy of a letter from Robert Trenka, Planning Director, to IEDC dated May 20, 1968 - Copy of the Commissioners' Journal minutes for which Docket No. 325, IEDC, was heard and approved dated April 13, 1970 365 - Copy of the Building Permit Application, #86-297, by Lee Hill Leasing c/o SRO Broadcasting dated February 27, 1986 - Copy of the Building Division Routing Slip for Building Permit #86-297, Seventh Day Baptist, 370 Lee Hill Leasing c/o SRO (no date) - Copy of the Building Permit, #86-297, for • Seventh Day Baptist of Boulder, co Lee Hill Leasing, c/o SRO Broadcasting (KHIH) for the purpose of replacing tower and antennas dated 375 March 6, 1986 - Copy of the FM Broadcast Station Construction Permit from the Federal Communications Commis- sion for Sterling Recreation Organization (SRO) dated March 5, 1986 380 - Copy of a memo from Don Welch, Zoning Inspector, to Greg Oxenfeld, Operational Planner, re: SU- 66-325, Lee Hill Tower Site; SU-85-21 , KLMO-FM Tower Site, Sections 4 and 9, T1N-R71 ,, dated March 6, 1986 385 - Copy of the narrative explanation of the proposed construction at the Lee Hill Radio Site prepared by SRO Broadcasting and submitted to the Boulder County Planners Office dated March 26, 1986 - Copy of a letter to Bill Stewart, KLMO-AM/FM, 390 from Greg Oxenfeki, Planner, Operational Plan- ning Division, re: Docket #SU-85-21 , KLMO-FM Tower Site dated April 8, 1986 - Copy of a memo from Ken Replogle to David Atherton, Sheriff's Department, re: Tests with 395 KHIH on Lee Hill dated October 6, 1986 B. The original Lease Agreement between the Seventh Day Baptist Church of Boulder, Colorado; Paul Hummel; and International Electronic Development Corporation; dated December 6, 1965, submitted by Bruce Johnson 400 on behalf of Roger McGrath, President, IEDC C. Affidavit of Roger McGrath, notarized and dated December 9, 1986 D. Packet of material in chronological order regarding Docket #325, IEDC, submitted by John Hart 405 E. Copy of a letter from Robert Trenka, Planning Director, to IEDC dated May 20, 1968 (same as in Exhibit A above) 870589 The concluding comments made by the Board prior to, including, and after their taking action have been transcribed and are included at the 410 end of this set of minutes. r ACTION Commissioner ..Heath,* "Mister Chairman, I would move that the Board. of County Commissioners revoke Boulder County e Docket #325, issued to the 415 International Electronic "Development Corporation. I've determined that the limitations set forth in the September. 4, 1969, letter to the Board of County Commissioners ;and the attached site plan did constitute the special use plan that 420 was approved in Docket #325, that there was an existing 100-foot tower, an existing 62-foot tower, and that there would be proposed a 75-foot tower with the transmitter building, and that you have presented in this testimony to us and our staff 425 has presented evidence which reflects violations and that this property, with respect to the height of towers and with the numbers of towers, as well as significant evidence from residents that they are continuing to experience interferrence as -a 430 result of this, and therefore, it is my belief that revocation is necessary to prevent further abuse of this site." Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. 435 Motion passed 3-0. The Board, by consensus, directed Staff to prepare a recommendation renarrlinn tha enfnrrament artinne that should be taken pursuant to this special use permit revocation and set a hearing for January 20, 440 1987, at 2 p.m. , in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, to review this recommendation. 10:30 - 11 :00 BUSINESS MEETING (86-R-085-B) 445 (10:32 - 11 :00)(Tape No. 153) (11 :12 - 11 :40) (Tape No. 153, continued to Tape No. 154) I. ITEMS REQUIRING NO MOTION There were no items to be noted for the record. II . ITEMS REQUIRING APPROVAL BY MOTION OR CONSENSUS 870589 450 1 . Personnel Actions. Speaker: George Hilgendorf, Treasurer ACTION Personnel Actions were approved as submitted by the Personnel Department with the exception of 455 three Personnel Actions submitted by the Treasurer, without approval by the Personnel Department, due to the fact that the Treasurer was requesting approval of a transfer of monies from the salary account to the merit account to cover these 460 personnel actions. 2. Settlement of Civil Action No. 86-CV-2382-2, Western Cities Broadcasting vs. the Board of County Commissioners: stipulation executed by the Board and individual defendants and building permit for equipment building issued. 465 Speaker: Larry Hoyt, County Attorney ACTION At the request of the Board, this item was moved to the discussion section of the agenda. After a brief summary of the settlement by the County 470 Attorney, Commissioner Smith made the following motion: Commissioner Smith, "Mister Chairman, I move that this Board ratify our prior actions in individually signing this- ' ti..:ai.... afire ..,...•.. finding that 475 in my own mind, the comments of the County Attor- ney are appropriate and it is an action we should take. " Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 480 3. Warrants Issued Reports from the Finance Department dated: a. October 31 , 1986, for the period of October, 1986; b. November 28, 1986, for the period of November, 1986; c. December 1 , 1986, for the period of November 24 - 28, 1986. 4. Liquor License Renewal for the Loyal Order of Moose, Boulder 485 Lodge 528, located in Boulder Canyon, Boulder, Colorado, for a Club Liquor License. 5. Contract Matters: a. Agreement between BCPIP and Boulder Valley Public Schools RE 25 for the purpose of providing a word processing/computer 490 applications training course to JTPA eligible participants for the period from November 3, 1986, through January 31 , 1987, for an ainount not , 9GC ` ,-- , . 870583 b. A request from BCPIP to amend an agreement with the State for 1986-1987 GJTO Job Training Plan for the purpose of revising 495 the preemployment skills training and for requesting a waiver to -the Entry Employment component (#1-6-007/1); c. Modification #1 to Agreement #3-6-016 between BCPIP and the Office Performance and Training, Inc. , for the purpose of adding a provision to the Payment Schedule for an assessment 500 for dislocated workers agreement (#3-6-016/1); d. Concept Paper/Expenditure Authorization submitted by BCPIP to the State Tor HA PY86 Performance Incentive Awards allocated from the Governor's Job Training Office for the period of January 1 , 1987, to June 30, 1988, for an amount of $20,819 505 (#1-6-016) . e. Lease submitted by the Housing Authority with Robert Shonkwiler for the purpose of leasing office space at 2017 Tenth Street, Boulder, Colorado, for the period of January 1 , 1987, through December 31 , 1987, for an amount of $1 ,500 per month. 510 ACTION Commissioner Smith moved approval of Items 3, 4, and 5, inclusive. Commissioner Heath seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. 515 Motion passed 3-0. III . ITEMS REQUIRING DISCUSSION Commissioners' Matters: 6. Boards and Commissions Matters: Mem^ from 1 ..d-, ctt i to tho Rnarrll r .tad flornmhor 1 .gig.n..r , 520 1986, requesting that the Board note for the record the resignations of Ray Tallman and Dorothy Thompson from the Social Services Advisory Committee, (both vacancies have been advertised for Reorganization) . b. Memo from Linda Stiegler to the Board dated December 3, 525 1986, requesting that the current members of the W470 Task Force as listed below be reappointed for a one-year term to expire in November, 1987: Barbara Greenlee Ed Tepe Richard E. Bump Stephen Pomerance 530 James Cederberg Josie Heath c. Appointments to the Health Care Consortium. Speaker: Carol Gardinier, Administrative Assistant Present: Linda Stiegler, Staff Sectretary to the Board 870589 ACTION 535 The Board, by consensus, noted the resignations :x of Ray Tallman and Dorothy Thompson for the record and reaffirmed the fact that the Social Services Advisory Committee vacancies will be filled during the Reorganization meeting of January 13, 1987. 540 Commissioner Heath moved that the Board extend the terms of the present W470 Task Force members until January 13, 1987, in order to make reappointments during the Reorganization meeting of January 13, 1987. 545 The Board also by consensus tabled the appointments to the Health Care Consortium until the business meeting of December 16, 1986. 7. Liquor License Renewal for Ferncliff Liquors, located at SW 1 /4 SE 1 /4 525T3W, Ferncliff, Colorado, for a Retail Liquor Store 550 License. At the request of Andy Hamano, Deputy County Attorney, the Board should note the referral from the Sheriff's Department. Speakers: Carol Gardinier, Administrative Assistant Larry Hoyt, County Attorney ACTION 555 Commissioner Heath moved approval of this liquor license renewal for the Ferncliff Liquors, SW 1 /4 SE 1 /4 525T3W. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. 560 Motion passed 3-0. After further discussion on this liquor license renewal, Commissioner Heath withdrew the above motion approving this renewal and moved to table this matter until the business meeting of 565 December 16, 1986, in order for Staff to obtain information regarding the Sheriff's referral and to reconsider the renewal at that time. Commis- sioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. 570 Motion passed 3-0. Elected Officials' and Department Heads' Matters: 670589 8. Memos from Barbara Gigone, Community Services Director, and Virginia Aragon, Finance Director, regarding a request from Barbara Gigone for the Board to approve a purchase an IBM 575 personal computer and software for Community Corrections Tor an amount of $6,006 from surplus funds. Present: Barbara Gigone, Community Services Director ACTION Commissioner Heath moved that the Board authorize 580 the request as presented and noted that the recom- mendation is is affirmative from the Department of Finance. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 585 9. Public Works Department Matters: a. Request for approval and the signature of the Chair on a letter to John Tomsic, Transportation Analyst, Colorado Counties, Inc. , regarding an application by Boulder County for Special Bridge Funds for the purpose of replacing two 590 substandard bridges located on County Road 80 at the St. Vrain River; b. Recommendation from Tim Feehan, Water Resources Engineer, Public Works Department, that the Board not call up for review at a de novo hearing, and thus approve, Floodway 595 Development Permit #86-25FW to Don and Mary Throndson of Eaton, Colorado, for the construction of a low-water crossing across Middle St. Vrain creek approximately 100' downstream of the confluence of Cave Creek; Request from Alex Workc Director, t0 600 discuss a real estate property matter. (11 :12 - 11 :20) ACTION Commissioner Smith moved to go into executive session to discuss a real estate matter. Commis- sioner Heath seconded the motion. 605 VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH , aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. Commissioner Heath, "Mister Chairman, I move that the County offer $75,000 for the purchase of the property in question [534 Terry Street, Longmont, 610 Colorado, to be used for part of the parking lot for the Human Services Building in Longmont]." Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH , aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 870589 615 Commissioner Heath moved that No. 9a, the letter to John Tomsic, be approved. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 620 Commissioner Heath moved that No. 9b, the recom- mendation from Staff approving Floodway Development Permit #86-25FW, be approved. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. 625 Motion passed 3-0. 10. Memos from Jim Liles, Housing Director, to the Board dated December 8, 1986, regarding the 1987 CDGB Application and Direct Costs and from Kay Stehlik, Administrator, Weatheriza- tion Program, to the Board dated December 8, 1986, regarding 630 the 1987-1988 Program Budget. (The material from Weatheriza- tion was actually submitted as a request to approve a transfer of funds/supplemental appropriation in an amount of $21 ,064 for the purpose of covering the direct costs for the calendar year 1987 involved with a Weatherization Grant for an amount of $469,000.) 635 Presenters: Barbara Gigone, Community Services Director Jim Liles, Housing Director Kay Stehlik, Weatherization Administrator Speaker: Judy Stokes, Assistant Finance Director ACTION 640 Commissioner Heath moved that the Board authorize the transfer of funds as specified, approximately $21 ,064 for 1987 to cover direct costs for the Boulder County Weatherization Program. Commis- sioner Smith seconded the motion. 645 VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH , aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. The Board, by consensus, agreed that some percen- tage of the administrative costs for the CDBG Grant be borne by the cities where the majority 650 of the housing is located and not entirely by the County and the Board also directed Jim Liles to put together information that would show the cities the amount of work that is put into the housing projects by the County. 870589 655 11 . Request from Charlotte Houston, Clerk and Recorder, for the Board to approve a capital outlay expenditure to purchasing a small photocopy machine and a stand for an amount of $1 ,354. Present: Charlotte Houston, Clerk and Recorder ACTION 660 Commissioner Smith, "Mister Chairman, noting that the Director of Finance has approved this requisi- tion and hence, indicating to me that the funds are available in an appropriate way, I move that we approve this request. " Commissioner Heath 665 seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH , aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. Administrative Assistant's Matters: 12. Items Submitted After the Business Meeting Deadline: 670 a. Subcontractor Agreement between BCPIP the State for the purpose of providing a Teen Parenting Program to Longmont and Frederick area youth for the period of December 1 , 1986, through November 30, 1987, for an amount of $19,181 in grant monies. 675 Speaker: Barbara Gigone, Community Services Director ACTION Commissioner Heath moved that the Chair be authorized to sign the subcontractor agreement between PIP and the State for the purpose of 680 providing a Teen Parenting Program to Longmont and Frederick area youth. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH , aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 685 13. Discussion Regarding Economic Development. ACTION The Board, by consensus, agreed to the following: 1 . To establish a small , short-term advisory committee of approximately eight or nine 690 people to be appointed directly by the Board and not to advertise for applicants; 870589 2. That the purpose of the advisory committee would be to work with the Board to determine how to organize economic development issues 695 and to formulate these into the Boulder County organization; 3. That Commissioner Heath would draft a charge to the advisory committee and bring it back before the Board for approval; 700 4. That the Commissioners will consider people whom they think would be appropriate for appointing to this advisory committee; 5. That the charge will be adopted and the members will be appointed on Tuesday, 705 December 16, 1986. 14. Scheduling, and Communications Matters: a. Commissioner Heath regarding a question raised by Dr. Cruz-Uribe concerning Public Works, the People's Clinic, and San Juan and the contract. 710 Speakers: Larry Hoyt, County Attorney Bob Brand, Facilities Manager ACTION The Board directed the Public Works Department, the County Attorney's Office, and the Health 715 Department to work together to get arrangements acceptable to each department and to get the construction project moving forward. ITEM AMENDED TO THE AGENDA: 15. Request from Barbara Kendall, District Attorney's Office, for 720 the Board to approve a preliminary application for grant monies from the Ford Foundation for the purpose of initiating a program entitled "Innovations" involving domestic violence project in Boulder County. Speaker: Barbara Kendall, District Attorney's Office 725 ACTION Commissioner Heath moved that the Chair be authorized to sign the grant applications for the Innovations Program for the District Attorney's Office. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. 730 VOTE: STEWART, aye; SMITH, aye; HEATH, aye. Motion passed 3-0. 870589 Upon motion duly made, the Commissioners adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:05 p.m. C 735 C 164/6./ (-7%/14446- ATTEST: 674" <..424Z/C-CLAH— Clerk to th- =o:rd [NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE MINUTES OF THE 740 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE ON FILE AND MAY BE REVIEWED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS. ] • 870589 TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMMISSIONERS' FINDINGS, MOTION , AND CLOSING COMMENTS AND THE CLOSING COMMENTS OF THE STAFF 745 FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LEE HILL HELD ON 12/09/96 AT THE AMERICAN LEGION POST Commissioner Smith, "I have a number of comments and also an indication of the direction I think is appropriate, so I will venture out first. This is a land of laws, as I think you're all aware, albiet imperfect. If they were 750 perfect, we wouldn't need cities, counties, states, or federal legislatures to be constantly dickering, whether we agree with what they're doing or not, and because they're there and we're elected officials, we take an oath to uphold those laws as we understand them and as we're advised because it's not a requirement to be a commissioner that you have to be 755 a lawyer, and I think most lawyers disagree on many issues, so being a lawyer wouldn't help you a bit. s "I want to clarify one issue and that is that there isn't anybody on this Board afraid of being sued; it's a fact of life if you're an elected official. It happens almost daily and the dollar figures involved in some of those 760 law suits would stagger the dollars you've that you've heard involved in the ones that we're talking about, so those law suits have nothing to do with any decisions we've made or that we will make. At least, not from my position. "What our task is is to determine what we believe the law is, how we 765 should interpret it, and how we should apply it. In defense of the County Attorney, you should be aware that he didn't make those decisions. He advises this Board. The buck stops here. If the settlement was made and it was, we made that decision. The County Attorney did not. He simply interpreted to the press what his understanding of the law was, 770 that he advised us, and what our decision was. I think as well we have to say, I think most of you know that, that we don't have the authority h That protects you as well as to reverse past decisions without. �. it might some commercial endeavor. Otherwise we might decide to stop enforcing the laws in your part of the county or maintaining the roads 775 in your part of the county. You have certain reliance and if we don't perform without cause, you have recourse just as anyone else might. There are all kinds of eyesores that exist in Boulder County, and its our job to protect you against those eyesores. We use a zoning resolution in those cases, just as we'll use it in this case to determine what we 7-80 believe is appropriate. And we, I might add, this Board at least pursues such violations vigorously. We really have very little patience with long standing violations, and I would guess at this point in time there aren't many left that are really longstanding. But as recently as two years ago some of them were ten or fifteen years old. We are pursuing those 785 matters. I think that the laws as we have today cannot address every problem. We do keep trying. We've closed many, many loopholes, the fact of the matter is that there will always be problems or there won't be a need for this Board or any other. "Now I think the real question that comes up is, do we have a violation? 790 Do we have a basis for considering a revocation? I think that depends upon whether you--how you interpret the record. This Board, and I'm going to extrapolate that personally to include past Boards, makes 870589 decisions based upon the commitments of record. And those commitments of record are not necessarily written into the formal resolution that approves 795 the Special Use. There are in fact, any statement on the record that indi- cates an intent on behalf of the applicant. In my mind its absolutely clear that there was a committment to no more than three towers on this site. And, in fact, I have a document in front of me dated November 12, 1986, presented to us by--it came from Mr. McGrath which indicates that he 800 acknowledges three tower structures. And, in fact, several places in this document, he acknowledges three structures. I think it's relatively clear that more than three structures exist. And I believe, then, that a violation occured as soon as the fourth structure went up. The fourth tower. In an agreement between the Boulder County Regional Communications Center and 805 Lee Hill Leasing dated 1982, the signatures are different dates, the statement says that the Communications Center has placed three radio towers at this site. It tells what each tower represents in height and the like. I think you'd have to stretch it a great long ways to conclude that the triad, which we affectionately have had other names for, is anything other than three 810 towers. So at the moment we either have six or seven towers on that-- six, I guess--towers on that site by my count. And I believe that to be clearly a violation of this Special Use. "My own conclusion is that vested rights have accrued to the towers that were erected legally at the time they were erected. In my interpretation, 815 and I voted to approve the settlement that the County Attorney has outlined, is that the two new towers, irrespective of your opinion of those towers, are at this point in time legally erected and are going to be there. Much of what commissioners deal with is land use and that particular criteria is with us all • the time. I believe those two are legal and if they, in fact, can be construed 820 to replace two that were to come down that means that one additional tower is legal. In my view, the next tower erected, the third tower erected, is the only additional legal tower. I think that its clear that, in my mind, that there are only three that should be there. "Now I guess the next question is what should violation of a Special Use 825 mean? Its not very clear I don't think in our documents what our recourse is we have talked about it with our staff. They are at work on the question, and went to work on it prior to this particular issue. In addition to what it means, I think we have to determine then what happens with respects to the rights that emanated from that Special Use. First of all, I don't believe 830 that people should be rewarded who have violated a Special Use. I think only those vested uses that were legally initiated should survive. To me, that means, then, that after the three structures are determined, that two of them we already recognize, or I do, that no new structures can be allowed. The Special Use is revoked. That no additions to the allowed structures can be 835 made, and no additional uses can be allowed. I believe to do otherwise is to say that a Special Use has no teeth. That in fact its a blank check if you get the approval, you can then do whatever you like because there's no ability upon the part of the County or its citizens to address the fact that a violation occured. The only thing I'll say additional is that I recognize 840 that we also have to provide for reasonable transition periods for those uses that exist that if my opinion is sustained by the other members of the Board, would ultimately have to leave that. We all rely upon some of those users for very, very important health and safety issues and a transition period is going to be required to address those questions. That concludes my comments at 845 the moment. 870589 Commissioner Heath, "Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to introduce a motion to revoke the Special Use Permit, and I would like to speak to that motion in just a few moments, but I would like to say first of all that I regret that this situation that we're facing today. It's a classic situation of the con- 850 frontation between what happens, I think, with an advancing technology and the fact that sometimes people are sold an idea for economic development which they often do not realize has such an incredible comprise on an envi- ronmental integrity which they love. And I look at this and see it as an item which I think we will face more and more in this County, in this state, 855 and in this country in that we are always asked to balance our priorities, and its unfortunate here that those initially entered into this did not realize the impact of what this might lead to in the use of that property in this way. "I feel like that Boulder County has taken the lead in trying to preserve those things that are really special here; and, frankly, I regret that the 860 committements of record were not clear enough because we value on this Board what a citizen group says to us, and in the time that I've served on this Board of County Commissioners, we have often conditioned a Special Use very specifically to be sure that long past our tenure on the Board and long past your life in this county, the statements that we heard and that we 865 used to make a decision were a part of the record so that a staff long after us could look at that and wisely decide that was part of the agreement and part of the trust. "I frankly that its unfortunate that our staff interpreted something that was very vague in a way that did not, in my belief, acurately interpret that in 870 the best interests of those of you who are here today. But in fact we have some vested rights that we believe have been acknowledged here. Judge Richtel , in his decision, I think, affirmed that; and, therefore, I feel that I , personally, am left having to deal with the third tower, and I am prepared to advance a motion to suggest that I believe that this Special Use Permit has 875 been violated and to suggest that we should revoke that permit. And I have some. fa..m,o,vo that !'d Ciro to intrnfittro to (in that hut I cucpert that perhaps you might wish to say something before that. Commissioner Stewart, "I just want to make a few comments because I think that everything I feel has already been said by the other two Commissioners. 880 I have a very strong feeling that there is no adequate excuse to those of you who live in Boulder Heights for this situation. Unfortunately, Boulder County has for more than a decade, I think, incorrectly interpreted what that original Docket #325, that was granted to Mr. McGrath, what it meant. I'm very disap- pointed with the County interpretation because I think its going to create a 885 real sickening impact in your neighborhood that you're going to feel for years and years. If there were a way that this Board could do something about that, I think we'd be doing it. But I'm convinced based on my knowledge of the law as well as my understanding of this specific instance that the County really is constrained, severely constrained, in terms of what we can do in this 890 instance by actions that have already been taken. We've issued building per- mits for two towers, the State of Colorado law says that when you've done that, you can't take those back and even if it was an error on the part of a staff member of a public entity, once you've issued the building permit and people have reasonably relied upon it and spent money in order to try to con- 895 struct that structure that the building permit allows, that the public entity is precluded, really, from taking back that action. That's an unfortunate 870589 situation for us to be in. I wish in many ways that we were not in that condition to us today, but I'm convinced that we are and that's the reason why I personally agreed to the settlement offer because I feel that it says 900 nothing more than what Colorado law requires us to do. "One of the things that disturbed me a little about the hearing that we've had today is the comment about the--or the inference that what the Board had done was as a result of a threat of a law suit. And I'd just suggest that I heard several sides in this debate today suggesting there might be a law- 905 suit, so I'm not sure that by any action the Board would take that that issue is removed. And perhaps, nor should it be if there are those who feel that our action is improper, there are always remedies that you can seek. The issue to me though is not the threat of a lawsuit, it's the issue what is the state of law in Colorado. What does Colorado precedent tell us about what 910 we can do when we or other elected officials in Colorado find themselves in this horrible situation that we're now in where business interests have relied upon building permits that we've issued to them and we have no option really other than to let them build their structure and do what we told them to do even though I strongly believe that that was done in error. I think it is 915 that a numbers of things that have occured on that site are a clear violation of the Special Use Permit. At one time there were six towers on the site. That's at least twice the number that were allowed. At most times in the years since the 1970's, we've had towers of greater height on that site than were approved in the 1969 site plan on the wall over here which to me is 920 the controlling document that determines what is allowed on that site by the Special Use Docket #325. "And it's for that reason that I feel today that we must revoke the Special Use Permit because clearly the intentions of that 1969 site plan have not been met on that site. But secondly, I think that the County must find a way to 925 aggressively pursue this interference question, which we've also heard a number of you raise, because, as the County Attorney earlier indicated, that al Use Permit w35 conditioned those who se that site agreeing that they would take care of interference problems and that if they didn't, that the Special Use or their use of that site for the purpose that the Special Use 930 Permit allowed could be revoked. And I think the County must aggressively pursue that issue and be sure that you as residents of that area have the kind of reception that you had previously and if that is not possible with the broadcast on that site, that the County will have to take whatever action is required in order to be sure that there isn't interference in the area. So 935 I guess that of most of the decisions, all of the decisions, I've made as a County Commissioner, I'm less happy with this one than I am with any other decision we've made because I know the decision we're going to make in, I hope, revoking this Permit doesn't do as much as I'd like to do and yet I don't feel that there's any way to do more than that. So, if there's no 940 further discussion, do we have a motion?" Commissioner Heath, "Mister Chairman, I move that the Board of County Commissioners revoke Boulder County Docket #325, issued to -the International Electronic Development Corporation. I've determined that the limitations set forth in the September 4, 1969 letter to the Board of County Commissioners 945 and the attached site plan did constitute the Special Use Plan that was approved in Docket #325; that there was an existing 100-foot tower, an existing 62-foot tower, and that there would be proposed a 75-foot tower 870589 with the transmitter building. And that you have presented in the testimony to us and our staff has presented evidence which reflects violations in this 950 property with respect to the height of the towers and with the number of towers, as well as significant evidence with residents that they are continu- ing to experience interence as a result of this; and, therefore, it is my belief that revocation is necessary to prevent further abuse of this site." Commissioner Smith, "Commissioner Heath, did you want to specify a course 955 of action other than just revocation or is that a separate action or--?" Commissioner Heath, "Let me yield to the County Attorney and ask for some advice on that." Larry Hoyt, "Technically, that is a separate action. You can take that action this afternoon but you are not required to take that action this 960 afternoon, and you may want to consider all of your options with respect to enforcement prior to taking such action, but you can direct us as a is what happens here, you result of revocation, assuming the revocat;o�� can mandate the staff follow certain enforcement actions and you can do • that either today or you can do that as a follow-up to this hearing." 965 Commissioner Smith, "Mr. Chairman, I second the motion. " Commissioner Stewart, "And I guess I would prefer to see us work on the enforcement issue subsequent to today. And ask the staff to come to us with recommendations about how we should enforce this. I think we have heard testimony from some of the people in this instance, including Mr. 970 Thomas and others, about the circumstance they're in, and I think we need to consider that as we consider the enforcement action on the property." Commissioner Heath, "I agree with that, but I feel like in fairness that we need to set some kind of timeline for when we would resolve this because we're not talking about stringing this out for a long time and for those who 975 are I guess what does one one call one a tentant on the tower, you need to know what your timeline is moving and for those of you who are looking at it, you need to know what's a reasonable timeline to expect that you would see some reduction in that horizon. So I would at first just offer this as the motion and then I think we do need some conversation before we leave 980 today as to what we would like to mandate staff to come back with us and what should be an acceptable timeline." Commissioner Stewart, "Okay, we have a motion ,and::a second to revoke.the Special Use Permit for the reasons stated in the motion. Those in favor say "aye." 985 Commissioners Stewart, Smith, and Heath, "Aye." Commissioner Stewart, "That motion carries unanimously then. Any further " discussion?" Commissioner Heath, "Well , I would like to just put on the table for openers, the first two recommendations from staff in their package that we look at the 990 uniiitsrofgthe of the existing by5Mrf.oMcGrathslons to and thathe 50-foot we require ide of th 870589 the removal of the existing northernmost 100-foot tower, which is that ham radio and Astral Communications, and then I want it I guess stated in some place, even though it has been stated before, that the two towers which are 995 the KHIH Tower and the KQKS Towers are non-conforming use towers and to just reaffirm that that does not mean that they have to come in for a Building Permit to put anything else on there, it means essentially that there will be no expansion of what is presently permitted because those are already non- conforming and that there could be no way that those could be modified to 1000 expand what is presently there. That's what I heard, I just want to reaffirm that. Is that correct?" Larry Hoyt, "That's correct." Commissioner Heath, "So those are three things, that I'd like to have for openers on our specifications and I would also like to have a timeline. So 1005 let me just introduce those for a start and see where we want to go from there. " Commissioner Smith, "I guess my position, I'd, rather than specifying which of the other towers, meaning not KHIH and KQKS, what I would like to do is for the staff to determine which of the other towers is legal. Which was 1010 erected within the--and I would suspect that it's the first Sheriff's tower-- but I'd like for staff to make that determination and the recommendation as to which tower has legal status under the laws that existed at that time and that allows us to determine which goes. At least, I think we have to have that information before we can make a -decision. " 1015 Commissioner Heath, "Let me ask, what's a reasonable time for you to make a determination on that because obviously all of the tenants of that tower, the Sheriff as well as the other users, need to have a reasonable expectation about when they would have that information. " Commissioner Smith, 1 Actuall that t hat I U forgotten. think ,I^ .. a have. -- inat is what 1 u Ivlyvucn. I ull 1020 two times to set. The first is when we come back to make a decision aboutthe second. " Commissioner Stewart, "Yeah, that's right." Commissioner Smith, "There are technical considerations that have to be taken into account for the time frame for the abatement of the violation but the ques- 1025 tion when this Board can get back together is another question to discuss this. " Commissioner Stewart, "Sheriff Leach, do you have a comment?" Brad Leach, "Mister Chairman, I'd like to make a comment about all of this if I may. Brad Leach, County Sheriff, if that isn't on the record already. One 1030 of our concerns is still as yet to be resolved and that is the interference, however so slight or much, from KQKS when they turn up the heat. That may be a concern of some other people in here with Tespect to their interference. I think that really is going to tell the tale whether I even want to be there at all. Or can be there at all. And until that is done and I ask people from 1035 KQKS who have been silent today if we can get some response from them, as to when, since we're now dealing with time frames, as to when that may occur, so 870589 we can at least judge the interence, if any, on the intermodulation problems that may exist. I think that gives us then the next decision point. As far as which tower or which of my towers came second or first or third, I don't 1040 really care. You decide--we'll decide with our technical people which one we have to have. My concern now is for the users, and I almost said losers, of business people in this County, hundreds of them, that are now going to have to do something else. They are the only legitimate users in my view that we really need to be -concerned about in terms of where do they go. I don't think 1045 it can be on our tower or not, I don't particularly want to even talk about things like that. I need four or five antennas, I do have to be, I think, a hundred feet in the air from where that site is as far as we understand from our technical people. Mr. Thomas and others who have been there for years and are operating businesses and paying taxes in this County are going to be 1050 the losers and for us not to take into consideration Astral Communications and other people we have relationships with, I think is doing them a disservice as well as these people that have been here from the Boulder Heights area, so :e KQKS,KS, when are you going to turn up the heat, or turn up your 100,000 Watts? What's the result of that? At that point, then we make some other decisions 1055 as to which of my things goes or--we own that tower and I'd just as soon take it down and move it." Commissioner Stewart, "Yeah, we need to be careful now, I realize that we're pretty much at the end of this and not just--OK." Vince Veltri, "My name is Vince Veltri, again. I'm the Chief Technician with 1060 Ram Communications. I can't sit back and just let everybody--I can understand, everbody here is really concerned because of the two FM. Apparently the triad had been sitting there for awhile, occasionally some people had been getting some pager inteference, I'll admit sometimes we get them. We go out and we fix them. That's all there is too it, we don't go out and pacify people and 1065 just tell you (directed to someone in the audience) call my office tomorrow." (Brief disturbance U, audience. ) Commissioner Stewart, "Okay, now what is your comment?" Vince Veltri, "All of a sudden two FM stations come up, KHIH comes up and all of a sudden, us, a ham operator are being interfered with just inside of 1070 the building. Since the two FM stations have come up, everybody has been blowing up a lot of steam just because of them. Here everybody was living copasetically, all of a sudden everything is amuck just because of two towers. I can't just sit bank there and watch the only site that we have covering this area, gone. That's it. There is no other site on top of any of these moun- 1075 tains out here that'll cover our area. That's all I have to say." Commissioner Stewart, "Okay, thank you. Ed and Larry, what kind of time frame would you like to have to come back to the Board with a recommendation on enforcement actions?" Ed Tepe, "From my perspective, staff is ready to come back to the Commis- 1080 sioners if the hardline approach is appropriate because I personally believe that the two 50 foot extensions on the Sheriff's tower were put up illegally. They house the majority of users. And with the conversation with Brad about what he needs for the future, we can be back with you within a one- 870589 to two-week period of time before the end of the year if you prefer that. 1085 Because I can come before you instantly and say what I believe to be in violation. You have just removed the Special Use Permit from the site. It is totally a non-conforming site. I categorize it as being an illegal, non- conforming use that we're really estopped from enforcing on the two towers themselves. As far as the triad towers itself, I'd be prepared to come back 1090 to you and dicuss that whenever you could set it before your agenda. Now, if you want me to go further and give you detail between the discussions between Mr. McGrath and those users which I understand to be somewhere between 40 and 50, and try to establish if they had some rights to be there. That would take me a considerable amount of time to do. If we had only 1095 approached it from the standpoint if the towers were put up illegally, then what rights prevail from the County perspective on those that are there? And my view as a planner is nothing. They can find a new home. So the answer is I can come back within as soon as you want to put it on your agenda. If you want me to identify all the users, how they got there, 1100 what led, what feelings they had, impressions they had, rights they had. I really don't know how long that would take. I would imagine 40 to 50 users, you're talking a month's time." Larry Hoyt, "With respect to the enforcement action concerning the structural items that are on the property currently--the structures that are on the pro- 1105 perty currently--I think the staff and the County Attorney's office can cer- tainly come back to you within the next two weeks and make recommendations concerning those enforcements, options. " Commissioner Stewart, "John?" John Hart, "I would just reiterate that when the original Sheriff's tower was 1110 first put up, it was a hundred feet high. And there are already two existing structures on that property, 162 feet, and the permit was for a tower of 75 feet. So when it was first put up, it was higher than appropriate visa vi the prnpncnl that was before the Hoard, so I think you need to consider that. I have a great deal of sympathy for the users who are up there, I really do. 1115 And I think that whatever reasonable amount of time you feel appropriate to give them to perhaps mitigate the results of this hearing is appropriate. And that I , speaking personally as the closest land owner to this site, would be more than happy to see a proper time taken for such adjustments. But I think that the middle tower is clearly was built higher from day one when it should 1120 have been only 75 feet it was a hundred feet high. And the users, the 40 or 50 users of this antenna facility, I hope that they can find a new home on some mountain or some appropriate location. They do have, of course, some recourse financially with respect to the landlord of that site who apparently gave them something that he didn't, perhaps, have to give." 1125 Commissioner Stewart, "My own thought is that we probably should allow our- selves adequate time to know what we're dealing with up there rather than to come in only saying that there are three towers with 40 antennas on them and they're to be removed. And I was going to suggest that something like the first part of January be the time that we set for that next meeting on enforce- 1130 ment. " Commissioner Heath, "January 7th is Conda night." 870589 Commissioner Stewart, "January 7th is Conda. " [Brief, unintelligible discussion regarding the date. ] Commissioner Stewart, "Do you want to do it the next week? What's the next 1135 week? We're going to give you a date real soon. Dan?" Dan Bowers, "I have no comment, just a question. Are you going look at the towers in terms of sequentially when they were [unintelligible, speaking from the audience]." Commissioner Smith, "I'm saying that's one approach. There was another 1140 approach and really what we're asking staff to do is research the question and make a recommendation and give us all the facts so we can either accept the recommendation, revise it, whatever. " Dan Bowers, "Okay, as to where you should look at it in terms of how much they vary from the original situation or the chronology, so there's 1145 [unintelligible]." [Unintelligible discussion from the audience. ] Commissioner Smith, "No, that wasn't said at all. In fact, I think it was made clear that the emergency services, your fire protection, your ambulance, whatever, all of those things are probably coming out of one of those towers 1150 and you wouldn't have it without it. We're not proposing to shut it down until there are solutions that provide for health and safety. " Commissioner Stewart, "And the important--" [Unintelligible discussion from the audience. Commissioner Stewart "That's exactly what ..csure _want towe have enough 1155 time to consider, and Carol indicates that January 20th is the really the next available time that the board would have to consider the enforcement action. We have the Conda hearing on January 7th, we have Reorganization the January 13th, it's difficult to work something in before that. Larry?" Larry Viele, "Could you in the process, address exactly what interference 1160 will be called? If you allow these people to define what interference is, I'm afraid we're going to be in trouble, so perhaps for those of us in the community could submit some ideas as to exactly how we want to define interference [unintelligible, speaking from the audience] . " Commissioner Stewart, "Sure, we'd be real open to that. So let's set this 1165 meeting for January 20th at what time?" Carol Gardinier, "Two o'clock. " Commissioner Stewart, "At two o'clock in the afternoon in the County Commis- sioners' Hearing Room, we will have a report from the staff then on suggested enforcement actions that should be taken pursuant to today's decision to 1170 revoke the Special Use Permit. And the meeting is now adjourned. " 870589 • STATE Oft COLORADO D(71-1. oh me or or l ocarC3LLTi HoF cy DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT a % Par Ratliff, Director ,,, ry r •oi76• 171=17177177 Gove,nor July 3, 1986 FAA - Northwest Mountain Region Attention: Ted Milland ANM-533 17900 Pacific Highway South C-68966 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: 86-ANM-0323-0E. Dear Ted: On June the 25th our office hosted an informal discussion on the potential airspace impacts of the radio antenna proposed by KYOU-FM. Those in attendence represented the Colorado Balloon Club, Surrey Broadcasting (KYUU) , DRCOG and our office. Also, we attempted to obtain input from CPA, AOPA and the Tri-County Airport near Erie, Colorado. The session was, we felt, quite productive and this letter is meant to serve as a brief summary of the comments offered. I am also enclosing a cassette tape recording of the meeting. • As the meeting host, the Colorado Aviation Staff kicked off the discussion by presenting; briefly, the concerns over the proposal which had been mailed to the FAA on June 3rd. These included: ✓ A) Extensive ballooning activity operating off the Frederick/Firestone Airstrip. 8) The location -of the NADA tower northeast of Erie has traditionally pushed VFR tr-affic east of I-25 into a corridor bounded.by I-25 and US-85. C) The proposed tower would be in close proximity to two major Victor Airways (V19/89 & V4). D) An important altitude for VFR aircraft entering the Denver TCA (7000' MSL) will be jeopardized by the proposal. These comments were made in order to provide a point of departure for the conversation. At the same time a photocopy of the Denver TCA chart showing the antenna location was distributed. A copy is attached to this letter. 1313 Sherman Street, Room 520, Denver, Colorado 00203 (103) 866-2156 870589 Mr. Milland Page Two Paul Montoya, of Surrey, then reviewed for the group the criteria which had gone into their site selection process. Critical factors for their purposes were: A) Limitations on close proximity to the NAOA tower. (3) FCC Docket 80-90 which has mandated an increase in antenna height to 300 m. C) A necessity to provide adequate signal strength into Greeley, the city of license for KYOU-FM. See attached page. D) Close spacing limitations improsed by KADX located in Castle Rock. This prevents any relocation further south. Also, KMJI is considering co-locating on the tower and they have a close spacing problem with a station out of Kimball, Nebraska. - See attached pages. E) U.S. Department of Commerce has mandated a quiet zone to hold down signal strength over Boulder. This requirement is met by use of a .directional antenna as portrayed on the signal pattern map attached. Paul finished by saying a non-binding land lease has been signed contingent upon the approval of the FAA and the FCC. The president of the Colorado Balloon Club briefed the group next, covering some of the typical procedures for operating off the Frederick/Firestone Airstrip (F/F). He pointed out that some 180 balloons are located betwen Ft. Collins and the Denver Metro area. These airmen use two primary launch sites, Chatfield Reservoir and F/F. ✓ Use of F/F began approximately 10 to 12 years ago with an average of one to two dozen launches by club members on any weekend day. Further, commercial flights occur nearly daily. The advantages of F/F are its central location to the users, understanding neighbors, and its seperation from the Denver TCA. Of flights departing the ✓ F/F some 80%+ drift in an east southeasterly direction and the majority of flight lengths are 2 to 10 miles. The balloons typically operate at between 500 and 1000 feet AGL, with a preference for the lower altitudes. Dennis Roberts aviation planner for DRCOG noted that his primary concern was that the antenna tower should not adversly impact upon existing or planned instrument approach procedures at regional GA airports. The consensus of those present seemed to lean toward an examination by Surrey / of sites west of I-25 and just to the north of the existing "ERIE" tower. Approximately, this would put the antenna at latitude 45°3O'N longitude 105°15'W. 870589 r Mr. Milland Page Three While this site would pose a greater impact upon a future instrument approach at Longmont, Colorado, such an approach is only a long-term planning goal at this time. Our office will continue to actively monitor and participate in this OE case. Please give a call if we can provide further input or clarification. Sincerely, g tto Dennis W. Mewshaw Sr. Transportation Specialist Aviation Planning cc: Walt Barbo, FAA Hank Newman, AOPA MT Dennis Roberts., DRCOG Tom Pierce, Tri-County A/P wd Paul Montoya, KYOU-FM Colorado Balloon Club Vern Foster, CPA • 870589 ,='0 DUE; Maximum Pattern H ' STATE OF COLORADO • • —_- -- n—. . ,IN I idr-• �. `� I/ , ^ate r_ ' ' • I`• ^-n— r ..1 - • •- • •''t':, cTL -•A—gr_T'M •£— R-�Rr Ca�f_ilir ' i •..Le r : .. • \ % � • a r w J _ = .—•—.i l. ..mac.—..• _ _ r • t- :., •r , I, 1 -...\--... } . . It.� . f __ ,. i ~' - " _ _ J`.e:1`.•••--r• ;=;- Proposed Tower — -T .,. 4. — I ;._ Site ` t - <R ��== Location - - . , ;' _ �-� ) -'v ._. _ ' _ '1 • -� - r I.• • ._• -c a e •`'a`• • _=aOU rn_' - - .l ...--1-'-'• -r,r (1 d.-- is^' , . I r ..., �. ........._ ,- ^'.• -..>r-t.'t' '.:-`i _ //Aa>—j; J ,.—., a �____ —�.J...� .--___�__i�.l_ — - `- r • > C_ __• -, .N '.......---7•, ..A 1. - ' .�_t:-`_,,�„•.,;r ; . is , , r'- •..--'--..—' ice— ' -wr r..t si.DENv_9=-•'. • y_ • - • • ••'- ` .C-E-�P..�C72 E E I -.J..•, _ •SnE_;1_ a("� •- � � I -- 1 - �, 'N M '- _ ��• �. ° '„_`. r.•- J \..•- — . l: a - -;- - -r —r — _- __ ‘ __ _ -:. cam 1 f Rti:1�r� • L . . 1 1 ` . . '._._.... • I. � I ' r '�•�" D' O U. G L.. A 5.. . E L '•`A R K, .�.1. ..—i_ •f, . -T.T E i_.... I� .. ;1� .. •1 .I I1 870589 / SURREY BROADCASTING PAGE 1 DENVER, COLORADO TM STUDY (NEW RULES ADOPTED 3/1/84) MARCH 18 , 1986 3 TITLE: KMJI DATABASE: DW 03/14/86 ANNEL 262C ORDINATES: 40-05-52 104-54-05 EASE NOT FM TRANSLATORS MARKED BY " ! " HAVE ERP IN WATTS UTION: ONLY KILOMETERS CONSIDERED TO BE EXACT DISTANCES. .LL CITY CHANNEL ERP-W/KW LATITUDE BEARING DIST. REQ. ATUS STATE FCC FILE # CLASS EAH-FT . LONGITUDE (MI) (MI) '.OBAP CHEYENNE 208 ! 41-08-58 2. 9 72 . 65 . 0 _P WY BPFT830124MV D 104-49-52 ' KWBI 72 . 65 'UU PUEBLO 260 75 .0 38-44-47 178. 6 93 . 24 65. 2 ,IC CO - C 2000 104-51-37 28 . 04 CLEAR UU PUEBLO 260 96'. 0 38-44-47 178 .6 93 . 24 65. 2 :PP CO BPH-85102915 C 2000 104-51-37 28 . 04 CLEAR LOC KIMBALL 261 41-14-06 39 .2 101. 97 105 . 0 NB A 103-39-42 -3 . 03 SHORT !DE KIMBALL 261 . 7 102 . 83 105 . 0 PP NB BPH-840725IC A -3 103-39-49 -2 . 17 SHORT ;61AJ SNOWMASS-AT-ASPEN 261! 39-13-11 241.0 122 . 97 . 0 .IC CO BLFT215 D 106-54-31 KQIX .00 :61AK BASALT 261! 39-21-10 246.9 127 . 97 . 0 ''. 41C CO BLFT258 D . 107-06-06 KQIX . 00 :-61AI GLENWOOD SPRINGS 261! _39-33-48 254.7 133 . 62 .0 .IC SLFT278 D 107-18-59 KQIX . 00 `61AU WHEATLAND 261! 42-16-20 349 . 2. 152 .84 .0 :P WY BMPFT820302IA D 105-27-42 KKAZ . 00 G1AM RIFLE 261! 39-30-41 256. 1 158 . 50 .0 .IC CO BLFT791101IA D 107-46-55 KQIX . 00 1JI DENVER • 262 100 39-41-06 197.3 29 . 83 180. 2 .IC CO C 0 105-04-05 -150. 37 SHORT ** CAUTION - WATCH FOR CLASS C BUFFER ZONE ** 431 DENVER 262 100 DA 39-40-21 209.8 33 . 82 180.2 :P CO BPH-831118AJ C 1302 105-13-04 -146. 39 SHORT 87®589 f 'if rt f C� tr i •/ m f ) p{ p/ i f ae � j/_ I!j 4 ie I��fff l ' lii 1 Ji (t 'f / —�• ,' /. {{I� � (� Y . � �l fl I rJ�>•'I .. l yam/ kg: > ! I r f/3e-- N. r�✓' ' �- i r - ' ��ii--. "5:74:2,„Q -1 J �'k t '1:O w{. i" I�11 '▪ )._ 4, r, I C AI.TCR\A I1Jt c��`� Qua l '7 - ,?' rn '�.l `R ��1"U.)" } `f, It 14�,r1oN l i l \�wl It t• f t .1 '.t."A ` $4 .�� l�l•,f/4f t' 1" 1 f = f f 1} C 7441,... ^1.ttfit �i�/' ;3•J'I / e. .F". �� •1 •�./ ti ;/ I � '�r-4„..„-- _, I�J{(A�' F3/0•0323 tl i 7 l c - — s�� ` l� , rte .'``"'�jj� P1; 67 1 1• .,,'y ). ♦_ ♦ ;\�• ,1 -1 A M inra ct 6 �' t R \ ...zee" _p•� l I x lu� % .414 '7 - y: \ I—I -� ' � •. bit .L O.rttaJtcAa • r , Oe! . ;,.,,^`r ! -I• �� ♦ti00. Shut...nub, f - jjc , '. !r'4ci:a .<r y.1 1 'i• �' Ii - 110 - , r- ; /^ 1 ftyG F 1 f i•' \4. tt•. t, ) `,l 110 t • lily • © • • ,M� T TIY, C& t I Ol le(,,,,... , •:�. i , � �4�.� �" f I ,�d.J••I� J l., ' r •i/ 1!10 \8} �Afa If .�.fVY 7_ Ti 1z' r1 s� a 1 1O0 -S 1,r1 1r`♦' B ♦1 ;ili 2.0, i1jl )it� y.'/,.1C _I .�, 'Th . ` »•,. • III tJ1.M. 1 'f-\ ' II - Y ., y ;. t`" 1 , eo ,6o]Itki �Jt 1.r.• . 114rcI�t ` 4- III oar . 7 stt V 110 yeenes,etly�.�w} \��pIR 31111‘ I. 4 .✓ {l: -' ` .t „ ) - • •', .3 ) q-� 7 ,� _ ,_I~ „ �. jig; l zt.... ``- 1 cLS•4.1 444. 1t) , ti tl \ \. . r Iti _•-. 1 l , l8 • era , .y �`• 1\ ` R ( .• AV a 1 � r• tt.'.w"i . • 1\1,0 , 71A L O iw., pit c- i ..., ,.I.,-,.-AsJ c ,i .• 1 C I :::71,-2.1.1-,4" -.y, f - - y ..� f`a,. a Af 1 �• , / Io..c.r/ �. - 1 -� tnahlitw .,..,R h. .t.a \ a I I \' r ... .«alts pt.a. I 5 eitfOn O.! \ ' .;:44,7t,6' .. .-- ! , 110 of Lt ^j go N �;,.r /COM ACI[flat, 1 c ,� � 100 � ; / L'l:lrr ,+111 1 �1 o,. 'typo.: 0 • STALE OF COLORADO Depottment of Local Affairs of cow - .. ti' A„s DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4:(9.14249, ` <+>us +g Pat Ratliff, Director •� �/ r816 Richard D. Lamm MEMORANDUM Governor December 2, 1986 to: Ted Melland FAA - Airspace and Procedur.e1s C -. from: Dennis W. Mewshaw hO .-yet"~ / Colorado Aviation Planning re: Case #86-ANM-0323-OE • Proposal: FM radio antenna extending to 1255 feet AGL (6311 ' MSL) sponsored by Surrey Broadcasting Co. (KY0U-FM, Greeley) Location: 40-05-50 N, 104-54-05 W 1 . 7 NM southeast of Firestone, CO and 8 . 0 NM northeast ` of the Erie - Tri County Airport Concerns : A> The location is 2. 5 NM southeast of the Frederick- Firestone airstrip. This private owned facility is used extensively for recreational and commercial balloon operations. While no historic wind speed and direction data exists for this site, a review of data collected at Boulder, Fort Collins and Broomfield indicates that along the Front Range, when wind speeds are less than 12 mph, the wind originates out of the northwest Eector 27 to 33 percent of the time. Thus, we can assume some 30% of balloon operations could be expected to be carried directly toward the proposed antenna location. • B> The location is within 2.0 statute miles of the centerline of a victor airway (V19/89) , and falls squarely in the middle of a north/south VFR corridor bounded by Interstate Highway 25 and U. S. Highway 85. This is a major arterial of VFR traffic between the Denver metro area and the northern Front Range communities of Fort Collins, Greeley and Cheyenne. Reference can be made to the attached aeronautical chart photocopy, displaying the annual flight operation figures for public use airports within a 35 mile radius, to appreciate the volume of activity 'which can occur through this corridor. t/ C> If constructed, the antenna would cause the loss of • the 7000' MSL altitude for IFR flight assignment given 870589 --�� 1313 Sherman Street, Room 520, Denver, Colorado 80203 (103) 866-2156 the necessity to maintain at least 1000 foot separation above any surface feature or obstruction while within a 5 NM horizontal distance. D> VFR traffic, on a heading between 180 and 359, will lose the 6500 ' MSL altitude as a preferred flight altitude given the VFR obstruction clearance requirements. This is particularly critical as southbound aircraft, not wishing to enter the Denver TCA will be descending in this general area for an altitude below 7000 ' MSL. E> Given the existing "Erie" tower of 985'AGL (6165' MSL) west of Interstate 25, a new structure of 1255' AGL east of the highway would pose an unnecessary further hazard. Local pilots, will when headed ✓" southbound, stay just east of the' highway to avoid the "Erie" tower. The proposed -antenna site falls in the area preferred by northbound pilots wishing to separate themselves from the southbound traffic. Southbound traffic is unable to operate west of the "Erie" tower due to conflicts with the local traffic patterns at the Boulder, Longmont, and Erie - Tri County airports. comments : As supported by the preceding concerns, our office will continue to request a determination of hazard to ai nav' + for OE case #86-ANM-0323. We are disappointed that the proponent has apparently not heeded our earlier council to consider alternative locations. The problems faced by the proponent, such as 'close spacing' with • other stations and the need for an adequate antenna height to provide the opportunity for a profitable operation, are recognized by the aviation community. Never-the-less, the ✓/ location proposed as of November 6th is unacceptable, we believe, when its effect upon aviation safety is fully evaluated. A copy of this aeronautical study notice has been distributed to the Colorado Pilots Association, the AOPA, the Erie - Tri County Airport, and the balloon interests using the Frederick-Firestone field. We would request that the FAA consider the comments of these organizations prior to issuing a final determination. 870589 x,,,1,..H)%•:;44 47¢+Ll iv 1 V rl , I 5 `�.. �,`r+ .1:j C 6' , IL 1 \ . 11 C.,L. OD �)s -'42„ IN ---.- t / _ , 111. - .. 5,?�~ F R LL. L- 11-ill l 1.J 1 =L ?58 3 1Q` 1 ),..4_, I 1 _3. L. -1 + t 1 .{1J)Ll-,_1_ I - • I o 1 1r 2CR ( l) 11 s•F - ly . ID , 9 rS ,?,:f014.11,04.1::0. 1-N Ni.- , l I` } . e i le w ''.`. 10 3 k l�I.HRK 'Y �I].I CI]S GII:=:: % --_._ v ' O. i ✓` 5119 +..,tL y FJ CGUw5 iii3'� `I • IXnIIP •...TTT?,:f01t r,04 C¢�` / ' 1S 3 CCIJIN "�QiX A 1 Gill n 1,15., `' L • lY 1 5016 65 1721. ...4.444- 1 ' Celt l[V y'Fl. -O / 2. / J� 3 ,'` .. �" t't 01 122 a d,,: / /\ r^ 823 v Y giEkg. - �' -' (FIJL)G8 000 ` = GREET Ii86 -I A--.. Ytii i_ 1 358• C VEIAND '. ?� 1 1.....4 0:. J 1S He 1187 • q I 531' � �A i/ 002 j�j� . 4P I I f • /• Co p /IohnNorOi14Y/,.^' , e . • ` PIAill ke I . r (A. ON VAllf, VRW / J._( .a' 0 o• �I L '195 /••a ^ 11 .820 - + - S� -. • 11. rmato 1 ! I �, 11:?;:.-14°.'d Fb r / 0 Si ^ 4 .. r 1 a. I �r950 448(2—197;,,• \ 5 , Pd Mu I , M tyopt, O • ktWllfflI Q (Pa I9ue ie ,; .N14-03 •+ ii- o •Jo 20 • ,_ ♦�I sCN I Aft 1 � �: ! f• _i 04 1-04 - r.1‘•.?•' " %SO ' n R,I I // `LAND(P.,1 o 0b0 1 1 } 1 ] I\. f•'1 s 5(100 - 76 f • ( 4820 ;, 122 B 5 I .4D"lit{3t"'.5, n1 Iay'YI51Rf1 ONtf l:t V,il . Pt1AI�L Allfr Kecnklburq /�/ / It A l� // T Allp/ AIR DOSIER51 I.O % \/ / P `j SI } 1-•. (2\t2)S6,aao�M/a ,fir,.-, 1,! • a `4 , �.._. -jj1, �-( �', �Mr.1�,w:[, ,: ='S,5 (18V)lol000 .l , o •/�_ /� +: •$ [fR� • 6tos., •+ � 11 f/ Volley 1 {(IAA!. 242 / —.;1 1 Ij 6', p. ti 1 N ]ll I o•pe►.r I .: • '� . A . 1 R '.l1-dao (RdI[�OJ . I. 10 (.� A I �h•u. 9 ••+y1/. �}/�� Ury r 0 ero mo. 90.41" 1 -.R day/ -w.,..30 VVV111111 i �T- E.\ :d r e 230 /� t-Yst,rl I VA I AIR( / L. - N ss o�( 1V5 5,OOpF� } P ll L�I01 ]c Q. o 1110 b 1 a..7-_,N_,7,__. r -:1- --1...S \ v • L )r_. \':,_s6.21J� Rr. qC. (� �QSV) b�100O �sQR •JI c9S� /" R RIB lalrl�ll 1 1111f31t; 1 ' >. / 51(1:0 Ja`� ® S'1 6.Jo '(. { ��C 1-2:3I.1,10 ,il't I, �\'o�J� F //S!C' S1 tN; val \ ' J ( r l' 5 C n ( f I - 53c L(r i�n.u•L.•, 5180- 5 SSJI!/ ' • t _,,\°.d (! aellok o, / • 1 %r JSU:e 1♦85712 5 1 / l ( B V� ."r �/ / t f:w `,855133 / -.:• .: 55M1 /,.\l2:I J 7:317.:1;f11,‘ 1 1 E f �I ti II? :,& . k MOE toe 131 \110 100 ' 0b? "C ,) 1fRMIN41/CCO i •0110 rlalF 5.0 (a-sc.)ISOI DOO 582 OE /, c s -CCAL t` �I� , '5 'Z A f ./ ; '/ 1110 05 1 DE ;• J FRO liANGE ' P 1' I7 COMAr t o-. n 811 ?..F3 . 1 ( - 1 I b 5230- - I>•' 3I r t N. 5486 122.7 enwcN'AMC 11 2 60N/ SEEVRO7 0 Z - - •�, ^ 011 e f- 116: . It1 loAba3 tic �i ! ' u1s 1 9 W1 Soo ( . ^may�,,�� . .. . \ �,082f. �' I ,� /i EISARE G 559' � y�` J u e95- - • I� I [F, • f�\ p- ER VA. vOq I Q 700 cV ECOMANCNE I V 0. i3-3.a.��4 je , A p OEIi�E •—,^ OM J�1:DENT 'n lq 1110.31 • .. L SJSU JO \\ r fU s d6 �I to / . 11 500, 6a,'I, ..� 1;�\T • 70. B i\ f euN� 1 `J;>td�% `�[ r(DEN)SOOefbo n • 2 1 lauaoa. s.ls ]+ 1 0 0D0 ,p,, S96g Yw ik m-.1. _44'1'1,601:] E i GB. 680 P+7 11�.! ,16114 I in �R 1 .. O (18. g tier �(+ .. l�/ 5121 Li G 1 \ ‘ IX"' • • NRAAIP. 6:fi, 1 P ( S15632 S "rSA66 . -J t , M ,♦k Y 2 1,5710 I]7 53. `1 V' 1� 5996 Lb... 6236 — 7 $' Mv-5in 1; : 1 - ��/55 0 ;�. - Btta5 /3 �(2681'`.}x. v'�,� ` 61 9 8,`�'T - ,,•i10 'it'. ,73 5. VI 6Q b . ,.�._- is 1 -�{ I � .�� ]S •—‘._ 263 NVE ' ,C Y v``•�!: `Ss .'MR• •5 q / A_� CE teal (A PA)380 on?) 7 A 1 3 `� 1 EM 0 , :• \ 1 ;146`- 1�) ,1 CI-101.7, ]5Oi219.] 1 .11U - �(116) � • .G. A 123.9 It /p51U 1 oml,t( i 1 1 Q l . 5�.1e. 80 6z'( _ I6114:tvItil 22 ,1 •-C L _• d .•l_1,,\+1.:.1.-111_ 1-,1 _ �.t a+...+�.-+ L- yY (666-• AN N V A!_ FU C0H' 1 -) \I .\ �`T '5'•� 651• B5 I �" Iz+67 a..11„y✓•`? ��y \.l.*4c.r�^ t0 e�( •\i,ot u.' —11 (. G0 \• � 0PtRAT1o..1S 1 • !�� 1 I e 5.5 681 r• ✓ \ e. ,1 . ' lj V t GB - —A 13031VC ♦ 0 C SSE l I\ 1' d •e. 1601; = A 35 MILES p l-- ' l C. �1 1{ -/ _.I. n11 - I�,..v.1'!1�1i I4� X11., �Lr CP ThiTCOUNTY AIRPL, RT 350 Baron Court Erie , Colorado 8O516 666 - 435O Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration December 14,1986 Northwest Mountain Region • 17900 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98168 - Attn: ANM-530 Ted Melland • Dear Ted, • I emphtically oppose the construction of the 1255' tower proposed to be located 1.7 miles Southeast of Firestone. Air safety will be seriously jeopordized by this tall tower on the main thurough fare through Denver. The 985' tower could be paralled by the new tower, and by shortening it to 985' Also it should not cause any impact to air travel than the existing tower. • Thomas L. Pierce Tri-County Airport TLP/tm C Rey/ 8/ 0583Q • Denver Region( Sst3COC\\ Council of Suite 2008 Denver,Colowdo 60211 Serving Local Governments Since 1955 Governments (sos) ass-l000 December 11, 1986 Mr. Ted Melland FAA-Northwest Mountain Region 17900 Pacific Highway South C-68966 ANM-533 Seattle, Washington 98168 Dear Mr. Melland: Re: 86-ANM-0323-OE The Denver Regional Council of Governments and the Aviation Technical Advisory Committee have reviewed the proposal by the Surrey Broadcasting Company to construct a 1255' FM broadcast tower near Frederick, Colorado. During the initial review of this facility, DRCOG had no objections however since that time, we have received additional input from area aviation interests. Initially, it was stated that no apparent conflict existed with the VFR flyways located along 1-25 and U. S. Highway 85. While this may be true based on the standard FAA criteria for such flyways, local interests have notified DRCOG that the entire area between 1-25 and U.S. 85 serves as a major VFR route for traffic transiting the front range. In addition, pilots stated that the Erie tower west • of I-25 already forces traffic east of the interstate. Construction of this addi- tional tower would further compress traffic in this area. Following a meeting with the Colorado Pilots Association, Colorado Division of Local Government, balloon operators at the Fredrick-Firestone airport and the tower -proponents, it was agreed that an alternate site should be sought. It was felt by all parties that the proposed site was not satisfactory for either conven- tional aircraft or balloons. While the proponent agreed to seek an alternate site, this has not happened. After reviewing the Colorado Aviation Planning Staff's response, DRCOG wishes to add our support to their comments. For these reasons, DRCOG asks the FAA to issue a hazard determination on the facility. If you have any questions or need additional input, please contact me at (303) 480-6754. Sin erely, -Y` ---if-4 ittDennis E. Roberts Regional Aviation Planner DER:rce 870589 Boord Officers Executive Committee Linda Morton,Chairwoman Sonya a Blackstock. Chairman Federico Rona Sonya B Blockstock. Vice Chairman Thomas R. Eggert, Vice Chairman Ronald K. Stewart Robert L. Tonsing, Secretory-Treasurer Marjorie E. Clement Rob'rt l. Tonsing U. 'Ted" Hackworth. Immediate. lbst Chairman T.J. 'Ted" Hacknorth leo M. Younger, ".tort D Farley, Executive Dior.tor Linda Morton f , \ 1 l J T IAI • �'y• rCO be .l >v. F+` c, is)i e C1),. -. M/y� C ), 0., f ,- m Q .-to t:W yW�''�{seer 1. `' a° a o .er . 13',x' , i..-.-r s , l p.tit :_ ' f' . A : 0�>!t.� e' r �� aQht a 1 r 4• f, a , '�{'sL • ,,,, �.L' r a, F fx a tk :. 1.4;i t rst to 4i .j.{.r":)t,',,,‘- r-,,:-4 . p , a..'s " a'v $rkirl:, o _ .. tN`y'}l, hIt s w ,�t \ _ ,4 ii- 2,(41, Y t VV f +y j> ` o J ��ri . +! ,gi n 3 V.I. ° 2 `4. 7-r4, �yss s" ,yIT �. r x+106',• "' �`'S 4o 4:�S4.T, • 4 r ' �K �1 4 4 f is x . ZA: & f 4tl ]I' • yf �-. .-y1'�,j C a1 ♦+ 4� s�y. .. a Y \ai:jLl O .: .r YY� d - c0 th * - CD T 03 CD ,, ,bit t'1.`, i S�L. CO O C m t G ". -J s zr ' 1 E'� 5 o P. 5 \ Nd �a � ,., • y1iall C ,- > l O V t d'c ,� "HQ711 a0. Q ., >.V N 'v,a ....* . 1 a fi anyy O C RI — ;a to €1)ai m-ta`. rh.,.�."tr •-- .ro'Y r co�' O.0 0°''0 `° QS '" t' }1a10',. r�rl. s. ' JO LLQ Z-Utq ` Oa s F'�'" LrV +..4;1. r }�.• ,,+,..a ..........."4.0...- __..w Ott. Air Az 1,1 S Peas, cry �A� �a • /o� 1L4rf • Au , (D OZ 1 .0, Hfr,, HART d/`f 1 a' Mme Lane - JSp boulder, CO 80361 4/4/0 -y25-3 Oiltir 870589 1/44/1)7-O7/ /1 sk? lb1120ient • P/an Conn. Ht≥r/45 -lo- m - ! ?f l 96 g 1 Ross Robbins: I am speaking for the people in Boulder Heights who signed the petition. We submitted some additional signatures today, and now believe that we have a total of 106 signatures representing 64 cut of 74 homes in Boulder heights, Only the residents of two homes declined to sign. That means that we have the signatures of the residents of all but two homes which we approached •.Z. within a two-mile radius. We approached the actual present residents of the -? area but not those persons who are property owners not presently living in the area, which Mr. Anuta apparently did include in his _calculations. These are S5- $25,000 to $60,000 homes in the area: We feel sure that signals picked up and radiation will be significant, and we are not happy about this kind of inter- i' 1 ference, The Zoning Resolution calls for preventing harm to the inhabitants. 1 This is a 60 kilowatt facility that we are talking about, not just a small transmitting tower for the Sheriff's Department any longer. We feel that this ("v( is not in keeping with the area. The establishment of a limited commercial 1 v i zone might create a precedent. We see this as spot rezoning. h'Iltc_allesitlagt, of Boulder Heights: We have been told that this will not inter- (41 11 fere with TV signals, except distant signals, But all our stations come from Denver or Cheyenne' Our objection is not to the tower, but to the wave trans- �� Vt lf _ mission. IFrank Smith, of Boulder Heights: Mr. Trenka said that this is a request for \ K1 '"an antenna," but it appears that it is not actually a single tower that we 3 are talking about. I would like to submit a copy of the lease that has been cli signed by the churches, Paul Hummel, and the applicant. This shows that as many as eight towers could be erected and ocher buildings or facilities might also be approved, "Radio transmitting facilities" is the term that is used in the Zoning Resolution. We fear that great expansion may be allowed. The lease v permi.;.s more facilities and sub-leasing, Ed Herrick: The frequency of this new station is to be such that its first ,harmonic will be right in the middle cf channel 9. The trapping of these Signals wculd be very difficult. Mr. Anuta'_ statement that our signatures represent only a small percentage of the people in Boulder Heights is very . inaccurate. 4 Jerry Partch: I live on the property perhaps and I am afraid that this may be unsightly, closest to this proposed facility, Vernon Zurick, of ESSA: The FCC doesn' t rule on zoning questions, but says that V a facility must clear local zoning regulations in regards_ to proper use. This should put the matter in your hands, Ross Robbins: Regarding Mr. Trenka's question of whether you should consider interference, I would say that the FCC leaves just this question to the local zoning authority; Karl Anuta: Our lease specifies eight towers because we needed some number when Q we started these arrangements. The height limitation in the lease is the one that the FCC sets for a tower without lights We don' t intend to go any higher. /1 Louis Brevfogle, engineer for IEDC: We must have a location that is compatible h/ i . with putting signals into a large area That is the same reason that the I County Sheriff finds this a desirable location Here is a map of Boulder County with this site on it; I think this demonstrates how central this location is. This is also an area in which we hope there will be no further non-residential development, which is desirable from our standpoint, I do not believe that `�`. G the problems of interference will be very signitr _ant I think that rater— h''t �R'"K, i been^blown up out of reason in B lt?Ar v ,, ' :, ` an pro". .. ,..C, :eievisiun sec would not he that difficult or expensy on .I s .. short strip of twin-lead provides the whole lu__en I wouldtpointxoutsthative � • �� we have a very small area because that is the way w,. want it. If anv.__in tviduel P/an rangy.+-,. TCQQrrhq • /7 lie Rev. Randolph: It is complicated, but we have a fine agreement with this organization and the proposed use is compatible with what we want on the land. Leon Terrell: The technical aspects of this reggest are beyond me, but the request will aet a precedent and then where will we draw the line? 1 object to the installation of any industrial installation in the area. I am one of the -original residents of the area (1960) . 11 Karl Anuta: The interference will be slight to those closest our site, and it will cost $10.00 or less to correct. The lease specifically limits us to no more than 8 antenna towers. The church and this Board severely limit the number of buildings. It will not be a Lookout Mountain, we guarantee this. We are asking for a radio transmitting site with 60,000 watts of FM power. My research indicates that the question of interference cannot be considered by this Board. ESSA should have asked for a quiet zone when _they came here in 1952. It is a legal question and is not before you, it is before the FCC. We object to ESSA trying to dictate to this Board. Roger McGrath: There will be a possibility of some interference, but it can -easily be remedied. The _FCC is very tough on interference problems. If problems do arise, we would like for the people to come to us and we will help solve them. Karl Anuta: Mr. Paul Hummel's deed to the church calls for no sale of land without this or his heirs signature on it. This applies to leases too. He gave the 240 acres to the church for camp purposes. Richard Kirby: The only thing that bothers us is interference. The increased strength caused by their request mixed with the existing interference will cause our trouble. Their request will cause 25 times the interference of that existing now. Mr. Ellert: ESSA requested permission to become a party to the hearing before the FCC and their request was granted. I feel the government should not be in any worse position than residents of the area. Karl Anuta: I would like to see measurements to prove our request would cause 25 times the interference now existing. Richard Kirby: That is what we predict the new station will cause. There is a sub- stantial fraction of the county where this request could go without interference to us, but this site is only six miles from us. Karl Anuta: To the best of our knowledge there is no other site in the county. Much of the land that would seem available is owned by the government. ••ichard "i"'y • a wou - have to uwVC Uui activities al Table Mountain if this kind of interference is allowed. Roger McGrath: We are willing to work with ESSA and we respect the fact that they have a large installation at Table Mountain. Bill Lamont : The Board does have an obligation to both public and private agencies and this is what they are trying to take into consideration. ESSA is not dictating to the -Board. Karl Anuta: The FCC will refuse us if we will cause interference with ESSA's operations. If they grant approval however, do we then have to come back before the Planning Commission? Mr. Ellert: We do not like the position we are in and are willing to cooperate with the applicant. AKINS MOVED, SECONDED BY NELSON, THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE THE REQUEST UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SO ESSA AND THE APPLICANT CAN WORK OUT THEIR PROBLEMS AND REPORT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. J; Rezonings .y p Docket #327 - Bradford M. Beeler r 058°� Lvn•- Va..rlao 'c.. .. 2,. , a is u,veloped and there are some duplexes in the area. There has been`aorecent rrezoningy request approved to the north to MFS. He read a letter from the City of Boulder Hello