HomeMy WebLinkAbout970856.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held April 15,; ;997, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Arlan Marrs.
Tape 524
Glenn Vaad
Rusty Tucker
Fred Walker
Shirley Camenisch
Cristie Nicklas
Jack Epple
Marie Koolstra
Ann Garrison
Arlan Marrs
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Todd A. Hodges, Current Planner II, Chris Goranson, Current
Planner, Kerni Keithley, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld
County Attorney; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works; Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor, Weld County Health
Department; Tammie Pope, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 1, 1997, was
approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: S-422
PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: Zeek Properties Ltd., do Landmark Engineering Ltd.
REQUEST: A Planned Unit Development Final Plan for a Redesign of Rademacher Business Parks
Planned Unit Development (26 lots).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 23, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 32; east of and adjacent to I-25. For a more
precise location, see legal.
Todd A. Hodges explained that this is a preexisting site and that zoning and the final plan were approved in
1984 for commercial and industrial uses The roadway has been restructured and a cul-de-sac added to split
some of the lots. There are currently 24 lots; after the proposed redesign there will be 26 lots. There is also
a proposed access onto Weld County Road 9-1/2, which will eventually be a four -lane road per the new Weld
County Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use Development Plan. Mr. Hodges stated that the applicant has
dedicated to Weld County additional right-of-way for Weld County Road 9-1/2, and is working with the State
on the I-25 Frontage Road. The Department of Planning Services' staff is recommending approval of the
application with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hodges stated that the new additions to the Conditions of
Approval deal with an existing residence, which is probably the original home site for the property. This
residence is located on lot 10, and is under separate ownership conveyed in the original Planned Unit
Development plat. The original Change of Zone and PUD Final Plan did not do anything with the existing use.
In order to save the use as a Nonconformity Use, the applicant will have to submit evidence that the residence
was onsite prior to 1984. The use cannot be expanded on or changed, or else the Nonconformity Use will be
lost along with existing access to Weld County Road 9-1/2, and they will have to conform to the Commercial
Industrial Zone District.
970856
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 2
Glenn Vaad asked if construction was being done onsite presently. Mr. Hodges stated that the ditch has been
concreted, which has helped with some of the concerns of Colorado Geological Survey regarding groundwater
onsite. Therefore, one of the Conditions of Approval has already been met.
Don Leffler with Landmark Engineering stated he was representing Rademacher Business Park and Zeek
Properties. Mr. Leffler stated that they have addressed all issues of concern and have tried to conform to the
new ordinances. Arlan Mans asked if Mr. Leffler was familiar with the change to Lot 10. Mr. Leffler stated he
was familiar with the change and noted that part of the approval process will be the signature of the property
owner of Lot 10 on the Final Plat.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Leffler stated that he was in agreement.
Glenn Vaad moved that Case S-422, Zeek Properties Ltd., c/o Landmark Engineering Ltd., be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval. Shirley Camenisch seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Shirley Camenisch-
yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1144
PLANNER: Chris Goranson
APPLICANT: Richard Podtburg
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a 2000 head dairy in the
A (Agricultural) zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 SE4 of Section 19, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; west of and adjacent to Weld County Road
27.
Chris Goranson explained that a letter from the City of Greeley Office of Community Development was faxed
to the Department of Planning Services on April 14, 1997. The letter requested the following Conditions of
Approval:
1. Haul routes should be identified.
2. The number of exits from this parcel onto 83rd should be limited to two.
3. The permitted use should be nontransferable to any other subsequent property owner.
4. The special use should be reviewed in twenty years or at such time urbanization takes place
within 1,000 feet of the dairy site, whichever comes first.
Mr. Goranson stated that Don Carroll with Public Works would address the first two items. The Department
of Planning Services' staff did not feel that #3 and #4 were appropriate because this is a dairy located in the
Agricultural zone district, and as so, is allowed as a Use by Special Review. Mr. Goranson stated that the
Department of Planning Services' staff is recommending approval of this application.
Glenn Vaad asked if encumbrances similar to #3 and #4 have been put on properties before. Mr. Goranson
stated that shooting ranges are the only type of case on which the Weld County Zoning Ordinance allows a
time frame to be placed. Otherwise, it is a condition that is added by the Planning Commission or Board of
County Commissioners.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 3
Arlan Marrs asked for clarification of Condition of Approval 28. Trevor Jiricek stated that it is a standard
condition for any facility that may generate dust. It is directed toward the operation of the facility only. Mr.
Marrs asked how the need for implementation is determined. Mr. Jiricek stated that it is subjective, but usually
it depends on whether or not it is a nuisance condition. It can be measured by opacity (a measure of the
amount of light that passes through), or by offsite transport affecting a neighbor. It's generally tied to nuisance
conditions because operations of this size are exempt from air quality regulations. Mr. Marrs asked what is
required to get the septic permits approved for the two existing homes. Mr. Jiricek stated that they will have
to go through the permit process and have an onsite inspection.
Fred Walker questioned the subjectiveness of Development Standard #13, specifically the portion of the phrase
... or in the judgement of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor condition requiring
abatement." Mr. Jiricek stated that the phrase allows for some future negotiating room if the neighbors
complain about the odor. The decision judgement call can only be made by the Health Officer, John Pickle,
who is the Director of the Health Department. Mr. Walker explained his concern was that this leaves a non -
measurable, gray area. Mr. Jiricek agreed, but reiterated it is necessary for negotiation. Mr. Walker asked if
the dairy north of Severance was given the same wording. Mr. Jiricek stated that this is standard language
used in all such cases, but it has never been tested in the field. Jack Epple added that in his previous
experience with the Health Department, they give a period of two to four weeks to abate the problem and then
they request a letter stating the problem has been fixed. Mr. Jiricek stated that if a problem were to arise, he
anticipates that the Health Department would work with the facility to implement their odor plan.
Rusty Tucker asked for discussion of the Office of Community Development's proposed conditions, adding that
he agreed with #2, #3, and #4, but not with #1. Mr. Tucker noted that there was a recent Special Review Permit
regarding a feedlot, and the Conditions of Approval did address the concerns in #3 and #4. Arlan Marrs stated
that he has a problem with all four proposed conditions, and that they would set a bad precedent for the
agricultural industry. Fred Walker agreed with Mr. Marrs. Mr. Tucker stated that if the dairy was in a different
location, he would agree with Mr. Marrs, but its proximity to Greeley creates a different circumstance. Mr.
Marrs stated that this type of condition would be more acceptable with some sort of a buyout agreement.
Arlan Marrs asked if the dust abatement on the road was covered in the Conditions of Approval or
Development Standards. Chris Goranson stated that Condition of Approval #1 addresses Public Works'
concern that an increase in traffic would cause more dust on Weld County Road 66.
Don Carroll addressed items #1 and #2 from the City of Greeley Office of Community Development's proposed
Conditions of Approval. Regarding #1, haul routes, the applicant has indicated the main access will be Weld
County Road 66. Mr. Carroll stated that the distance from the main access point to the nearest paved road,
Weld County Road 27, is 800 feet. Regarding #2, limiting access to 83rd Avenue/Weld County Road 27 to two,
there are two existing agricultural accesses and the application does not address utilizing any additional
accesses. Regarding the dust abatement Condition of Approval, the Public Works Department feels that if
there are 200 or more vehicles per day on County Road 66, there should be a dust abatement or paving plan.
Mr. Carroll stated that the last count, taken in August of 1996, was 97 vehicles per day. Public Works projects
there would be 150 vehicles per day, but there is a lot of seasonal hauling which would increase the count to
right around 200 vehicles per day. Therefore, they are suggesting the applicant be responsible for dust control
in front of the facility. Arlan Marrs asked for justification of the projection of 150 vehicles. Mr. Carroll stated
that the trip generator for a standard type subdivision uses the figure of 10 trips per day per family and the
applicant indicated there will be 14 additional people employed onsite. Also, the enlargement of the facility will
cause more feed and milk deliveries.
Regarding the Office of Community Development's proposed conditions, Glenn Vaad stated that he agreed
with #1 and #2, but was leery of #3 and #4. Marie Koolstra asked if the County can specify a route. Lee
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 4
Morrison stated that item #1 and #2 are legally acceptable, and #3 has been imposed in the past, but usually
the operation has had a minimal capital investment. Item #4 however, is not enforceable unless the Weld
County Zoning Ordinance specifically states the Department of Planning Services' staff has the right to review
particular uses.
Fred Walker asked if there would be more than one milk truck per day. Danny Kennedy, the representative
and an employee of the dairy, stated that they were unaware of some of the items being discussed. Chris
Goranson explained that the letter from the City of Greeley was just received by the Department of Planning
Services yesterday, April 14, 1997, and he showed the applicant the four proposed conditions. Mr. Kennedy
stated that currently there is one milk truck per day (seven trucks per week). Upon completion of the buildout,
there will be eight trucks per week, an increase of only one per week, because the storage capacity onsite will
increase. Mr. Kennedy estimated that 95% of the vehicles use the main access on Weld County Road 66.
Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant was in agreement with #2; the applicant was in agreement. Mr. Kennedy
stated that he objects to #3 as the property has been a dairy since homestead days, and the owner wants to
be able to sell it as a dairy if future generations do not want to remain in the diary business. The applicant also
objected to #4.
Arlan Marrs asked about the expansion plans. Mr. Kennedy stated that they are currently milking 525 cows,
with 750 housed on site. The milking herd will be expanded to approximately 850, and all replacement stock
will be brought home from three other sites. The applicant noted that this will reduce traffic because the feed
truck will no longer have to leave the facility, and they will not have to transport stock between locations. The
enlargement will be confined to the center of property. There will be three retention ponds and there will be
a composting operation to handle the increased waste and smell. Mr. Kennedy stated that there will be a
development to the east of the dairy, which means the dairy will not be the only contribution to the increase of
traffic on Weld County Road 66. Therefore, they feel there should be a threshold which must be crossed
before they are responsible for dust abatement on the road.
Mr. Kennedy questioned why the Design Standards for Special Review (in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance)
state that storm water retention facilities shall be provided for a one hundred -year storm, yet Development
Standard #11A states that they must handle a twenty -five-year, twenty-four hour storm. Trevor Jiricek
explained that the portion of the facility that is subject to the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations
need only contain a twenty -five-year, twenty-four hour storm event. Arlan Marrs asked the applicant if that was
acceptable. The applicant stated yes.
Glenn Vaad asked what type of activity will occur on the three sites after the replacement stock is brought
home. Danny Kennedy stated the sites are leased and that, as far as he knows, the sites will not be used by
anyone else. Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant has adequate acreage for the composting operation. Mr.
Kennedy stated that they do not have enough land to disperse all the manure produced, so they are working
on long term agreements with three neighbors.
Chris Goranson stated that the Department of Planning Services' staff would like to change Development
Standard #13 so that it reads: "The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odor. The odor
abatement plan shall be implemented in the event that odor detected offsite equals or exceeds the level of
fifteen -to -one dilution threshold, or in the judgement of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor
condition requiring abatement."
Glenn Vaad asked how to accommodate the applicants request to differentiate between the traffic increase
caused by the acreage development and the increase caused by the dairy's expansion. Don Carroll stated
there will be a minor subdivision to the west which will contain five lots or less. The number being used for rural
subdivisions is 6.5 trips per family per day. If a problem arises, the Public Works Department would set up
counters to see which way traffic is flowing, and then possibly do a cost share on a percentage basis for dust
abatement.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 5
Mr. Carroll stated that in the Transportation Plan, Weld County Road 27 is identified a main artery. Therefore,
the Department of Public Works would like to ask for an additional 20 feet of right-of-way on each side to be
dedicated to the County for future widening. Man Marrs asked if that request was addressed in the Conditions
of Approval or Development Standards. Mr. Carroll stated that it was not. Chris Goranson stated that it could
be an additional Conditions of Approval. Mr. Carroll stated that the County likes to get right-of-way, when
possible, from the applicants at this stage so that in 20 or 30 years, whenever the expansion is necessary, the
right-of-way is already in place. Mr. Marrs asked if this meant that if the property owner donates the right-of-
way, the County would not have to purchase it. Mr. Carroll stated that was correct. The applicant stated that
the dairy did not wish to donate the right-of-way. Mr. Carroll asked if the right-of-way could be reserved so that
the County could purchase it when needed. Lee Morrison explained that if the right-of-way is dedicated, it is
passed to the public entity immediately; if it is reserved, it is not removed from the ownership of the property
owner and they still have the use of it until, if ever, the road is widened. The owner would then be entitled to
compensation at the time the public entity acquires the right-of-way. Marie Koolstra asked if there can be an
easement over an existing easement. Mr. Morrison stated that it is possible in most situations as long as one
easement does not interfere with the other. Generally, subsequent easements would have to work around the
one that was first in place. Some entities have rights of condemnation which can go against another easement
as well as against the property owner. Arlan Marrs asked how staff would word this recommendation. Chris
Goranson stated that the addition would be Condition of Approval #2H and could be worded: "Applicant shall
reserve 20 feet of additional right-of-way for future expansion of Weld County Road 27 and delineated on the
plat." Mr. Marrs stated he felt itwas inappropriate to add that type of condition at this stage. Glenn Vaad stated
he was uncomfortable with adding that condition. He noted that he appreciated Mr. Carroll trying to save Weld
County money, but perhaps the people who cause the need for expansion should help pay for it. Marie
Koolstra stated that making it a Condition of Approval seemed like blackmail. Jack Epple stated he did not
agree with the addition of that condition.
Fred Walker stated that the applicant should be given some type of credit in the traffic baseline of 97 vehicles
per day once the cattle offsite are brought home because this would decrease traffic. Don Carroll stated that
at that point the Department of Public Works would do a new count to establish an updated baseline.
Arlan Marrs asked if there needed to be a motion regarding the addition or deletion of Condition of Approval
#2H. Lee Morrison stated there would need to be a separate motion only to add the condition.
The Chairman asked the applicant to discuss dust control. Mr. Kennedy stated that they would like a threshold
to be established. When that threshold is crossed, they would then assume some responsibility for dust control
on the first half mile of Weld County Road 66 (from Weld County Road 27 to their driveway). Mr. Kennedy
stated that the dairy should not be made responsible for maintaining a County road just because they live on
that road -that's what Podtburg and Sons pay taxes for. Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant is required to pay
a percentage of the paving costs if the County decides the road must be paved. Mr. Marrs felt it sets a bad
precedent to start asking an agricultural producer to control dust on public roads. Lee Morrison stated that the
standard is the same whether it is an agricultural user or some other type of user: the requirement to
contribute to a public road in some fashion is tied to the degree of impact and the public purpose. Mr. Morrison
didn't feel it was appropriate for the County to say an agricultural user does not have to contribute and other
users do. The issue is what is a reasonable proportional contribution. Mr. Morrison stated that he does not
know that the standard switches over automatically to require contribution for paving , and it would still be
subject to negotiation of an agreement.
Marie Koolstra asked if the County was given an easement from the new subdivision. Don Carroll stated that
Weld County Road 66 is designated a local road, not a main artery road. A dedication was not asked for as
there are no plans for expansion.
Arlan Marrs asked how it can be determined if the dust will be increased by the dairy. Don Carroll explained
that the Hirsch Dairy, north of Severance, had counters across the main entrances and on both sides, in both
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 6
directions of all the roads. There were also directional counters buried in the gravel. This allowed Public
Works
to tell where the traffic was physically going. Mr. Marrs asked if there is a base count at this time for the traffic
to and from the Podtburg Dairy. Mr. Carroll stated no. Glenn Vaad pointed out that Condition of Approval #1
incorrectly referred to Weld County Road 27 instead of Weld County Road 66. Mr. Marrs asked the applicant
if he would be more in agreement with the dust abatement request if there was a current base count done. Mr.
Kennedy stated yes. Don Carroll stated that could be done. Fred Walker reiterated the applicant should be
given credit for any reduction in traffic due to the consolidation of sites. Chris Goranson suggested there could
be an attachment to Condition of Approval #1. Don Carroll stated that the Department of Public Works would
not be concerned until the traffic count goes over 200. At that time there would be a couple of average counts
done to be fair. Jack Epple suggested that the addition to Condition of Approval #1 could be added to the last
sentence and state " ... to mitigate their portion of the increased dust as agreed to between the Department
of Public Works and the applicant." Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant and the Department of Public Works felt
they could come to an agreement, as Condition of Approval #1 currently stated. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Carroll
both stated yes. Mr. Kennedy stated that they are not objecting to contributing to the mitigation of dust.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this proposal.
No one wished to speak.
Glenn Vaad stated that of the four proposed conditions by the City of Greeley Office of Community
Development, #2 was the only one everyone agreed on. He asked how that would be added. Chris Goranson
stated that it could become Development Standard #22.
Glenn Vaad moved to add Development Standard #22. It shall read "The number of exits from this parcel onto
83rd Avenue/Weld County Road 27 be limited to two." Jack Epple seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes;
Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant was in agreement with all Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant was in agreement. Mr. Marrs asked if the Department of Planning Services' staff
did want the verbiage of Development Standard #13 changed. Chris Goranson stated yes. Jack Epple asked
Mr. Goranson to read the proposed change again. Mr. Goranson stated that staff is recommending #13 be
• changed to read: "The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odor. The odor abatement plan
shall be implemented in the event that odor detected offsite equals or exceeds the level of fifteen -to -one dilution
threshold, or in the judgement of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor condition requiring
abatement."
Rusty Tucker stated that he believes an individual should be able to recoup their investment, but due to the
location of the dairy in reference to the City of Greeley, he feels there will be a future battle if the Planning
Commission agrees to an unlimited permit. Arlan Marrs disagreed. Glenn Vaad stated that he felt that if this
becomes a health hazard, there are police powers of the State that would take over and not let the operation
continue. Lee Morrison stated that the Confined Animal Feeding Regulations serve to protect groundwater and
are reviewed every three years. There is no vested right protection against a nuisance -creating operation.
However, if Mr. Tucker was referring to the conflicts that have arisen in the city limits of Greeley, Mr. Morrison
stated he did not feel that the allegation has been made that those were negligent operations. Greeley just
longer wanted to be associated with those types of operations. If future conflicts are not regarding nuisance
or negligence allegations, and the dairy has not violated any condition of permit, the dairy will continue to exist.
Jack Epple moved that Case Number USR-1144, Richard Podtburg, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval, as amended, and the Development Standards, with staff
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15,1997
Page 7
changes and the addition of #22, with Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Marie Koolstra
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -no; Shirley Camenisch-
yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1143
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
APPLICANT: KKDD-FM Broadcasters (Robert Zellmer)
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a radio booster station tower
over 70 feet in height (493 feet) in the A (Agricultural) zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The S2 NE4 SE4 of Section 24, T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 49, approximately 1.25 miles north of 1-76.
Kerri Keithley gave a brief overview of the site, explaining the tower would be located on part of a Recorded
Exemption, Case Number RE -112. Ms. Keithley stated the Department of Planning Services's staff
recommends approval, and read some of the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Keithley noted that the reason for
Condition of Approval #SE, which requests the existing Special Use Permit (SUP -3) be vacated, was that the
permit covers a wide range of properties and various property owners. Five additional letters from surrounding
property owners had been received by the Department of Planning Services.
Robert Zellmer, general partner of KKDD-FM Broadcasters, applicant, publicly thanked Kerri Keithley and the
Department of Planning Services' staff for their help with this application. Mr. Zellmer stated that he and his
wife have been in small market radio broadcasting for 41 years and are active on a daily basis. His stations
have a good amount of farm programming. Mr. Zellmer stated he has additional stations in Morgan County
and Yuma County. The purpose of the proposed tower is to extend coverage from KSIR in Morgan County
to the Hudson, Keenesburg, and Brighton area. Mr. Zellmer stated that he has seen the letters of opposition
and wants to assure everyone that the FM and FCC both scrutinized the application with respect to electronic
interference and air navigation problems, and both approved the request. An engineering study was done to
determine the greatest amount of coverage with the least amount of interference.
Glenn Vaad asked applicant if this location was determined to be the best. Mr. Zellmer stated that, within the
guidelines of the FAA and FCC, it is the best location. Mr. Vaad asked if the guidelines are restrictive. Mr.
Zellmer stated yes. Mr. Vaad asked if that was the predominant or sole factor for deciding the tower location.
Mr. Zellmer stated yes. Mr. Vaad asked if electricity on site was another deciding factor. Mr. Zellmer stated
yes. Mr. Vaad asked, due to the neighbors' concern about the visual effect of the tower, if there is another hill
or knoll where the tower could be placed that is not in ground level sight of neighbors. The applicant stated
no.
Fred Walker asked what the distance will be from the center of the tower to the south property line, and would
the tower fall on the property to the south if itwere to fall. Jerry McRae, a civil engineer with McRae and Short,
stated the tower will be between 250 feet and 300 feet from the south property line, so, should it collapse, it
would fall on someone else's property.
Arlan Marrs asked if the same radio coverage could be received if the tower were moved two or three miles
in any direction. The applicant stated no.
Shirley Camenisch asked if the applicant had to fill out papers with the FM. Kerri Keithley stated yes, and that
copies of those papers were submitted in the member's packets.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 8
Arlan Marrs asked if this application will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Kerri Keithley
stated the radio station is not a public facility, so it will be forwarded.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Allen, surrounding property owner, stated that if the tower were to fall, it would fall on his property. Mr.
Allen felt this tower would make his property worthless due to the red warning lights, and that it is also a health
hazard. Mr. Allen stated that development and progress should not impact people. He felt that the only type
of development that could be done with his property, if the tower is approved, would be commercial or
industrial.
Ray Guest, surrounding property owner, stated that he is an ex -pilot for Delta Airlines. Mr. Guest stated that
there is a 750,000 -volt high tension line approximately 500 feet to the west, north, and south. Mr. Guest felt
that the tower is a hazard because the elevation is approximately 5000 feet and the tower stands approximately
500 feet, which puts the tower at an elevation of 5500 feet. Pilots are restricted to 500 feet between elevations
on takeoff, which means planes will be flying at 5500 feet. Mr. Guest stated that pilots might see the hazard
lights, but pilots are not looking out the windows constantly. He also was concerned about what the tower
would do to property values. Jack Epple asked how many similar towers there are along Weld County Road
49. Mr. Guest stated this would be the only one he knows of, but there are shorter towers around the water
tower approximately four miles south of Highway 34, on the east side of Weld County Road 49. If this tower
were placed in that location, pilots would already be aware of the towers. Mr. Guest stated there is an airport
to the south of the proposed site and those pilots use Weld County Road 49 as a navigational aid between
Greeley and the airport. Arlan Marrs asked for Mr. Guest's comments on the FM's approval of this application.
Mr. Guest stated that the FM approves 99.9% of requests that meet their criteria without even looking into
them, and he doubted anyone had been out to the site to see the 750,00 -volt tension line. Mr. Guest stated
a tornado went through the proposed site not too long ago, and there are often 60 -mile an hour winds. Rusty
Tucker asked about the required heights pilots can fly at in municipalities versus rural areas. Ray Guest stated
that in sparsely populated areas there are not minimum heights, so cropdusters might not reach 500 feet off
the ground.
The applicant read from a fax on minimum altitudes received by a pilot at the Greeley -Weld County Airport.
The fax stated that, except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may, during the day, operate
below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle, or at night, an altitude
less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within the horizontal distance of five miles from the course
intended to be flown. Mr. Zellmer stated that he did not know how to address property value, as he does not
see a radio tower as an ugly thing. Regarding the tower falling on someone else's property, Mr. Zellmer stated
that the tower could be moved north and the anchor points rotated, if necessary.
Glenn Vaad asked the applicant if the tower was moved to lower area, would it have to be taller get the same
coverage. Mr. Zellmer stated yes.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant was in agreement.
Fred Walker stated that he would feel more comfortable if the tower were moved north on the property. Kerri
Keithley stated that a Condition of Approval could be added requiring a setback of 500 feet on all sides. Lee
Morrison added that the Special Review plat should reflect the change in location. Arlan Marrs asked if the
applicant would be in agreement with that additional Condition of Approval. The applicant was in agreement.
Kerni Keithley stated that the addition could become Condition of Approval #6G and could read: "The Special
Review plat map shall be amended to show setbacks from all property sides to the tower base of approximately
500 feet."
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 9
Fred Walker moved that Case Number USR-1143, KKDD-FM Broadcasters, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners with Conditions of Approval, with the addition of #6G, and the Development Standards
with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Rusty Tucker seconded the motion.
Glenn Vaad stated that he will vote against the proposal due to surrounding property owner opposition and the
fact that four miles north of the proposed site there are existing towers where perhaps this tower could be
placed. Fred Walker stated that he would be willing to withdraw his motion if more discussion is necessary.
Mr. Vaad moved that Case Number USR-1143, KKDD-FM Broadcasters be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. No one seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision regarding
the first motion. Glenn Vaad-no; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: CompAmend-10
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
REQUEST: To amend the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would replace the existing
Mixed Use Development (MUD) Area Structural Land Use Map located on page 3-22, with the
new MUD Area Structural Land Use Map approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in Ordinance 191 on January 29, 1997.
Kerri Keithley stated that Ordinance 147-J was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October
14, 1996. This ordinance adopted the MUD Structural Land Use Map 2.1 currently found in the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. During the Board of County Commissioners Hearing for the MUD Plan, certain things
changed. A community meeting was held and citizens identified changes they felt were appropriate in certain
sections of the map, mainly in sections 10, 15, and 16. Citizens identified land use Residential as opposed to
Employment Center, as listed in the Comprehensive Plan. After the MUD Plan was adopted, the dilemma was
that the Comprehensive Plan map was different from the MUD map. This amendment rectifies that situation.
The map is the only thing that is changing; the verbiage will remain the same.
Fred Walker asked why the Planning Commission is involved after the Board of County Commissioners have
already approved it. Ms. Keithley explained that any Comprehensive Plan amendment goes first to the
Planning Commission and then three times to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Walker asked if this
has already been read once by the County Commissioners. Ms. Keithley stated no. The MUD Plan, which the
Planning Commission heard in November, 1996, has gone through the entire process, but the map does not
match what was approved in the Comprehensive Plan. Shirley Camenisch asked if the Board of County
Commissioners will have to hear three readings again. Ms. Keithley stated yes.
Arlan Marrs asked how many landowners are in the areas to be changed. Kerri Keithley estimated 20-25. The
landowners were allowed to color their property on the map the color they thought it should be. Mr. Marrs
asked if all the property owners effected by this had a say. Ms. Keithley stated that in those three sections
particularly, yes. Mr. Marrs asked if it is possible for the landowners to change their land use at some future
point. Ms. Keithley stated that it is possible, they would just have to go before the Planning Commission and
then the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this amendment.
No one wished to speak.
Marie Koolstra moved that CompAmend-10 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Glenn Vaad seconded the motion.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1997
Page 10
Kerri Keithley noted that the legend key says "Residential/Agricultural Mixed Intensity", but the "Agricultural"
should be deleted. Agricultural uses are already allowed, they are not planned. If the property owner wanted
to develop the property, the map would have to be amended.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes;
Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Untri1A-524211C-9
Tammie Pope
Secretary
Hello