HomeMy WebLinkAbout980954.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 5, 1998
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held May 5, 1998, 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, Glenn Vaad, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
'JY
Glenn Vaad Present
Fred Walker
Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Cristie Nicklas Present rr m '° 2
Jack Epple Present
Marie Koolstra Absent Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present ,o
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Todd Hodges, Current Planner II, Scott Ballstadt, Current
Planner, Julie Chester, Current Planner; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Sheble McConnellouge,
Weld County Health Department; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 21, 1998,
was approved as read.
A nomination of Chrisite Nicklas for a new Vice-Chair was made by Arlan Marrs. Stephan Mokray moved
to approve, Jack Epple seconded the motion. Voted on unanimously by the Board.
Intergovernmental Agreement between Town of Erie, City of Dacono, and the County of Weld
Monica Daniels-Mika,asked for the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)to be continued to the June 2, 1998,
meeting along with design standards that will work along with the IGA and the regional approach. Monica
explained that due to a press release that was published, she would like for any public input to be heard.
Glenn Vaad asked if the agreement was legally binding, and if all three parties sign the agreement. Lee
Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated that yes it was.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue the Intergovernmental Agreement to the June 2, 1998, meeting. Christie
Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1182
APPLICANT: City of Longmont
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 NE4 of Section 6, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review for a Recreational Facility (BMX bicycle racing track) in the
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 26; approximately %mile east of Weld County
�I Road 1.
° `. J 980954
oS/;7/91
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1998
Page 2
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented case USR-1182. Scott gave an overview of the
application. Scott stated that there had been changes in staff recommendations with the addition of
Development Standard#21, and the deletion of#D on page 5, from the original. Scott than gave an overview
of the application, reading the recommendation into the record. Scott stated that they have received two
letters from surrounding property owners with concerns regarding traffic and dust problems. Scott explained
that these concerns are addressed through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The
Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application.
Arlan Marrs asked why Weld County Road 26 was not being required to be paved. Scott explained that since
this is a USR rather than a PUD, it is not a specific requirement stated in the ordinance. Public Works
recommends that the proposed use be consistent with surrounding use, which includes paved parking at
Union Reservoir. Scott than read MUD Policy 5 from the Comprehensive Plan into the record, and explained
this this does not specifcally require paving. Scott stated that the proposed use is temporary, as the City of
Longmont ultimately plans to use the property for expansion of Union Reservoir. Arlan then stated that they
have seen other USR cases where the proposed use would reduce traffic on the road, and the applicant was
required to pave the road, where this application does not require paving, with a similar amount of traffic, so
the City of Longmont should be responsible.
Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works, explained that they have worked with the City of Longmont for the
past few years. The County is doing the prep work, and the City of Longmont is providing the calcium
chloride. The County has been counting vehicles, which is around 168 currently, not quite to or over the 200
mark, which currently meets the need of the location, and will continue to monitor the situation.
Tom Lindsay, representative of application, also had concerns with the dust and explained that they will not
be surfacing the parking lot, but using magnesium chloride or calcium chloride to keep the dust down. The
track will be wetted with water prior to riding. Mr. Lindsey stated that he does not feel that the dust is just
caused by the track or reservoir, but also traffic going to the Longview mobile home park and school, and feels
the County should look at doing something, such as the issues of speeding. Mr. Lindsey stated that they
wanted to address all concems to be good neighbors to the community, and this is for the youth to give them
something to do.
Arlan Marrs asked about the Condition of Approval that states no alcoholic beverages and asked if mostly
children will be using the track. Mr. Lindsay stated that this was a concern and there will be no alcohol
beverages and are very much against alcohol on the site, and if caught will not be able to come back.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Rider, surrounding property owner, spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Rider had concerns with
more growth, the increase of traffic on Weld County Road 26, creating dust, speeding, and becoming a rough
road. Mr. Rider has continued to watch the track, and has seen such problems as kids going onto the track
after hours and unsupervised, throwing concrete chunks and tires, and kids riding their bikes in the dark on
a busy road. When the track is closed, it should remain closed.
Glenn Vaad asked Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, who exactly they are dealing with, the City of
Longmont, or BMX Track. Lee stated that the City of Longmont is the property owner and BMX the tenant,
so they are dealing with both.
Gene Kraning, the Parks and Forestry superintendent for the City of Longmont, was asked by Glenn Vaad
to address concerns by Mr. Rider, and how they are controlled. Mr. Kraning explained that their is a full time
Park Ranger and three seasonal rangers,which are on patrol for nine months, on patrol from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m.
Glenn asked if they will expand this area to the BMX track. Mr. Kraning stated they would and have the ability
to contact the Weld County Sheriffs office and City of Longmont police to come out.
Arian Marrs what plans on a safety plan for the Oligarchy Ditch. Mr. Kraning stated he was not familiar with
the ditch, but the City is willing to fence around it, or do whatever is necessary.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
,May 5, 1998
Page 3
Tom Lindsay explained that they do plan on fencing and placing signs around the area. Mr. Lindsay also
addressed the tires and concrete, and stated that they have cleaned that up. Mr. Lindsay also stated that
once the track is approved, their will be more monitoring of the track, and also no one under the age of 18 can
ride without the accompaniment of an adult.
Christie Nicklas asked about the type of fencing that will surround the area. Mr. Lindsay stated that there is
currently a twisted wire fence, which is meant to keep vehicles out and not people. Signs will also be posted
on the fence stating no parking. The track will also be closed during winter months.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Lindsay to show on the map where the Oligarchy ditch is located. Mr. Rider came
and pointed out where the ditch was located. Scott than stated that based on the information on the vicinity
map, the ditch that was intended to be referred to is the Outlet Ditch for Union Reservoir. It was noted to
make this change in the Conditions of Approval.
The Chairman asked Mr. Lindsay if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Lindsay did have questions on the bathrooms, and since they are going for a temporary use,
would like to use porta-potties with weekly cleaning. Sheble McConnellougue, Weld County Health
Department, explained that they define temporary use less than one year, but in this case they would allow
for a vault system that would not be absorbed into the soil and be collected into a septic tank and pumped
when needed. Mr. Lindsay stated that this is a nonprofit organization and had concerns with cost. Sheble
stated that this was policy and porta potties would not be consistent. Mr. Lindsay stated that their are
bathrooms at Union Reservoir that can be used that are within 50 yards. Sheble stated that if you are within
200 feet, the bathrooms could be used and this could be a possibility, and would need written permission from
Union Reservoir.
Mr. Lindsay also asked for hours on race days only on Thursday and Saturdays be changed from 6:00 p.m.
to 7:30 p.m. to make sure things are cleaned up. Scott stated that in the application the hours are noted for
the same as Union Reservoir, which is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but staff did not have a problem with extending
this an extra half hour.
Stephan Mokray Don Carroll that they have made an attempt to satisfy the dust conditions, but asked if the
speeding and lack of signs. Don stated that he is going to contact the County's traffic control, and post some
speed limit signs, and law enforcement would have to control speed. Stephan also asked whose responsibility
it will be to enforce. Don stated it is within Weld County and would be Weld County Sheriffs office or Highway
Patrol, and Lee stated that jurisdiction of the City does not extend to County roads but could assist.
Arlan Marrs had concerns on the hours of operation and the change of time with it getting darker, and feels
there should be consistency with the reservoir.
Jack Epple moved to extend the hours on race days only to 7:30 p.m. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Christie Nicklas, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried.
Sheble had a concern with extending the hours and not having facilities available, and also about drinking
water.
Tom Lindsay explained that the gates will be locked at the same time as Union Reservoir, no matter what
time. The water is not a drinking source, but available, Mr. Lindsay stated that people do bring their own
drinks to the site, but could provide a drinking fountain.
Scott stated that a requirement of prior to recording the plat, a condition that the applicant submit a letter to
the Department Services, a letter from the Rangers that will patrol, that the patrol hours will be consistent with
Union Reservoir. Mr. Lindsay was in agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1998
Page 4
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1182, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the changes in Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Jack Epple seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1183
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections within T3-11N, R66 & 67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility
for a 53 mile gas pipeline.
LOCATION: From Sections 5, T11 N, R67W, to Section 10, T3N, R66W, primarily east and west of Weld
County Road 27.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented case USR -1183, giving an overview of the
application. Julie stated that there are no changes to the recommendation, and read those into the record.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval for the application.
Nick Phase, representative of the application, gave an explanation of the application and the purpose for the
project which is to bolster supplies for the front range area, extending from the Fort Collins area to the south.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Phase to address the concerns of a letter from surrounding property owner Steve
and Chris Shultz. Mr. Phase explained that there has been discussion with the Schultz's, and are currently
in an eminent domain case with the Schultz's with a hearing date on May 27, 1998. The issues have been
discussed and the concern is with the electric transmission facility being co-located with the gas transmission
facility, one or the other could cause damage. Mr. Phase stated that it is highly unlikely that either facility
would have a problem; they are both built according to stringent national safety codes monitored on a regular
basis by patrol to check for any potential leakage. If either would have a problem, for example the electrical
transmission line collapsing, there are breakers on the line that very rapidly shut the power off to the facility,
and the chance of this happening would be extremely remote. The pipeline is buried four feet below grade,
and only by someone digging, would any damage occur.
Jack Epple asked how many similar situations there are in the state. Mr. Phase was not aware of any
problems, but there are many facilities located adjacent to each other.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Steve Shultz, property owner, spoke in opposition of the application. Mr. Shut had a concern with the ability
to shut the power line down. Mr. Schultz is currently trying to sell of some of his property as a building site.
Mr. Shultz would like some assurance, in writing, as far as what kind of engineering there is for the project.
They have a verbal statement from Public Service that their project will not be a problem, but Mr. Schultz is
asking for something they can depend on in the future. Mr. Schultz than entered into evidence, a letter he had
received from Public Service. Mr. Schultz feels that this is a dangerous project, and that Public Service would
not allow this type of project on their property. Mr. Schultz has also asked for specifications, since he does
farm the property, and would like to know what is going to be done as far as compaction when the work is
finished. With two pipelines going in within six months of each other, Mr. Schultz wanted to know why they
could not have worked together and prevented ground from being torn up twice.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1998
Page 5
Christie Nicklas asked if most of the line runs along County Road right-of-way, why is it crossing his property?
Mr. Schultz stated that very little of the pipe line goes along County roads, but crosses through properties.
Christie asked if he had been offered compensation for growing crops. Mr. Schultz stated he has, but has not
come close to an agreement.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Schultz,what he would need from Public Service to assure him. Mr. Schultz said
he is looking for something from an engineer that Public Service is willing to take responsibility if something
happens, or a letter stating why something won't happen.
Jack Epple asked if it wasn't Public Service's responsibility if something was to happen. Mr. Schultz gave an
example of his neighbor who had hay stacked, and the neighbor received a letter from Public Service saying
if the hay was to catch on fire, it would be his responsibility if the line was damaged.
Glenn Vaad wanted it in the record that he had communication with Mrs. Schultz prior to the hearing,
regarding this case, on the procedure of getting their concerns on the record. Mr. Vaad advised doing so in
writing or presentation.
Gary Gettman, a real estate broker for one of the surrounding property owners, spoke in opposition of the
application. Mr. Gettman asked for clarification on the County having final authority on the permit. He
understood that if the permit is denied by the Commission, that Public Service could go to the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC), and continue with the project. Lee Morrison stated that the matter is being considered
for the basis of the Zoning Ordinance provision which provides for review of Major Facilities of Public Utility,
where the review is mandatory. If the result of the decision of the Planning Commission is unfavorable, the
applicant has the option of proceeding to the Board of County Commissioners,with further appeal to the PUC.
Mr. Gettman also wanted to know if the County receives any tax or royalty for the resource going through the
pipe. Lee explained that if it is the issue of electrical utility, the County does not tax, but the State assesses
the value of their property which is taxed as property tax, and directs the County on what they tax.
Warner Uvbelhoer, a representative with Public Service company, stated that Public Service has filed with the
state PUC, an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which addresses the cost
of service for the project, which included some$400,000 of additional property taxes, paid to the County.
Mr. Gettman stated that he is not directly affected by this line, but his client, Mr. Rathermel will be. He
currently has property listed and believes that irrigated farm crop will be disrupted, along with a water line that
could be used for buildable lots, and he will be losing money which would compensate for damaged crops.
Mr. Gettman feels that the farmers should get compensation for damage already done and royalties long-term.
Glenn Vaad asked for the record, if Mr. Gettman was representing Mr. Rathermel. Mr. Gettman stated he has
Mr. Rathermel's property listed and has talked with him and is not speaking for him, but in behalf of him and
others that are affected the same way.
Jack Epple asked if Mr. Rathermel bought his property with the fire line on it. Mr. Gettman stated is was after
Mr. Rathermel bought the land, and was paid for the right-of-ways for the line.
Russ Councel, representative of Colorado Interstate Gas, spoke on the safety issue of installing the pipe line
next to a power line. When a pipeline is constructed near a powerline, it is constructed differently than normal
pipeline operations. At the Schultz property, they are underneath a WAPA power line, since this is not their
power line, they cannot answer safety type questions. They are working with WAPA to safely install their
pipeline. Of the 53 miles, thirty some miles lie underneath WAPA, and 10 miles is underneath the Public
Service power line. Installing pipelines underneath power lines, does require following existing corridors (road,
pipeline and power line), which is becoming more common. A consultant has been hired to help design the
pipeline next to the power line. The two considerations in building pipelines next to power lines, is the induce
current, which you must protect the pipeline and the people working on the pipeline. The fault current
consideration is the failure of the power line, and considered the most dangerous current. Mr. Councel stated
• that they are designing the mitigation to protect both the people and the pipeline. Mr. Councel stated that after
the final design is complete, they would be willing to give the Schultz's a copy of this design, as well as the
contractor of the pipeline.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1998
Page 6
Stephan Mokray asked when installing this type of system, does the PUC oversee the project. Mr. Uvbelhoer
explained that the pipeline is regulated by the PUC in rates and safety aspects and any incident is investigated
by the PUC with ongoing monitoring activities, but does not sign off on the design. Public Service is
responsible for following U.S. Department of Transportation, (DOT), rules and regulations, but they do not
receive approval from this agency.
Jack Epple asked who handles quality control during construction. Mr. Uvbelhoer explained that there are 10
inspectors from different agencies on site. Jack than asked that in addition to the protection of the electrical
power line, is adequate cathodic protection (which protects from erosion and protects pipe line, identifying
problems) used on the line. Mr. Uvbelhoer stated that they do have this protection.
Dan Becca, Team Lead Construction Engineering for Public Service, explained that the design is based on
DOT regulations. The PUC oversees and makes sure they are designing and building in accordance to DOT
regulations and do inspections throughout the project, to assure compliance.
Christie Nicklas asked Julie Chester if the County had any regulatory status as to when the job is complete.
Julie explained that a building permit is not required, and the only regulations, are the Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards, and Public Work permits.
Christie Nicklas asked if Public Service had PUC permission. They do not as this time, but will know by the
20th of May. Christie than asked if they had right-of-way for the whole project. At this time they have only
about 6 parcels still pending. Christie asked what type of easements were in place for the pipeline. Todd
Hodges, Department of Planning Services, stated that there is an existing easement of right-of-way that this
would be located in, so at this time they would not be able to build structures at this point, and affect properties
if it extended beyond the right-of-way.
Nick Phase, addressed the compaction of the soil. He explained that part of the specifications on the
construction of the pipeline, it is a requirement that all of the backfilled soils to be segregated so that top soils
are kept to the side and applied at the end when the ditch is refilled, the soils are compacted.
Mr. Phase added that the easement documents that encumber property owners, is a document that is held
in the name of Public Service Company, and not the County. Although it is recorded through the County,there
are stipulations on what can occur on the property.
Glenn asked about the coordination of KN Energy and their gas line. Mr. Phase explained that KN has chosen
to seek approval through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and this process, according to Mr.
Phases, is still underway. If there were facilities being constructed at the same time, at the same location,
there may be opportunities to have a symbiotic relationship with another company, but KN has not received
approval at this time. Construction will be the same in some locations, but only in some areas. Mr. Phase
also stated that Public Service is obligated to pay for damages for those property owners who have signed
easements with them.
Steve Shultz discussed the statement of the easement being directly under the power line easement. Mr.
Schultz stated that only part of it will be, with an additional 25 feet and KN wanting another 50 feet. Mr.
Schultz feels that Public Service has refused to acknowledge building sites, and asked for the Commission
to wait on issuing a permit until safety issues are settled.
Gary Gettman asked Julie Chester about alternative routes. Julie stated that there was an alternative route
proposed, and that the applicant could explain the reason for the route chosen.
Nick Phase addressed the Commission stating that Mr. Gettman's client, Mr. Rathamel has signed an
easement and he was represented by an attorney during negotiations. On the issue of overlying easements,
there is an attempt to co-locate for different uses, and this is one reason for choosing the proposed route.
The other route was longer and crossed two additional streams and additional impacts on properties. Public
Service is seeking a 50 foot easement, with 25 being a new impact to property owners, and 25 feet overlaying
the existing WAPA and existing Public Service rights-of-way.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1998
Page 7
Glenn Vaad asked about the request from Mr. Schultz to continue this case. Mr. Phase explained that there
would be nothing more to add, but would share the final plan with whomever requested, when available.
Christie Nicklas asked about Mr. Lind and his clients, and if the final plan would be available to them. Mr.
Phase explained that they have concluded final routes with all of Mr. Linds clients and had no more concerns.
Christie asked Don Carroll about permits on rights-of-way for the roads, and if damaged, are they required
to fix these damages. Don explained that they are requiring the applicants to take out a right-of-way utility
permit from Weld County, ensuring that every time they cross County Roads and/or cut, there are compaction
standards that the roads need to be put back the way they were found, and if destroyed, they are responsible
for repairing. Public Works will be keeping track of the project.
The Chairman asked Mr. Phase if he was in agreement with Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Phase stated he was, but did have a question on the requirement from the City of Greeley on
the landscape plan(#2a). The City of Greeley's understanding that the project was an above ground facility,
therefore a valve set, which sits above ground, be buffered. The facilities the City was referring to are not
adjacent to each other, but about one mile apart. Julie Chester explained that this was the City of Greeley's
recommendation due to it being in the area of the City, and they are asking for some type of buffer and not
a big landscape plan. The Planning Department is asking for a plan to buffer the above ground pipe, and not
a landscape plan. Mr. Phase said they could develop a plan, and would desire to have flexibility to adjust the
plan to make it compatible to future development.
Glenn Vaad added that both are incorporated into#2a, and that the schedule could say when and if the City
annexes the property, and then implement the plan when they do the work. Mr. Phase was agreeable to this.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1183, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Christie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, abstained; Christie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitt
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello