HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211145.tiffEXHIBIT
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. PLANNING COMMISSION
OsizIS - oi3cs
I
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bruce Johnson. that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER
APPLICANT
PLANNER
REQUEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION.
USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A GREATER THAN 16 -INCH RAW DOMESTIC WATER PIPELINE
(PERMANENT 42 -INCH PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES.
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. 1 -MILLION GALLON WATER TANK.
TWO PUMP STATIONS. BURIED VALVE ASSEMBLIES. ACCESS
MANWAYS AND FIBER OPTIC CABLE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS) IN THE E (ESTATE) ZONE DISTRICT THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT. AND THE RUA (REGIONAL
URBANIZED AREA) ZONE DISTRICT
SECTIONS 4, 5. 8. 9. 16, 17, 20, 21 28. 29. 32. AND 33, T1 N. R67W:
SECTIONS 4. 8. 9. 16, 17. 20 29. 32. AND 33. T2N. R67W: SECTIONS 5. 8.
17, 20. 28. 29, AND 33, T3N, R67W; SECTIONS 6, 19, 20, 29, AND 32. T4N,
R67W SECTIONS 6, 7, 18. 19. 30. AND 31, T5N. R67W: SECTIONS 6. 7.
AND 18. T6N. R67W; SECTIONS 6. 7. 18 AND 19. T7N. R67W: SECTIONS
19. 30. AND 31. T8N. R67W ALL LOCATED IN THE 6T-' P.M . WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
NORTH OF CR 2, SOUTH OF CR 94. EAST OF CR 13. AND WEST OF CR
19
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section
23-2-480 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-480.A.2 — The pipeline - domestic water will not have an undue adverse effect on
existing and future development of the surrounding area, as set forth in applicable Master Plans.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from multiple landowners who are crossed by the
pipeline's right-of-way or easement. Concerns expressed from the landowners were in regard to the
pipeline crossing their property and negotiations with the City of Thornton. The Planning Commission
didn t believe this was in the best interests or the welfare of the residents of Weld County.
B. Section 23-2-480.A.3 — The design of the proposed pipeline mitigates negative impacts on the
surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from multiple landowners who are crossed by the
pipeline's right-of-way or easement. Multiple landowners described feasible design alternatives that
would mitigate negative impacts on the surrounding areas, including routing the pipeline closer to the
parcel boundaries or along existing oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. The Planning Commission
didn't believe that the City of Thornton had devoted sufficient time and efforts to designing the project
to mitigate negative impacts to these landowners' properties.
C. Section 23-2-480 A.5 — The applicant has agreed to implement any reasonable measures deemed
necessary by the board of County commissioners to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the County will be protected. and to mitigate or minimize any potential adverse impacts
from the proposed pipeline - domestic water.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from multiple landowners who are crossed by the
pipeline's right-of-way or easement. Multiple landowners described feasible design alternatives that
would mitigate negative impacts on the surrounding areas. including routing the pipeline closer to the
parcel boundaries or along existing oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. The Planning Commission
didn't believe that the City of Thornton had devoted sufficient time and efforts to designing the project
to mitigate negative impacts to these landowners' properties. Additionally, they were concerned with
the crossing of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal and the financial concerns expressed regarding
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 2
the mining pits.
D. Section 23-2-480.A.6 — All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed,
and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of the County and
represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from multiple landowners who are crossed by the
pipeline's right-of-way or easement. Concerns expressed from the landowners were in regard to the
pipeline crossing their property and negotiations with the City of Thornton. They felt that the
landowners had provided various alternatives to utilize their property to complete the Thornton Water
Project and greatly mitigate the damage that this project will bring to their property and businesses.
The Planning Commission didn't believe the alignment of the pipeline was in the best interests of the
residents of Weld County. Additionally, they were concerned with the crossing of the Larimer and
Weld Irrigation Canal and the financial concerns expressed regarding the mining pits.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal, the Planning Commission recommends
the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the map:
A. A Road Maintenance Agreement is required during construction with this pipeline project. Road
maintenance may include dust control, tracking control, and damage repair attributable to
construction of the pipeline and located within 1A mile of any construction access point for the project.
(Department of Public Works)
B. Final Jrai,,ag-e-«ports and --Certifications of Compliance, stamped and signed by a Professional
Engineer registered in -the -State of--Color-add--are required for Booster Pump -Stations 1 and 2.
(Department -of Public Works)
le thirteen ('
stormwater detention, is required for each oft
Public Works)
3) proposed staging areas. (Department of
D. The applicant shall submit a recorded copy of all agreements/easements signed by all owners of the
property crossed by this project. All easements shall be referenced on the USR map by the Weld
County Clerk and Recorder's reception number. (Department of Public Works)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Town of Windsor, as stated in the
referral response dated June 19, 2020. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Town of Frederick, as stated in the
Notice of Inquiry response dated March 23, 2020. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to
the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The USR map shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR18-0130. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3) The map shall be prepared per Section 23-2-520.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 3
4) Show and label the exact location of the permanent easement. (Department of Planning
Services)
5) County Roads 4, 8, 10, 16, 22, 28, 32, 36, 40, 42, 52, 52 %, 56, 60, 86, 88, and 90 are gravel
roads and are designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map (Code Ordinance
2017-01) as local roads, which require 60 feet of right-of-way. The applicant shall delineate
and label on the USR map the existing rights -of -way (along with the documents creating the
existing rights -of -way) and the physical location of the roads. All setbacks shall be measured
from the edge of rights -of- way. These roads are maintained by Weld County. (Department of
Public Works)
6) County Road 84 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional
Classification Map (Code Ordinance 2017-01) as local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-
way. The applicant shall delineate and label on the USR map the existing right-of-way (along
with the documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road. All
setbacks shall be measured from the edge of rights -of -way. These roads are maintained by
Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
County Roads 6, 18, 20, 34, 38, 50, and 68 % are paved roads and are designated on the
Weld County Functional Classification Map (Code Ordinance 2017-01) as collector roads,
which require 80 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate and label on
the site map or plat the existing and future rights -of -way (along with the documents creating the
existing rights -of- way) and the physical location of the roads. All setbacks shall be measured
from the edge of rights- of -way. These roads are maintained by Weld County. (Department of
Public Works)
8) County Road 13 (between County Road 92 and Highway 14) is a gravel road and is
designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map (Code Ordinance 2017-01) as a
local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate
and label on the site map or plat the existing right-of-way (along with the documents creating
the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road. All setbacks shall be measured
from the edge of the future right-of-way. This road is maintained by either Larimer or Weld
County. When scalable construction drawings are available (prior to construction), the
applicant shall work with Public Works to determine which County is responsible for the
maintenance of County Road 13 at the point of crossing. (Department of Public Works)
9) County Road 13 (between Highways 14 and 34) is a paved road and is designated on the
Weld County Functional Classification Map (Code Ordinance 2017-01) as an arterial road,
which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate and label
on the site map or plat the existing and future rights -of -way (along with the documents creating
the existing right -of- way) and the physical location of the road. All setbacks shall be measured
from the edge of the future right-of-way. This road is maintained by either Larimer or Weld
County. When scalable construction drawings are available (prior to construction), the
applicant shall work with Public Works to determine which County is responsible for the
maintenance of County Road 13 at the point of crossing. (Department of Public Works)
10) At the point of crossing, County Road 54 (Freedom Parkway) is a paved road and is
designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map (Code Ordinance 2017-01) as
an arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall
delineate and label on the site map or plat the existing and future rights -of -way (along with the
documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the roads. All
setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the future right-of-way. This road is maintained
by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 4
11) County Roads 12, 70, and 72 are section line roads. The applicant shall determine all existing
section line rights -of -way and delineate them on the site plan. Label the section line rights -of -
way as "CR 12 (or 70 or 72) Section Line Right -Of -Way, Not County Maintained." All setbacks
shall be measured from the edge of the rights -of -way. (Department of Public Works)
12) For the water tank and pump stations Sshow and label the proposed access locations,
approved required access width (40 feet) and the appropriate turning radii (6Q' feet) on the site
plan. The applicant must obtain access permits in these locations prior to construction.
(Department of Public Works)
13) Show the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) rights -of -way, for State Highways
14, 34, 52, 60, 66, and 392, on the USR R map along with the documents creating the rights -of -
way. If applicable, show the approved CDOT access(es) on the site plan and label with the
approved access permit number. (Department of Public Works)
14) The portion of County Roads 24 and 26 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under the
jurisdiction of the Town of Firestone. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-way.
Show and label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label with
the approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
15) The portion of County Road 14 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under the jurisdiction of
the Town of Frederick. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-way. Show and
label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label with the
approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
16) The portion of County Roads 12 % and 17 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under the
jurisdiction of the Town of Dacono. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-way.
Show and label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label with
the approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
17) The portion of County Roads 44 and 46 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under the
jurisdiction of the Town of Johnstown. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-way.
Show and label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label with
the approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
18) The portion of County Roads 62, 64, and 66 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under the
jurisdiction of the Town of Windsor. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-way.
Show and label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label with
the approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
19) The portion of County Road 78 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under the jurisdiction of
the Town of Severance. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-way. Show and
label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label with the
approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
20) The portion of County Road 74, 76, and 80 are in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing is under
the jurisdiction of the Town of Timnath. Please contact the municipality to verify the right-of-
way. Show and label the right-of-way. Show the approved access(es) on the site plan and label
with the approved access permit number if applicable. (Department of Public Works)
21) Show and label the approved appropriate tracking control on the site plan
and pump station sites. (Department of Public Works)
for the water tank
22) Show and label an entrance gate where applicable. An access approach that is gated shall be
designed so that the longest vehicle (including trailers) using the access can completely clear
the traveled way when the gate is closed. In no event, shall the distance from the gate to the
edge of the traveled surface be less than 35 feet. (Department of Public Works)
RESOLUTION USRI s-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 5
23) If applicable, show and label with reception number a minimum 30 -foot wide access and utility
easement needed to provide legal access to the project on the water tank and pump station
sites . (Department of Public Works)
24) Show and label the accepted proposed drainage features. Stormwater ponds should be
labeled as "tormwater Detention, No -Build or Storage Area" and shall include the calculated
volume. (Department of Public Works)
25)
26)
For the water tank and pump station sites,
(Department of Public Works)
For the water tank and pump station sites,
-show and label the drainage flow arrows.
2show and label the parking and traffic circulation
flow arrows showing how the traffic moves around the property. (Department of Public Works)
2. Upon completion of Condition of Approval #1 above, the applicant shall submit one (1) electronic copy
(.pdf) of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Upon
approval of the map the applicant shall submit a Mylar map along with all other documentation required
as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar map shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The map shall be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Section 23-2-520.D of the Weld County Code or as approved by the Department of
Planning Services. The Mylar map and additional requirements shall be submitted within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution. The applicant shall
be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance #2012-3, approved April 30, 2012, should the map not
be recorded within the required one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners Resolution, a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional three
(3) month period. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to Construction for any segment of the pipeline:
A. The permitted accesses and required tracking control devices shall be constructed. (Department of
Public Works)
B. The applicant shall submit evidence of a right-of-way permit for any work that may be required in the
right-of-way and/or a special transport permit for any oversized or overweight vehicles that may
access the site. (Department of Public Works)
C. If more than one (1) acre of land is to be disturbed for the construction of non -pipeline activities (i.e.,
construction of roads, driveways, buildings, parking areas, accesses, drainage facilities, landscaping
or other construction not directly in the pipeline trench), a Weld County grading permit will be
required. (Department of Public Works)
D. Final Drainage Reports and Certifications of Compliance, stamped and signed by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Colorado, are required for Booster Pump Stations 1 and 2.
(Department of Public Works)
E. Final Drainage Report with a Certification of Compliance stamped and signed by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Colorado, or a Drainage Narrative with a qualifying exception to
stormwater detention, is required for each of the proposed staging areas. (Department of Public
Works)
F. A Flood Hazard Development Permit is required to install pipelines in the 100 -year floodplain.
(Department of Planning Services - Floodplain)
G. The applicant shall submit Communication Plans. (Department of Planning Services)
RESOLUTION USRI $-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 6
H. The applicant shall submit a statement that addresses the lighting that will be used if there is
construction on the pipeline at night. (Department of Planning Services)
I. Provide a map showing location of the temporary during construction and permanent access permit
locations and the temporary staging areas, separate from the USR map. (Department of Planning
Services)
J. A Landscape and Screening Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Planning
Services that screens the pump stations and the water tank from the Surrounding Property Owners
and rights -of -way. (Department of Planning Services)
K. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
L. Show and label the temporary during construction and permanent access permit locations.
(Department of Planning Services)
M. Show and label the access permit location for the staging areas. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to Operation:
A. The applicant shall develop an Emergency Action and Safety Plan with the Office of Emergency
Management and the Fire District. The plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the Facility
operator, the Fire District and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management. Submit
evidence of acceptance to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
6. The Use by Special Review is not perfected until the Conditions of Approval are completed and the
map is recorded. Activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property, until the Use by Special Review map is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld
County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early release agreement.
(Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Richard Beck.
VOTE:
For Denial
Gene Stille
Lonnie Ford
Elijah Hatch
Skip Holland
Sam Gluck
Butch White
Troy Mellon
Against Denial Absent
Tom Cope
Dwaine Barclay
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 7
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on July 21, 2020.
Dated the 2161 of July, 2020
llimAl66nL.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 8
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
City of Thornton Domestic Water Pipeline
USRI 8-0130
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a greater than 16 -inch raw domestic
water pipeline (permanent 42 -inch pipeline and associated appurtenances, including but not limited to,
1 -million gallon water tank, two pump stations, buried valve assemblies, access manways, and fiber
optic cable and temporary construction easements) in the E (Estate) Zone District, the A (Agricultural)
Zone District, and the RUA (Regional Urbanized Area) Zone District. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
The property owner or operator shall provide written evidence of an Emergency Action and Safety Plan
on or before March 15th of any given year signed by representatives for the Fire District and the Weld
County Office of Emergency Management to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
4. The number of employees during peak construction will be between eighty (80) and one hundred (100)
persons at multiple sites along the pipeline, according to the application materials. (Department of
Planning Services)
5. The number of employees post construction activity will include up to two (2) City of Thornton
employees traveling in one (1) pickup truck along the water pipeline route for visual inspections and
maintenance activities during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. TWP operators are
also anticipated to conduct up to one (1) visit per day of the water tank and pump station locations to
inspect security and operation of each facility. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Hours of operation during construction will occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday and may be extended with prior approval by the Department of Planning Services. The
pipeline will operate twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week post -construction. It is
expected that the City will be able to access the easement during anytime for maintenance and repairs.
(Department of Planning Services).
7. All signs shall adhere to Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 2 and Appendices 23-C, 23-D and 23-E of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
8. A Flood Hazard Development Permit is required for all construction or development occurring in the
floodplain or floodway as delineated on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM
Community Panel Map. Any development shall comply with all applicable Weld County requirements,
Colorado Water Conservation Board requirements as described in Rules and Regulations for
Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado, and FEMA regulations and requirements as described in 44 CFR
parts 59, 60, and 65. The FEMA definition of development is any man-made change to improved or
unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging,
filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of equipment and materials.
(Department of Planning Services - Floodplain)
9. FEMA's floodplain boundaries may be updated at any time by FEMA. Prior to the start of any
development activities, the owner should contact Weld County to determine if the floodplain boundaries
have been modified. (Department of Planning Services - Floodplain)
10. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for controlling noxious weeds on the site, pursuant
to Chapter 15, Article I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Works)
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 9
11. The access to the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road, including
damages and/or off -site tracking. (Department of Public Works)
12. During construction, there shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking
shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works)
13. The pipeline shall not be placed within County right-of-way, except for perpendicular crossings, unless
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Public Works)
14. Any work that may occupy and or encroach upon any County rights -of -way or easement shall acquire
an approved Right -of -Way Use Permit prior to commencement. (Department of Public Works)
15. The applicant shall comply with all requirements provided in the executed Road Maintenance
Agreement. (Department of Public Works)
16. Access for this project may be within unmaintained County rights -of -way. The maintenance of the
unmaintained rights -of -way will not be the responsibility of Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
17. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts in the project area will be maintained. (Department of
Public Works)
18. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Department of
Public Works)
19. During construction, all liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S.) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
20. During construction, no permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant
to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes
Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
21. During construction, waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls
fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The
facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
22. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled throughout the duration of
construction of the pipeline and until ground cover is established. Uses on the property shall comply
with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
23. The applicant shall submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit
Application and obtain a permit from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, as applicable. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
24. During construction, adequate toilet facilities and handwashing units shall be provided. Screened
portable toilets are acceptable. Screened portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in
Weld County, contain hand sanitizers and removed when construction is completed. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
25. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 10
26. Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where
such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in accordance with
the plan. Neither the direct, nor reflected, light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to
operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may be used which may be
confused with, or construed as, traffic control devices. (Department of Planning Services)
27. Building permits shall be required for any new construction or set up manufactured structure, per
Section 29-3-10 of the Weld County Code. A building permit application must be completed and
submitted. Buildings and structures shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at
the time of permit application. Currently, the following have been adopted by Weld County: 2018
International Building Codes; 2018 International Residential Code; 2006 International Energy Code;
2017 National Electrical Code; and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. A plan review shall be
approved, and a permit must be issued prior to the start of construction. (Department of Building
Inspection)
28. 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. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department
of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
29. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
30. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public Works, and
Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the pipeline easement and City of
Thornton owned property at any reasonable time as coordinate by the City of Thornton in order to
ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
31. 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. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department
of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
32. Construction or use pursuant to approval of a Use by Special Review Permit shall be commenced
within three (3) years from the date of approval, unless otherwise specified by the Board of County
Commissioners when issuing the original Permit, or the Permit shall be vacated. The Director of
Planning Services may grant an extension of time, for good cause shown, upon a written request by the
landowner.
33. A Use by Special Review shall terminate when the use is discontinued for a period of three (3)
consecutive years, the use of the land changes or the time period established by the Board of County
Commissioners through the approval process expires. The landowner may notify the Department of
Planning Services of a termination of the use, or Planning Services staff may observe that the use has
been terminated. When either the Department of Planning Services is notified by the landowner, or
when the Department of Planning Services observes that the use may have been terminated, the
Planner shall send certified written notice to the landowner asking that the landowner request to vacate
the Use by Special Review Permit.
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 11
34. RIGHT TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT: Weld County has some of the most
abundant mineral resources, including, but not limited to, sand and gravel, oil, natural gas, and coal.
Under title 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, minerals are vital resources because (a) the state's
commercial mineral deposits are essential to the state's economy; (b) the populous counties of the
state face a critical shortage of such deposits; and (c) such deposits should be extracted according to a
rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of
the ecology and quality of life of the citizens of the populous counties of the state.
Mineral resource locations are widespread throughout the County and person moving into these areas
must recognize the various impacts associated with this development. Often times, mineral resource
sites are fixed to their geographical and geophysical locations. Moreover, these resources are
protected property rights and mineral owners should be afforded the opportunity to extract the mineral
resource.
35. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT: Weld County is one of the most productive
agricultural counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total
market value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious,
but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and
accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower
level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban
dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and
congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring farms, those features which
attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural
practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well -run agricultural activities
will generate off -site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow -moving farm vehicles
on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field work, harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal
confinement, silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; hunting and trapping
activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in
the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize
an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations. A
concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a visual disparity between rural
and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., provides that an agricultural operation
shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a
nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural
production.
Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to
assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development.
When moving to the County, property owners and residents must realize they cannot take water from
irrigation ditches, lakes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water.
Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice the
size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of state and
County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches
available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the
County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses, including law
enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must leave
their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads, no matter how often they are
bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities
mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major
snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural
dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers.
People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm
equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center
RESOLUTION USR18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
PAGE 12
pivot operations, high speed traffic, sandburs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and livestock, and
open burning present real threats. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety,
but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood.
EXHIBIT
pt u\wtUlt-es
--r I21 /2_02'3
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
b
USR.: - a l 3O
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Wailes. at 11:53 a.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille. Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Elijah Hatch,
Skip Holland. Dwaine Barclay.
Also Present: Diana Aungst, Angela Snyder. and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Lauren
Light, Department of Health; Mike McRoberts and Melissa King, Department of Public Works; Bob Choate,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
The Chair called a recess at 12:55 pm and called the meeting back to order at 1:41 p.m.
Planning Commissioner Dwaine Barclay left the hearing at 12:55 pm.
CASE NUMBER
APPLICANT
PLANNER
REQUEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION
USR 18-0130
CITY OF THORNTON
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A GREATER THAN 16 -INCH RAW DOMESTIC WATER PIPELINE
(PERMANENT 42 -INCH PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES.
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. 1 -MILLION GALLON WATER TANK.
TWO PUMP STATIONS, BURIED VALVE ASSEMBLIES. ACCESS
MANWAYS. AND FIBER OPTIC CABLE AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS) IN THE E (ESTATE) ZONE DISTRICT.
THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT AND THE RUA (REGIONAL
U RBANIZED AREA) ZONE DISTRICT.
S ECTIONS 4. 5. 8, 9, 16, 17. 20, 21 28, 29, 32. AND 33, T1 N. R67W;
S ECTIONS 4, 8, 9. 16, 17. 20 29. 32. AND 33. T2N. R67W. SECTIONS 5, 8,
17. 20. 28, 29, AND 33, T3N. R67W SECTIONS 6. 19. 20, 29, AND 32. T4N,
R67W: SECTIONS 6. 7. 18, 19, 30, AND 31, T5N R67W; SECTIONS 6, 7,
AND 18. T6N, R67W: SECTIONS 6. 7. 18, AND 19. T7N, R67W: SECTIONS
19. 30. AND 31, T8N. R67W ALL LOCATED IN THE 6TH P.M . WELD
COUNTY. COLORADO
N ORTH OF CR 2. SOUTH OF CR 94. EAST OF CR 13. AND WEST OF CR
19.
Diana Aungst. Planning Services. presented Case USR18-0130. reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst stated that this pipeline is a water delivery system that will convey
high -quality domestic water that Thornton purchased in the mid -1980's from the Water Supply and Storage
Company in unincorporated Larimer County and bring it through Weld County to the City of Thornton for
municipal use. She added that the pipeline will include approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch diameter
water pipeline capable of conveying 40 million gallons per day as well as the associated appurtenances.
This amount of water is sufficient to meet the municipal and industrial demands of Thornton's water
customers through 2065.
Ms. Aungst said that in 2015 Thornton conducted a series of outreach meetings with local governments
and agencies that could be impacted by the pipeline. During this initial outreach meeting with each local
government and agency. feedback was collected to determine preferences and/or determine potential
problems for the location of the pipeline.
Ms. Aungst stated that Thornton is requesting a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an
additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction. The pipeline is not located within Weld County
right-of-way or future planned right-of-way. except to cross right-of-way.
The fiber optic cable will be installed in close proximity to the pipeline and will allow Thornton to remotely
operate the pipeline. Above ground appurtenances include a one -million -gallon water tank and two (2)
pump stations. The one -million -gallon water tank will be constructed on a site south of the intersection of
County Roads 13 and 92, next to an existing water tank. Pump Station #1 is located approximately one-
half mile east of the intersection of County Roads 13 and 50 on 3.75 acres and will include a 10,000 square
foot pump house building and equipment pads outside of the building. Pump Station #2 is located
approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection of County Roads 17 and 2 and is on approximately 8.4
acres and will include an approximate 15,000 square foot pump house building, bay and equipment pads.
Construction will begin in 2020 and will end in late 2024 or early 2025. The construction of each water
pipeline construction package is anticipated to last two to two and one-half years, not including revegetation.
Construction of the water tank is expected to last one (1) year and construction of the pump stations is
expected to last two (2) years.
Ms. Aungst noted that Staff received multiple phone calls from interested persons and surrounding property
owners who are crossed by the pipeline's easement with concerns regarding the pipeline crossing their
property and negotiations with the City of Thornton. Additionally, 16 letters were received from surrounding
property owners and interested parties. Ms. Aungst stated that the Cities of Dacono, Fort Lupton and the
Towns of Berthoud, Firestone, Frederick, Johnstown, Mead, Milliken, Platteville, Severance, Timnath and
Windsor were notified of the proposal by Staff and provided a Notice of Inquiry Form by the Applicant. Ms.
Aungst read the comments received from the various cities and towns and the applicant's responses into
the record.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the multiple accesses to be used and the crossings of 18 gravel
local roads, one (1) paved local road, seven (7) paved collector roads, one (1) paved arterial road, three
(3) unmaintained section line roads, and 14 roads under the jurisdiction of various municipalities and six
State Highways. Additionally, he provided the requirements for the drainage reports for the pump stations
prior to construction and staging areas along the pipeline alignment during construction.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, Waste Handling Plan and the Air Emissions Permit.
Mark Koleber, City of Thornton, 12450 Washington Street, Thornton, Colorado, stated that the City of
Thornton is requesting a Use by Special Review Permit for the construction for the Thornton Water Project
through unincorporated Weld County. Thornton is a growing City and will need additional water supply by
2025. Because the Thornton Water Project isn't subject to as much urban runoff and other pollution
discharges, this will also help address water quality issues with some of their existing water supplies.
Additionally, this will meet municipal demands through 2065.
Mr. Koleber stated that they have acquired 80 easements, which is 58% of the parcels and 51 % of the total
length. The Thornton Water Project will move water that Thornton owns in two (2) ditch companies that
divert from the Cache la Poudre River, northwest of Ft. Collins, down to Thornton. The water will come out
of the Water Supply and Storage Company Reservoir #4, northwest of Ft. Collins. He added that Thornton
has taken the steps necessary to make the water legally available for the municipal use by Thornton. They
have a decree from the Water Court and an agreement with the ditch company to allow the water to be
used in Thornton.
Mr. Koleber provided an overview on how they are meeting the eight (8) approval requirements under Weld
County Code Section 23-2-480. Thornton's land services representatives have worked with property
owners along the route to explain pipeline construction, operations, and maintenance activities to determine
a location for the water pipeline that can best meet property owner's preferences. Thornton will continue
to pursue easements through good faith negotiations with property owners and only use eminent domain
as a last resort.
2
The water pipeline and fiber optic cable will be buried below plow depth and land use effects on agriculture
and other similar use will be temporary during construction and anticipated to be minimal after construction.
Agricultural uses such as farming, grazing or access can continue after construction.
Mr. Koleber said that they proposed over 140 mitigation measures and commitments to ensure that
Thornton Water Project impacts are minimized or prevented. Starting with the initial project planning in the
1980's, Thornton identified that a pipeline would be necessary to deliver the water that they had acquired
in the Water Supply and Storage Company and the Jackson Ditch Company systems. In 2014, Thornton
revisited those delivery options and once again confirmed that a pipeline is necessary to meet the needs
of the city. Thornton implemented a process to identify the route for the pipeline that included input from
governmental agencies and the public. Mr. Koleber provided an overview of the pipeline corridor evaluation
and the potential corridors. They narrowed the corridor to a single proposed corridor to which to start their
public outreach.
Mr. Koleber said that they launched a website to provide information and set up a project email and phone
line to make sure that it was easy for stakeholders to reach them with their questions. Additionally, they
had four (4) open houses along the corridor and have responded to hundreds of phone, email or website
inquiries about the project. They have also consistently reached out to the Greeley Tribune to keep them
apprised of the project. The City of Thornton has hired Western States Land Services to acquire the
property interests needed for the Thornton Water Project. They hired them because they take a respectful
approach with the landowners.
As part of the process to acquire easements, they have had requests from a number of property owners
south of Highway 66 to locate the pipeline in Weld County rights -of -way. He added that they followed the
County Commissioners request to stay out of the right-of-way, but they are willing to use the right-of-way
for construction of the pipeline.
Mr. Koleber respectfully requested a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the crossings will be done through boring or open trench. Mr. Koleber said
it will be bored under state highways, county roads, ditch company crossings, jurisdictional wetlands or
waters. He added that the ditch companies they have met with so far have been very cooperative.
Commissioner Holland asked if the water rights vary based on the supply from the Water Supply and
Storage Company and the Jackson Ditch Company. Mr. Koleber said that they vary quite a bit from year
to year. Mr. Holland asked if the applicant has obtained a maximum water right. Mr. Koleber said that it is
covered in their decree and added that they have volumetric limits which indicate that they can't go over a
certain amount. Mr. Koleber said that they manage their water supply to make sure they don't go over
those limits.
Commissioner Stille asked how long it would take for the acquisition of the other 42%. Mr. Koleber said
that they are pretty close on another 10 to 15% with negotiations and thought they would have the remaining
acquisitions wrapped up by the end of the year.
Commissioner Johnson asked how far along the applicant is with getting across Larimer County to tie into
Weld County. Mr. Koleber said that it is going through a court challenge currently and the final briefs in that
case were filed yesterday in Larimer County District Court.
Commissioner Wailes asked if they are any areas that will be co -located with natural gas gathering lines or
any other utilities. Mr. Koleber replied yes and added that they are trying to butt up against it as close as
they can to minimize the impact of people's properties. Mr. Wailes asked if they will be open to co -location
for future utilities. Mr. Koleber said that their easements are nonexclusive so the property owner can grant
another easement as long as there is adequate separation and it doesn't impact their ability to operate and
maintain their pipeline.
Commissioner Wailes asked if there are any cases currently filed for eminent domain. Mr. Koleber replied
that they do and of the cases they filed they have fully settled 8 of those cases, seven (7) stipulations to
possession, and 17 pending cases with three (3) of those cases have already been scheduled for immediate
possession hearings in August.
3
Commissioner Wailes is concerned with eminent domain when there is no permit from the County. He
asked what happens if this case is denied and you can never complete the pipeline in the way you want
and you have these eminent domain cases. Mr. Koleber believes that they will be successful in obtaining
approval. He added that this is a difficult spot because last year the Board of County Commissioners told
them that they can't get the permit until they obtain enough of the easements. He said that they have
identified a specific route and have Home Rule Authority to go out and acquire those easements if they
have to, although they prefer not to. They believe they meet the criteria of the USR permit and they will
acquire all the easements that they need.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the obstacles have been with negotiating the easements with the
landowners. Mr. Koleber said that the oil and gas companies have paid a lot more than what they believe
is a reasonable price for an easement, so the property owners are challenging that. He added that their
valuations are based on what the statute requires plus an incentive. There are a number of landowners
that they have worked closely with to align the route on their property and it takes a lot of work in negotiating.
Commissioner Hatch referred to the 17 eminent domain hearings and asked what that would put them at
as far as percentage of easements. Mr. Koleber replied that if they were to acquire those it would be about
70% by number and 60% by length. He added that there another 40 or so properties that they are currently
negotiating with and getting close to either getting the deal done or the final offer will expire and may need
to proceed with eminent domain.
The Chair called a recess at 3:17 pm and reconvened at 3:34 pm.
Planning Commissioner Tom Cope left the hearing at 3:17 pm.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Stewart Olive, 1812 South College Avenue, Ft. Collins, stated that he is the attorney for Margaret Schneider
and the Eugene F Schneider Family Trust, and also represents the Diecrest Dairy LLC. He added that
these two cases are headed toward hearing for eminent domain for immediate possession on August 14th
Mr. Olive said that the main concern for the Schneider Family is that the proposed location of the pipeline
splits the property in two. There is also a Sinclair gas pipeline going through the property as well. Rather
than going up against the property, as required by State law, this is actually separating the property and
there will be two easements which split the property. The eastern portion of the property, where the pipeline
goes, is actually the view corridor and the value of the property goes up. They believe it violates several
sections of the Colorado Statutes, including Section 38-1-101.5 which requires utility lines to be put close
to one another. Mr. Olive said that if they would move this proposed line to the Sinclair pipeline or to County
Road 13, they wouldn't have an objection.
Commissioner Beck asked how far it is from the Sinclair pipeline. Mr. Olive replied that it is about one-half
section.
Rebecca Hicks, 32460 Inverness Drive, Evergreen Colorado, stated that her daughter owns a legacy farm
and is located at approximately County Road 17 and Highway 42. Ms. Hicks asked for justice and protection
of private property rights for her daughter's land from the proposed Thornton Water Pipeline Project. She
expressed concern that Thornton is wrongfully robbing private property through government overreach and
threatening tactics. She added that this is of no benefit to anyone in Weld County. Ms. Hicks said that in
February 2019 they were informed that the pipeline's straight alignment was not planned to cross or impact
her daughter's property; however, in February 2020 her daughter began receiving condemnation orders
from Thornton attempting to bully her into signing away valuable property rights. She respectfully asked
for protection of their private property rights.
Kathy Weinmeister 5901 Sacajawea Way, Loveland, Colorado, stated that she was a Zeiler and represents
Zeiler Farms Incorporated on County Road 13 along Highway 34 between County Road 13 and half -way
to County Road 17. Ms. Weinmester requested that the City of Thornton go directly south along County
Road 13 along an oil and gas pipeline that was just granted in 2019 rather than jigging across their property.
4
Ms. Weinmeister provided a folder which included maps of the proposed water pipeline and the route that
the Zeiler's are wanting them to follow.
Also included in the folder, is a spreadsheet they put together that shows a savings of over $600,000 for
Thornton to follow the route that they have asked. Ms. Weinmeister said that they are requesting to run
this pipeline parallel to the oil and gas line already approved and to be compensated equitably. Additionally,
the Zeiler property has been approved for a commercial and industrial development in 2009 by the City of
Windsor. She added that cutting into the property takes away from the appeal of commercial from Highway
34.
Commissioner Beck asked if they are involved in a lawsuit at this time. Ms. Weinmeister replied that they
are not.
Ted Simmons, 41494 CR 13, stated that they are getting sued for eminent domain. He added that they are
located south of the Schneider property. Mr. Simmons said that the proposed route of the pipeline covers
up their land to such an egregious degree that the future value they have been counting on will be at best
severely damaged or wiped out. Mr. Simmons stated that have also proposed a route change no less than
five (5) times and added that they haven't even received acknowledgment that Thornton has received their
proposed changes. Mr. Simmons provided maps of their property in relation to the proposed pipeline route
and the Sinclair pipeline.
Garrett Varra, Varra Companies Inc., 8120 Gage Street, Frederick, Colorado, stated that Mr. Koleber
discussed the area between Highway 66 and County Road 26, and he controls about 75 to 80 percent of
the land and is encumbered by the proposed pipeline between those two roads. He also talked to the two
neighbors that control the remaining property and both Ready Mix Concrete Company and Jim McClay and
they request the Planning Commission to endorse the alternative of placing the pipeline in the County right-
of-way.
Mr. Varra said that there are two (2) current active mines and this pipeline would go right between them
and there is also a ditch and a 90 -foot Anadarko easement that poses a lot of operational consternation
both for him and for Thornton as well. He said that they are going to submit a permit to mine another gravel
pit and they will probably get a $50,000 to $60,000 offer on the appraisal for the easement and within that
he will probably lose a half -million ton of material (close to $2M) and it does not include lost water storage
in that area. Mr. Varra requested the Planning Commission endorse the idea of going down County Road
17 using the right-of-way between County Road 26 and Highway 66, as it is a much better option for the
landowners in the area.
Commissioner Johnson asked if they are in a court case with Thornton. Mr. Varra said that they are not
and added that Thornton has acted in good faith towards his business so far.
Janet Ross, 6248 CR 56, Loveland, Colorado, said that Thornton is proposing to put the pipeline on the
east side of their property and have threatened eminent domain. Ms. Ross said that when she spoke to
Western States, they said that they had proof of notice of delivery; however, it was an unsigned return
receipt. She added that they had never received it. She said that she is scrambling to line up an appraiser
and an attorney to go through the contract. The notice that she received was from the postcard she received
for this Planning Commission hearing. She implored the Commission to allow the pipeline to go along
County Road 13 the entire way in the right-of-way following all the utilities as it is the most beneficial and it
is not cutting across all the properties and farmland.
Abe Sauer, 6715 CR 50, Johnstown, Colorado, stated that the Thornton proposed pipeline causes them
damage and potentially puts an undue liability burden on them that can easily be avoided. He added that
they have presented Thornton various alternatives to utilize their property to complete their project and
greatly mitigate the damage that this Thornton project will forever bring to their property and business. Mr.
Sauer expressed concern of the lack of interest for Thornton to do things right.
Randy Fabrizius, 41637 CR 13, stated that Marge Schneider is his mom and he is part of the trust in the
lawsuit. He appealed to the Commission to give Weld County citizens their rights.
5
Rick Myers, PO Box 471, Baggs, Wyoming, stated that he owns farmland adjoining Highway 14 and County
Road 13. Mr. Myers said that the proposal that Thornton came up with for a permanent and temporary
easement really doesn't satisfy them for the land. He said that Thornton is proposing a 100 -foot easement
40 -foot -wide that sits in part of an irrigated field. He expressed concern for the lack of feedback on their
communications.
The Chair noted that two emails came in from the public for comments on this case. Bob Choate, County
Attorney, noted that the applicant has not received those emails therefore, Mr. Choate read them into the
record.
The first email was from Philip Benedict, 38568 CR 13. Mr. Benedict expressed concern regarding the low
value offer for their land and the threat to start condemnation hearings if they don't accept the offer. He
questioned why Thornton is allowed to cost Weld County residents significant out of pocket costs by forcing
them to hire an appraiser and attorney to verify the value of land they wish to take and then refusing to pay
for those out of pocket expenses.
The second email was from Attorney Brad Grasmick, 5245 Ronald Reagan Boulevard. He submitted a
letter on the behalf of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company with concern of Thornton's crossing of the
Larimer and Weld Canal, specifically, those related to the potential impacts which can result from an open
cut of the Canal. He added that a proposed crossing agreement was provide to Thornton for their comment
and review earlier today and they are hopeful that an agreement can be recached with Thornton regarding
the crossing. Mr. Grasmick requested that a condition be included requiring Thornton to obtain a crossing
agreement with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company.
Another email was received from Jill Triantaphyllis. This comment is in addition to what her Aunt Kathy
Weinmeister said today. She stated the Zeiler Farms has been negotiating with Thornton for several
months; however, they have received a final notice before Thornton will file eminent domain. She
expressed concern that these are not good faith negotiations while they are currently working with them to
place the pipeline to save the most of their land and save Thornton money. She added that they think that
Thornton will execute the eminent domain in six days according to the final notice.
The Chair asked the Applicant to speak to why Thornton is unable to incorporate the landowners'
suggestions to move this pipeline through their property in a way that would be beneficial to both of you.
Mr. Koleber referred to the Schneider, Diecrest Dairy and Simmons properties and said they have had a lot
of discussions with the property owners. He added that they worked with them extensively to move the
pipeline farther away from some of their building envelopes. They also worked with the landowners to
move it back against some other areas that weren't as buildable to preserve their building lots. Mr. Koleber
referred to the Schneider's comments of dividing their property and emphasized that it is currently two
properties. He added that the pipeline will run along a property line; however, the Schneiders consider it
as one property. To go farther east to the Sinclair easement, it would move the pipeline more than one-
half mile out and back. He added that they analyzed that option and added that it is quite a bit more
expensive because they need to end up back at County Road 13 going north. Mr. Koleber said that they
didn't stay along County Road 13 as they can't use the right-of-way and they wanted to stay away from
houses and other things along the road. He stated that they feel this is the least impactful on those property
owners. He added that they understand it does cross their property and they are working with them on
what the impacts are.
Commissioner Beck understands that the applicant was told by the County Commissioners to keep the
pipeline out of the road right-of-way and asked why that direction was given. Mr. Koleber said that he
wouldn't want to speculate on why they asked for them to stay out of the road right-of-way. Mr. Beck asked
if they said anything about rather than eminent domain that maybe the County would consider listening to
the proposal of allowing the pipeline in the easement, which has historically been for utility easements. Mr.
Koleber said that the Commissioners, in their statements, indicated that their preference was to be on
private property because they wanted to have it so the property owners got paid for the impacts that they
were going to see out there and they wanted the property owners to receive compensation for that. He
said that he couldn't come in and propose being in the right-of-way, but if the county says that you should
be in the right-of-way, then he would have to go back and check with engineers to ask if that is feasible in
6
that location because he doesn't know what other utilities might be there. He added that they analyzed
this, and it is feasible for that road crossing in being on the private property.
Commissioner Beck asked Staff if there is a reason why the County doesn't put more in the county road
right-of-way. Mr. McRoberts said that there could potentially be other utilities in the right-of-way. In
response to Mr. Beck's inquiry, Mr. McRoberts couldn't answer what the Commissioner's reasoning was to
not wanting anything in the right-of-way. Mr. Beck suggested the applicant or the landowners ask this
question at the County Commissioners meeting as to why you can't use the right-of-way. He added that
this is a utility for the public good and it occurs to him that maybe it would alleviate some problems. Mr.
McRoberts said that the County Commissioners do make a distinction between a distribution line and a
transmission line and because this line would not actually be distributing water to the citizens of Weld
County, they kind of look at this differently because it is just transmitting water to the City of Thornton. Mr.
Beck said he understood that and said to an extent it is a public utility and maybe this is a place to avoid
some of these problems that the County needs to bend a little bit. Commissioner Johnson disagreed and
said there are seven different properties that have county road right-of-way and none of the utilities are in
there, but rather on private land. He added that North Weld County Water District and other lines have had
to be on private property and not the county road right-of-way. He added that he thinks the County
Commissioners are consistent in doing that.
Commissioner Ford asked how big of an easement is needed. Mr. Koleber said that the easement they
are acquiring is a 50 -foot permanent easement and the water line will be located somewhere in the middle
of that with a 40 -foot temporary construction easement. Mr. Ford said they can't use the right-of-way
because the county right-of-way is only 60 feet and doesn't think they could put the pipe in there.
Commissioner Beck agreed and added that they might have to close the road, but he goes a lot of places
now where the road is closed for a lot lesser good that he can see.
Commissioner Stille said that 90 feet is a lot of right-of-way. Commissioner Johnson replied that oil
pipelines took more than that. Mr. Koleber asked him to consider the need for the trench construction,
stockpiling pipe and materials and driving the trucks back and forth along the route.
Mr. Koleber noted that the Zeiler Farms property is located in Windsor and he could talk more about that,
but it is not part of this permit application.
Mr. Koleber said that that they have been busy preparing for this meeting and apologized for not replying
to Ms. Ross's emails. He added that they did receive her request to receive extensions on appraisals and
things like that and he hasn't had a chance to look at them, but he said that they will look at that and see if
there is something they can do. Mr. Koleber said that during their weekly land use meetings they talk about
what they are doing with the landowners and they try to reach the landowners multiple ways, through emails,
phone calls, and knocking on doors. He added that he is willing to commit to working with Ms. Ross.
With regard to Mr. Saur's comments, they looked at their proposals and what Mr. Saur wanted them to do
was bore a diagonal area where there is a bridge. Mr. Koleber said that they looked at it but because it is
very close to the bridge abutments, they talked to Weld County Public Works and the Public Works Staff
advised against that.
Mr. Koleber stated that they have been working with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company and added
that they will coordinate the design with them to make sure they are protected.
In response to the email from Mr. Benedict, Mr. Koleber said that they establish their values even if they
don't do an appraisal on a piece of property. He added that they had appraisers put together Value Reports
that show what those properties are worth if they were to do an appraisal and then they base those initial
offers on those valuations that are done by appraisers, but aren't from appraisals. He said that their
valuations do have validity and merit and are not just numbers picked out of the air. He added that if they
give a valuation less than $5000 the Statute says they don't have to pay for an appraisal, because
appraisals can sometimes cost twice that much or more.
Commissioner Johnson said that he has done a lot of appraisal work and these appraisals don't do a good
job of getting comparables. He said that maybe there needs to be some consideration as to what the
comparables are. He said that property at Highway 34 is not the same value as it is north of Nunn.
7
Commissioner Holland said that it seems Thornton has not received final approval from Larimer County
and they are asking for approval from Weld County. The public is telling them they haven't reached an
appropriate definition of the location of the project. Mr. Choate advised them to not wait to see what
happens in Larimer County because they have no jurisdiction in Weld County and it really doesn't matter
what is going on in Larimer County. As far as the boundary within Weld County, what they had presented
is very specifically described and depicted in their application.
Commissioner Hatch referred to Section 23-2-480.A.6 which states "All reasonable alternatives to the
proposal have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of
the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area". He asked for
clarification if the boundary that the applicant has presented is up to the Commission, not necessarily to
identify a different use, but just say yes or no they can do that. Mr. Choate said that item is referring to Mr.
Koleber's statement that these are the alternative routes that they considered. He said that does not mean
that the Planning Commission can choose the route, but you do need to find that they considered alternative
routes and that this route actually meets that criteria.
The Chair referred to changes that the applicant indicated they would like to make to the conditions of
approval and asked if they could present those. A handout of the proposed changes were provided to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Beck asked if they could simplify this by asking Staff if they recommend these changes be
made or if there is still room to debate them. Mr. McRoberts, Public Works, said that he was on the phone
with Jody Henry last Friday and they agreed with language that appears on this handout. Ms. Aungst
referred to the proposed change on Condition of Approval 4 Prior to Construction for any segment of the
pipeline which requests to combine Conditions 4.G, 4.J, and 4.K. She stated that Planning is in support of
this change. Mr. Choate stated that there is enough specificity here that if you are in agreement with all of
the proposed changes that you could approve them in a single motion.
Motion: Accept the changes to the Resolution, as presented by the applicant, Moved by Richard Beck,
Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and amended
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement. Mr. Koleber stated that when they are before the County Commissioners they will request an
extension of the time to file the USR maps because they would like to file the maps in segments.
Commissioner Johnson said that on the benefit of the residents of Weld County, he believes the applicant
needs to be further along and he doesn't like the heavy hammer approach that they are taking.
Mr. Choate recommended that the Planning Commission does not consider the eminent domain actions as
it relates to the criteria for approval or denial of the USR.
Mr. Johnson understood that and added that he would like to see a higher percentage of the establishment
of the permanent easement.
Commissioner Holland said that he is uncomfortable where this project is and doesn't think that is the role
of either the Planning Commission or the County Commissioners. He doesn't like that some of the things
that at this stage he would think should be further along. He agreed with Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Choate said that it is very important that you do not try to usurp the authority of the Court in a
condemnation case. The Court is the one that determines what is fair market and what they are required
to pay and whether they have the authority to condemn if they want to condemn.
The Chair asked if they should be looking at Section 23-2-400. Mr. Choate said that the proposed
Resolution outlines the provisions of the Code that you need to be looking at, which is Section 23-2-480.
He added that these are the criteria that the applicant presented upon and that you will need to apply the
facts to the law. The Resolution contains findings based upon Staffs Report and the recommendation is
for approval. If you choose to recommend denial, Mr. Choate advised them to look at these criteria and
8
determine if the reason to recommend denial fits with any of those criteria. He added that you should only
recommend approval or denial based on facts that are relevant to these criteria.
Commissioner Stille asked if there can be a recommendation from the Planning Commission to postpone
this until several of the concerns that the constituents have are answered and then come back in a
reasonable amount of time. Mr. Choate said that the Planning Commission could postpone it to a date
certain and would also be making that decision on the behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Stille agreed with Commissioners Johnson and Holland that there is not enough data here.
Commissioner Hatch asked if it would also be in their purview to not just extend that date but also request
a certain amount of information be supplied before they come back. Mr. Choate said that if you continued
the matter to a date certain you could tell them what you wanted to see. He also pointed out that because
of the time that this occurs they are very careful not to do this at the end of the year when it comes to Board
of County Commissioner meetings because there is turn over on the County Commissioners as well as
Planning Commissioners so only those persons that were here during this meeting could hear the case
later. Mr. Hatch asked if that includes individuals that have left early today. Mr. Choate replied yes and
added that they would not be able to hear the case since they were not able to hear all of the evidence.
Mr. Hatch pointed out that we would no longer have a quorum then with three Planning Commissioners
leaving as their terms are expired July 3181. Mr. Choate recommended that the Planning Commission make
a recommendation for approval or denial today.
Commissioner Wailes has a hard time getting past eminent domain. He referred to Item 5 in Section 23-2-
480.A regarding the health, safety and welfare for the people of Weld County. Commissioner Hatch
included Item 6 relating to consistency with the best interests of the people of the County. Mr. Wailes said
that they have seen letters in the public comment that was submitted and personally shown to him and
wonders how can anybody have a sense of welfare in their private property when they are being threatened
with condemnation. He said that he takes that into consideration and understands that he won't be here to
do anything with the court, but he doesn't envy the position of the applicant. He added that he doesn't want
to stand in the way of them accessing the water that they have the right to. Mr. Wailes stated that he can't
speak for the Board of County Commissioners, but he doesn't think that their intention for the applicant to
have acquisition of easements included the strong-arm techniques that he has seen and heard today from
the public. He pointed again to Item 5 and stated that it is a welfare issue and the welfare of the people
who own this property.
Commissioner Ford agreed and said that our citizens have lived on their land for 100 years and are told
that they have to give their land away for practically nothing for this pipeline and he doesn't feel it is right
for the people of Weld County.
Commissioner Johnson said that it is their responsibility to listen to their constituents and the right to look
at some of these things.
Commissioner Beck agreed that the Planning Commission is the sounding board and because of the way
they are changing the way the Planning Commission operates through zoning and code changes he feels
that some of that sounding board will be lost. He said on this particular issue it may be a good time for
them to be heard.
Commissioner Stille said that ultimately Thornton will get their water, but it has to be done right. He added
that people's property rights can be abused and he doesn't care if they have to go two miles underground
all the way, the applicant needs to make sure that it is done right. Mr. Stille stated that the right thing for
him to do is vote no and let the County Commissioners make that decision. He thinks Thornton will have
to work with constituents.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0130 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Richard Beck.
In Commissioner Johnson's motion he cited Agricultural Goals and Policies Section 22-2-20.A Respect and
encourage the continuation of agricultural land uses and agricultural operations . He said that he is in favor
of what the applicant is doing and it needs to be done and is necessary. He added that he brokered the
9
first three farms that Thornton purchased and also owns rights in the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company,
Water Supply and Storage Company and the Cache la Poudre so he was involved indirectly through Water
Court. He just thinks that there needs to be a better effort to protect the citizens and the landowners in
Weld County.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Dwaine Barclay, Tom Cope.
Commissioner Ford said that based on what he has heard from the citizens of Weld County he doesn't
believe that all reasonable alternatives have been adequately assessed. He added that he also doesn't
believe this is in the best interests of the people of the County.
Commissioner Hatch cited Section 23-2-480.A.5 and Section 23-2-480.A.6 and added that he doesn't
believe the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of Weld County
Commissioner Holland cited Section 23-2-480.A.3 regarding the design of the proposed pipeline mitigating
negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible.
Commissioner Beck said that this is a matter of just one more time when they get a chance not to trample
on individual rights.
Commissioner Stille cited Sections 23-2-480.A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6 which has to do with constituent's
comments, and he is also concerned about Larimer and Weld Irrigation crossings and the financial concerns
with the Varra request.
Commissioner Wailes cited Sections 23-2-480.A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6 and added that he believes this falls under
health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on welfare of the residents of Weld County.
Meeting adjourned at 5:46 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
4 , 11t --
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
10
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME --_PLEASE
PRINT
LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
EMAIL
John
Doe
123
Nowhere
Street, City, State,
Zip
3:Ii
6 a-/' < < -1,
17 s 1
C-- ' ' ' ALi
, G rC � e (It C a 'O3'1
t,icn
RIC�U'��
(Ecc\
(tvol'e,tia .S
��'
St)
LAN ck (7evo,c.4
CO 'OZi�2
3O,J Rhp4v,cf<
I ---fr �c} lSrcl,*vcv i'.@.4tve'N4ia ei'Zc.L
11J-ep,Anyckn
t',
;���,,.t,9�,
1
`/�/--
1
i
ScD ttptc'n
o O CdeLe q 9 O a
__
enct%Ick. Fek 6
LPL, "S it) {; 3 Ft ego
V Cole
PO
i
a \
,r-
e tF2% I ik 5 ,
_ _ _I
i`-a
S?c1Fc
Ft 'e6 D i a N
si3 ,J
ao EO 41Ci
s �
e,A0 -5
/J c.o
nay
.66 ,
Znisr co (Z 4
gaZ 1LsLn(9Eacc3q
� 91
k
ra (c
tA.-tra
I.tC•e��5
y� L'1 ,
it/ice 400/49-20/ ge)
1414414•51" 1e=D
��
/1-�v-�.t' 1
a
_ste?
kcakstaNts_fte
w+a,rtit,
16/4W43.t
44614404A
VIA -tip
wcALz1/41,4sposta__6Tt\w4 flt(0
*luck,
wit_
•
�
LAL.;
s
i
w
-
1I a
..,
■
_
.°*V
qsoc) G (te' 7 c ern
1 7-3
U O- v^
t
1+ c r\ AA
Da n tie . !.no/I i
L
--71w--)
if4
✓ ;big . ,
uJi ,l 2L 9
,
91/
IRIA 5: 0 Afe ieketa_ 4.5/ 4.01r c.
<#74,4/neitedr) /Ave,,,(0,4,i,
�'a6erPIotl.k �
., e_ �Cie�
5-:aini 47 ( "dr
_ _Ii_ _
`!` �437 C,2 .3 17t Lo//, � s _
t z 1 w s
Fiji_C
,
kr Gcr 14 / C"_%i
3 2 YG 4 Zeal' v.,tJrfDc CV47,ee,*'
/remheecNct, - R . b! rcks
IIZC> a.i c 54 -RrrJcrv4
c• fjo
I sol i.f rite �/,r�'s c,, ,,`
trrc+t IforroN_- - -
5
jb kW cry
id'Q �1� G `J�- �' (cap /fir -
t LJ /J We t-lCSi'� LA
/ r ',may
°Let/ft/cc 4 Mont
\4L21
yeA1
'
fete'.
Su.��rc���.-�T 1..e„0a ,tP577-7
tot
w'zsai (
n
_
OvvYv
5/sivvvi
•s
r\YtV€t
ZCIL-4flt
I t j ,
A, 4,44- _ _
__
ri FL Cie. a Ffri. Iv Matie ro 4,d/
17
riga rh tot_ 15 40.?_ Kai
NY -101 I
el Cart
ICI 6 211
62-7---& cla I
_ci
_s-‘046g3eator?
_ _ sA$Lstrtoi
_S__4-icar
TeaStr►tv OAS
ciIiQlcriche_ RA
potc 0J�-1
4-5iv►tirvt[1✓g-IQy�2�ll�c
-[, '7
Ovideit 1 � iota .eaft-7
n 1 wcalk s%
,
hVhbenOeil(
CO &o>e''
J -
1 - -- - -
Iir
i t
i
a Ar Ai
•
tar
• iri di
_ _e
1
i
1. I✓ Pi Zf
Ail ,CAM FG. b km e r 40eP
Oil 17 AM, ,gd Z,
• t -A borielper
kYn
nnitripthe s9r i ar57
mss m •, --0
,ciAnde
i�
of
.Ccs .
rt,44,g . CrJLn
&0m
c 06
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
- PLEASE
PRINT
LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
€
AI's
John
Doe
123
Nowhere
Street,
City, State,
Zip
4 i iir-
EY)
DitA
'Jed
ti
. Y
mitt
L-3
L l l.r
Actrekat:i_esLALS___
.
arl
icisiofri_s
Pio
-x 7/ ga 5 afl(
VIC' rY1
ay
eiti 9 $ c
Mqiri_
.O r
O�
t' -c y At lc
I ar
cif 6-tp (.4iit's tr-b fraksito
- •-rbmisaot
Co
3ert n % h i
A i•• , )stet1/41
c
t .1
IC Soo er
sib
•
'• trek M
•
C) j CC)
1 a a-
a •-`.
!
clarA
OINICAL
Cli $(,77
4
4
cli:
_
f
Hello