HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191036.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
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 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Sparrow, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille, Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard
Beck, Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Angela Snyder, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Lauren
Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Hayley Balzano and Mike McRoberts, Public
Works; Bob Choate and Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the February 19, 2019 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Tom
Cope, Seconded by Gene Stille. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0123
APPLICANT: DUANGCHAI WASHBURN, C/O NEXIUS SOLUTIONS, INC.
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A 256 -FOOT TALL GUYED TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA
TOWER IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 SECTION 14, T8N, R62W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 300 -FEET NORTH OF CR 92; APPROXIMATELY 2,440 FEET
WEST OF CR 83.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0123, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that a letter of objection was received from the adjacent
tower facility regarding concerns that the applicant would have the ability to collocate on this tower. The
applicant provided a response that if the antenna is placed on an existing tower, First Net Antenna would
be in subordinate position and thus reduce First Net's coverage area. The Department of Planning Services
recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development
standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Joe Oliver, consultant for AT&T, Nexius Solutions, 7025 South Full Street, Centennial, Colorado, stated
that they are proposing the 256 -foot telecommunication tower. He said that they received the
correspondence from American Tower yesterday along with an engineer's statement that it would be the
same level of coverage for Nexius to collocate on their tower. However, what they did not address is that
the collocation would have to demonstrate not only technical feasibility but also economic feasibility. He
added that American Tower has not demonstrated that the tower is structurally feasible to attach antenna
equipment to it and that it would be economically feasible.
Mr. Oliver stated that one of the reasons First Net was established as a first responder network and
partnered with AT&T, was because AT&T could provide the First Net network at a reasonable cost and
American Tower has not demonstrated the ability to allow them to collocate on that tower at a reasonable
cost.
Commissioner Stille asked the applicant to explain what First Net is. Mr. Oliver said that First Net was a
public safety network and is a modernized E911 system applied to first responders going into updated
technology. He added that it was established by Congress in 2017 and Colorado was the last state to adopt
Go mmu6co.'honS
3/is! �q
1
2019-1036
it. The intent is to modernize first responders, fire fighters and medical first responders and to get as wide
a coverage as possible.
Commissioner Stille asked what the County uses for communications. Mr. Gathman said that a response
was submitted by the Weld County Public Safety Communications Manager, however, it does not
specifically say what system it uses, but that that they have identified a need for improved public safety
wireless voiced communications in the Briggsdale area.
Elizabeth Walker, AT&T, added that First Net is a dedicated network for first responders and is separate
from the traditional consumer network and provides pre-emption for first responders and priority
communications for them. She added that it will give the first responders high speed access to access and
download plans and information.
Commissioner Sparrow asked what the reason is to put two towers next to each other when it seems to
serve the County better when it would be five to ten miles apart. Mr. Oliver said that the issue with
collocating is economic feasibility and in order for them to deploy equipment required for First Net they
cannot feasible pay American Tower the rates that they are requesting. The market value has been set for
the land that they are positioned on. He is concerned that they will be priced out of the market and that
American Tower established a prohibition in the County from additional towers and service as it applies to
First Net. He added that they don't want the County to miss out on this service due to an economic issue.
Mr. Oliver further stated that in terms of coverage, AT&T and First Net have determined that specific area
north of Briggsdale is a priority for deployment and that is how they came up with that location.
Commissioner Hatch asked what the timeline or process is for updating the aviation sectional charts to
represent that tower. Mr. Oliver said that it will be determined by FAA and their process. He added that
AT&T has done their diligence by submitting all required documentation to the FAA and they have received
a response that no hazards are available. He is not sure on the specific timeline for the FAA to respond.
Mr. Hatch asked if this tower would be existing before it is listed on the sectional chart or would it be listed
prior to construction. Mr. Oliver said that he understands that AT&T needs to register the tower a head of
time.
Mr. Gathman said that per the County Code there are requirements for collocation and the application
states that the tower will support AT&T's equipment and accommodate collocation of at least three (3)
additional wireless carriers.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jordan Bunch, 1800 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado, stated that she is with Holland and Hart, counsel for
American Tower Corporation. Ms. Bunch stated that the Weld County Code is very specific that the purpose
of the section which governs telecommunication towers is to limit the number of towers in Weld County and
to require collocation when it is technically or economically feasible. She said that it is the applicant's
responsibility and burden to demonstrate through substantial evidence that collocation is not economically
or technologically feasible and that the same coverage area could not be served on an existing tower, and
the applicant has not met that burden here.
Ms. Bunch said that the applicant has not provided coverage maps for any existing towers and did not show
why or how an existing tower could be modified in order to reach their coverage. As shown in the coverage
maps submitted by Ms. Bunch, she said that the coverage would be the same. She added that the applicant
claims it is not economically feasible, however, American Tower Corporation and AT&T have partnered on
First Net equipment on several towers across the Country.
Ms. Bunch said that American Tower can be extended by 20 feet by right and added that it is currently 198
feet in height. She said that American Tower would be willing to do if AT&T wanted them to extend the
tower.
Ms. Bunch noted some deficiencies in the application including Section 23-4-803.C requires an analysis of
the minimum height that the new tower is required to be in order to meet the coverage needs, Section 23-
4-830.C.13 requires a decommissioning plan, which was not included in the application and Section 23-4-
840.A.11 requires that the applicant submit a map indicating the service area and radius of both the
2
proposed tower and all towers within a 10 mile radius. Ms. Bunch encouraged denial of this application or
at a minimum remand it back to Planning Staff for further review.
Commissioner Cope asked if the tower has been structurally analyzed to see if the applicant's equipment
could be safely mounted on American Tower. Ms. Bunch stated that she understands it has been.
Commissioner Hatch asked how many towers are within a 10 -mile radius of American Tower. Ms. Bunch
said she wasn't sure for the exception of American Tower.
Commissioner Sparrow asked Staff to address the application concerns. Mr. Gathman said that the County
Code delineates a preferred order for towers so it is not necessarily mandatory for collocation. He added
that the application does indicate that the applicant is proposing to have three (3) additional antennas on
the tower and that the proposed tower will allow for 36 additional antennas reasonably spaced to prevent
interference. Mr. Gathman said that the applicant addresses the height of the tower, however, they did not
provide a map the identifies the range of the other existing towers within 10 miles. In regard to the
decommissioning plan, Mr. Gathman said that the applicant stated in the lease that the tower would be
removed upon termination of the use of the tower.
Commissioner Wailes clarified if the applicant has fulfilled the application material. Mr. Gathman said that
he feels they have met the criteria for the exception of the coverage map.
Commissioner Wailes referred to Section 23-4-840.B where the provider should give an inventory of the
providers' existing telecommunication facilities and Ms. Bunch made the argument that AT&T should
provide this information. He asked legal counsel if Nexius Solutions should be held to this section of the
code. Bob Choate, County Attorney, said that it is up to interpretation because it is not clear what the
provider is. He noted that these are application requirements and application contents. He said that Staff
has determined it is complete application since it is being brought to the Planning Commission. The
argument is being made that Staff has made this mistake, but he doesn't necessarily believe that it is the
Planning Commission's mistake to correct and that they should review the criteria and the collocation issue.
Mr. Gathman stated that the main provider on the antenna (with the exception of FirstNet) is AT&T. The
inventory of existing telecommunications facilities is required for the first application for a telecommunication
provider in the County. AT&T is not new to Weld County.
The Chair asked the applicant to respond to the questions and comments. Mr. Oliver said that the extension
of the American Tower is true in that that they could extend the tower through an expedited process,
however, there is no structural evidence that it would be possible. He said that Ms. Bunch said that
structural analysis has been completed, however, American Tower typically requires the carrier to pay those
engineering fees to prove on their own accord that the tower is structurally feasible which is another
economic hardship that is imposed onto AT&T. He added that they would be potentially paying for a
structural analysis that could fail and result in the replacement of the tower that would require them to go
through the same process of building their own tower.
Mr. Oliver referred to AT&T providing substantial evidence that collocation is not possible, however it is
predicated on economic and technical feasibility. He said that it is not economically feasible to attach to
American Tower's site.
Commissioner Cope said that this would be beneficial information to have before the County Commissioner
hearing as opposed to just statements. He added that the applicant is looking to rent space out to other
carriers just like American tower. However, the Planning Commission needs to see information showing
how that really impacts AT&T and the tower. Mr. Oliver said that it is difficult to provide specifics due to
confidentiality of financials between the two companies.
Commissioner Beck said that he would like to see the coverage of existing tower and the coverage of the
proposed tower. He added that he would need to see dollars and cents about what the applicant's
perspective is on why they can't collocate on American Tower.
Commissioner Sparrow said that he doesn't care about the financial aspect and added that he cares about
what is best and safe for Weld County.
3
Mike Wallace, Weld County Director of Public Safety Communications, said that currently Weld County Is
not supporting First Net and the federal program that has been put out there. Weld County currently has
its own infrastructure and supports public safety on its own. As part of his referral, he submitted a clause
to be included for access to that facility in order to put public safety communication equipment, as well as
a building, onto that property to support Weld County's direct public safety communications. The location
that they submitted their application on is a benefit for Weld County public safety.
Commissioner Stifle asked if this tower would have Weld County's communications system. Mr. Wallace
said it is a potential location to make that a Weld County RF site for public safety, even though Weld County
does not use First Net network.
Commissioner Beck asked if Weld County has any equipment on American Tower. Mr. Wallace said that
they do not since they have to evaluate the tower itself and the location in order to provide the appropriate
coverage area in that vicinity. Weld County has investigated multiple towers in that area and have tried to
work with several energy companies that have towers in that location. He added that they have not
successfully been able to acquire or to gain access to those towers in that area.
Commissioner Stille asked where Briggsdale Fire and Weld County at with feasibility of First Net network
versus Weld County public communication network. Mr. Wallace said that there is not a single user public
safety agency in Weld County that is signed with First Net. All of the public safety agencies fall under Weld
County communications and currently Weld County does not support the First Net operation.
Mr. Wallace said that there is an area in Briggsdale that is a low coverage area that fades in and out.
Commissioner Cope asked what the approach is for looking at other towers. Mr. Wallace is not aware of
the American Tower and added that they have investigated about a dozen other towers looking for the best
location and have not had success with any type of negotiations at this point and are very interested with
this application.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. They replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0123 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stifle, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
Commissioner Ford encouraged the applicant to have the answers to the questions that were mentioned
by the opposition, especially about coverage.
Commissioner Beck commented that the County Commissioners need more information, specifically
regarding coverage.
Commissioner Holland agreed with Commissioner Beck and Commissioner Ford.
Commissioner Stille agreed with the Planning Commissioners comments as well.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0112
APPLICANT: GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC
PLANNER: TOM PARKO/DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
INCLUDING OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (OUTDOOR STORAGE
OF PIPES, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER MATERIALS USED BY OIL AND GAS) IN
THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -2744, PART NW4 SECTION 20, T3N, R64W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
4
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 32; APPROXIMATELY 0.25 MILES EAST
OF CR 51.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0112, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Mr. Frissell requested an addition to Development Standard
20.
Shannon Toomey, AGPROfessionals, 3050 65th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, stated that the applicants are
proposing a pipe laydown area to include outdoor storage of pipes and other material used by oil and gas
operations in the area. The site will also include an office trailer and portable restrooms. There is currently
a residence and outbuildings on site which will remain on site, however, they are not proposed to be part
of the operation of the laydown yard.
Commissioner Ford said that the application states that the office trailer will have a restroom facility and
asked what purpose the portable restrooms will serve. Ms. Toomey said that since the application was
submitted the applicant is now separating the two facilities.
Commissioner Johnson asked why there is separation of the storage areas on site. Ms. Toomey said it is
because those areas were more suitable for storage space.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked Staff if they had any changes to the Resolution. Mr. Frissell requested to add the following
sentence "Portable toilets shall be screened from existing adjacent residential properties" to the end of
Development Standard 20.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 20, as requested by Staff, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0112 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
The Chair called a recess at 2:01 pm and reconvened the hearing at 2:06 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-O110
APPLICANT: BOX M RANCH
PLANNER: TOM PARKO/DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
INCLUDING OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (OUTDOOR STORAGE
OF PIPES, EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER MATERIALS USED BY OIL AND GAS) IN
THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RECX18-0136; PART S2 SECTION 28, T4N, R64W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF CR 40; APPROXIMATELY 0.1 MILES WEST OF CR 55.
S
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0110, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Parko noted that one (1) letter of objection was received with concerns of diminished
property values, damage to County Road 40 and unsightly junk. 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 existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Mr. Frissell requested an addition to Development Standard
20.
Tim Naylor, AGPROfessionals, 3050 65th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, stated that the applicants are
proposing an oil and gas support facility, specifically a laydown yard for storage of pipe and related
equipment. There will be an office trailer located on site as well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked Staff if they had any changes to the Resolution. Mr. Frissell requested to add the following
sentence "Portable toilets shall be screened from existing adjacent residential properties" to the end of
Development Standard 20.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 20, as requested by Staff, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0110 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0116
APPLICANT: ENERPLUS RESOURCES (USA) CORPORATION
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE FACILITY (CENTRAL
GATHERING FACILITY TO RECEIVE NATURAL GAS, PRODUCED WATER
AND OIL ALONG WITH GAS COMPRESSION, GAS PROCESSING,
PRODUCED WATER RECYCLING, A SALT WATER INJECTION DISPOSAL
WELL, STORAGE YARD AND FIELD OFFICE, FIVE (5) CARGO CONTAINERS
AND TWO (2) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OFFICE TRAILERS TO BE
UTLIZED DURING CONCSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY) IN THE
A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 SECTION 26, T8N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) MILE EAST OF CR 19; APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES
SOUTH OF CR 90.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0116, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted one (1) letter was received in objection with concerns of
being in close proximity to the facility including the injection well, drainage impacts, traffic impacts and the
lack of landscaping or screening if the facility is located to the south property line. As a result, to address
6
these concerns, the applicant has moved the location of the proposed facility approximately 1600 feet north,
which is closer to the middle of the section. In a follow up letter from the objector, they are still concerned
with the landscaping and screening of the site. Mr. Gathman said that the applicant has been working with
the neighbor on their concerns of landscaping. The facility will access to the north onto County Road 90.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
Hayley Balzano, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site.
Commissioner Wailes asked when the traffic study is required to be completed. Ms. Balzano replied that it
needs to be completed prior to the recording of the USR map and more specifically prior to completing the
Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Jacob Everhart, Enerplus Resources, 950 17th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that they are proposing a
centralized gathering system from their surrounding well sites. There are currently three (3) producing well
pads with five (5) wells total. He added that they will be drilling an additional five (5) wells this year within
two (2) miles of this centralized facility.
Commissioner Wailes asked if the gathering system will also be bringing the produced water back for the
salt water injection. Mr. Everhart replied that it will and added that they have submitted a LAP (Location
Assessment Pipeline) application for a 12 -inch pipeline for the facility.
Mr. Everhart added that they have prepared a traffic study and the results show that no large impacts will
be experienced by the community.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dave Lindsay, 11217 CR 90, stated that there are more than 30 trucks that run on County Road 90 per
day. He expressed concern regarding the increase in traffic, impact on their water wells, and the noise that
the facility will produce. He stated the access road should be paved due to blowing dust. He added that
by moving the site to the middle of the section, the facility will be three-quarters of a mile away from their
residence.
Virgil Taylor, 12006 CR 90, stated that he lives east of the subject property. He is very concerned about
the traffic, vibration and dust. He added that they moved to this area from north of Barnsville to get away
from the wells. Mr. Taylor recommended paving that county road to help with dust and traffic.
The Chair asked Staff to explain the traffic study and counts. Ms. Balzano said that the traffic count was
completed on October 6, 2016 with 109 vehicles and added that the traffic may have grown in the area
since then. She further added that the traffic study will only be on this USR traffic and not other drilling
traffic in the area. Commissioner cope asked if the applicant uses their own traffic count or the County's
traffic count, Ms. Balzano said that typically they will use the county's traffic count for background traffic
and then they produce their own numbers proposed by the business. Mr. Cope said that it seems like the
County should request that the traffic data should be within the last year. Ms. Balzano said that they can
request that or include it in the conditions of approval.
Ryan McLoughlin, Enerplus Resources, said that vibration is an issue and added that it was a combustor
issue with flows coming out of the wells and went to great expense to correct this issue. He said that the
compressor will be run off of fuel gas and they intend to reduce the amount of equipment on the pad to
reduce the visual impact. He said that the traffic will decrease after the wells are drilled and added that
they did perform dust abatement on County Road 19 last year. He indicated that the goal is to phase in
recycling and to phase out trucking. He indicated that a LAP application was submitted yesterday for
pipelines tying into this proposed facility.
7
Mr. McLoughlin said that with regard to the noise from the existing pads, they are trying to tie into the
gathering facility to reduce flaring and potential for noises and vibrations.
The Chair referred to the concern of the domestic water wells. Mr. McLoughlin said that the water wells
are at approximately 370 feet deep, however, the formation they are going into is 9000 feet down and
everything is cemented and cased.
With regard to site selection, Mr. McLoughlin said that they chose this site because it is central to their
development in the area.
Commissioner Ford asked how much noise the compressors make. Mr. McLoughlin said that they would
need to perform noise studies to evaluate the noise level. He added that they will perform studies to
determine the mitigation that they need to have for noise.
Commissioner Beck asked staff what the noise standard is. Mr. Frissell said that the applicant would have
to meet the commercial noise standard at 55 and 60 decibels measured at 25 foot from property line.
Commissioner Cope said that he doesn't see the traffic study information in the application material and
asked if a new traffic count was conducted or if the applicant used the County's traffic count. Mr. Everhart
said that they used a new contractor to go out and conduct the numbers and added that they submitted
that information with the application. Ms. Balzano said that she believed they haven't received the traffic
study and added that they were willing to have it listed as a condition of approval in this case.
The Chair asked Staff if they have any changes to the Resolution. Ms. Balzano said that she does not have
any changes, however, they could add to Condition of Approval 1.A that updated traffic counts are to be
provided in the traffic impact study, if the Planning Commission desires. Commissioner Cope
recommended adding a limit that a traffic count in the last year be provided.
Commissioner Beck said that it seems over the last year, these facilities have provided traffic counts and
added that it is important that Staff brings those to the floor. He added that most of the time what most of
the neighbors refer to is the count before and after the facility is constructed. Ms. Balzano said that they
typically do require it prior to considering the application complete, however, because the numbers were
not as high as it was initially proposed, it was requested to move it forward from completeness review.
Commissioner Ford requested to add a Condition of Approval that requires a traffic study be submitted prior
to the Board of County Commissioner hearing. He added that in the future it should be submitted prior to
the Planning Commission hearing.
Bob Choate, County Attorney, stated that this discussion pertains more to the findings of the application
and recommended amending the Resolution by adding language under Section 23-2-220.A.3. He
recommended adding "The Planning Commission bases this recommendation of approval on the
Applicant's statement that they will provide the Department of Public Works with an updated Traffic Impact
Study prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners".
Motion: Add that a traffic impact study is required prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing,
Moved by Lonnie Ford. The Chair asked if he would like to make that a condition of approval or
development standard. Commissioner Stille suggested that it be prior to recording the USR map but should
be done within the year. Dawn Anderson, Public Works, said that they would want the data within a year
and added that if the applicant can submit the traffic study they will review it prior to the County
Commissioner hearing. Commissioner Ford withdrew his motion.
Motion: Add recommended language provided by Staff under Item C Section 23-2-220.A.3, Moved by
Gene Stille, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
8
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0116 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Elijah Hatch, Seconded by Skip Holland.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
The Chair called a recess at 3:40 pm and reconvened the hearing at 3: 50 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0120
APPLICANT: BAR NINE, LLC, CIO GREG JOHNSON
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AIRPORTS AND AIRSTRIPS (GRASS AIRSTRIP FOR TAKING
OFF AND LANDING OF SMALL SKYDIVING AIRPLANES) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -5012, PART N2SW4 SECTION 12, T4N, R65W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: 1/2 MILE WEST OF CR 49; 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF CR 48.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0120, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that a letter of objection was received outlining concerns
regarding dangerous encounters of skydivers, the filing of three (3) complaints with the FAA regarding
safety violations and opening a landing strip next to an established airport due to safety reasons.
Additionally, a letter was received objecting and asserts that the application cannot meet three of the criteria
of approval for this USR due to the potential of negative impacts on the existing airport and safety concerns
due to the proximity of aircraft and potential for more skydivers in the area.
Mr. Gathman noted that according to the Weld County Code, skydiving ties into the definition for recreation.
There is no requirement in the Code as there are skydiving operations (specifically the skydivers — not the
planes) that land on properties throughout the County and does not require a USR. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if they should be looking at this case as an airstrip that can only be used for
skydiving or should they look at it as an airstrip that can be used for multiple uses. Mr. Gathman said that
it is ultimately up to Planning Commission, however, Staff is limiting it to the use that was requested in the
application which was for a skydiving operation.
Commissioner Holland asked how to control aircraft when there are two private airfields adjacent to each
other. Mr. Gathman said that the determination of the FAA was an important piece of the puzzle. Therefore,
that is way Staff has included a Condition of Approval to address the conditions and recommendation of
the FAA.
Hayley Balzano, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Greg Johnson, 22455 CR 49, stated that he opened a baseball field to all the youth in the area in 2002 and
added that it then became host of the Valley Vikings for seven (7) years. In 2007, they help build a softball
and baseball field in Gilcrest so there hasn't been a need for a baseball field on his property. Eason Valley
Airport started having skydiving at their facility and met quite a few of the skydivers. He added that the
Rocky Mountain Skydive preferred having the activity on his drop zone which stopped the activity at the
Easton Valley Airport. Therefore, Mr. Johnson said that they wanted to continue the activity and is
requesting the airstrip to land airplanes on grass on his property.
Mr. Johnson referred to the FAA referral and said that there have been no midair collisions with any of the
non -controlled airports in Weld County. He added that the aeronautical study performed by the FAA
9
determined that the establishment of this airport will not adversely the safe and efficient use of any airspace
or aircraft.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the sod farm will be maintained where the airplanes will be landing. Mr.
Johnson replied yes. Mr. Johnson asked if the sprinklers will limit the airplane operation. Mr. Johnson said
that the sprinkler will run at night and added that it is 85% sand based so it doesn't get muddy.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern in landing airplanes in close proximity to the existing airport.
He said that the flight patterns were always to the left and asked if that has changed.
Drew Weaver, 6725 Union Street, Arvada, Colorado, stated that he has a Bachelor of Science in airport
and airline management and has flying skydivers for 20 years. He said that the Greeley -Weld County
Airport uses both left-hand and right-hand traffic patterns. He added that they are able to do this as an
uncontrolled airport and not have any problems with it. He said that as part of federal regulations it is a see
and avoid rule and added that there are supplementals that tell the pilots a great deal of information on how
the traffic works and what the local area is like. He added that using a common traffic advisory frequency
will be included in the supplemental for this proposed airport. Additionally, they are adjusting their traffic
pattern to avoid the traffic of the neighbors to the north.
Mr. Weaver said that while technically this is an uncontrolled airport, the FAA regulations require that they
have a 2 -way radio communication with the nearest air traffic control center. All aircraft are required to
have this per FAA regulations. He indicated that DIA has a satellite based radar system that will track the
airplanes while they are on the ground. He added that they are on the edge for DIA, but there is a
transponder area past Mr. Easton's that is utilized. Mr. Weaver provided an explanation of how he
communicates with the Denver Airport when operating with skydivers.
Commissioner Cope asked if the radio frequency will be the same for all of the surrounding airports. Mr.
Weaver said that Valley View and Greeley -Weld airports have two different frequencies that they are using,
however they will have two radios on board and each of those radios have the ability to both talk and monitor
the traffic.
(Bob Choate left the meeting at 4:45 pm and was replaced by Bruce Barker, County Attorney)
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ben Whitney, Dill and Dill Law Firm, 455 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that he is representing
Bob Easton who is the owner/operator of Easton Valley View airfield. Mr. Whitney said the existing airstrip
is 660 feet to the north of the proposed airstrip. He submitted hard copies of letters and maps into the
record.
Mr. Whitney stated that Valley View airport has been there for 54 years and is a privately owned airport. It
is used primarily for aerial application (crop dusting) and skydiving and also used by members of the public,
and student pilots. He said that aerial application is done primarily May through September and is
dramatically busier over the summer.
Mr. Whitney referred to the documents he submitted and explained the traffic patterns of the Valley View
airfield in relation to the close proximity of the proposed airfield. He expressed a large concern regarding
the safety of the visibility of the pilots and the skydivers. Mr. Whitney noted occasions where the skydivers
have drifted into the path of the pilots from the Valley View airfield. He referred to the FAA referral and
added that he is concerned that it is dependent upon a level of communication and cooperation.
Commissioner Cope said that the Planning Commission and Staff are not experts on this, however he relies
heavily on the FAA to give solid recommendations. He added that he doesn't believe that they would
consider allowing anything that could potentially happen. He asked Mr. Whitney if he feels the FAA is
wrong. Mr. Whitney said that he contacted the FAA on how they prepare these studies and added that he
was told that they may send someone out to fly around and see how the air space is used. He added that
he is not sure that they looked at all the factors that he would have liked them to look at. Mr. Whitney said
that this airstrip is a completely different operation in the summer and to look at it in the winter isn't an
10
accurate picture of what is going on in the air space. Much more air traffic from crop dusters occurs in the
summer in this area than during the winter. He believes the FAA is missing some critical information.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the FAA is only concerned with the planes or are they concerned with the
parachutes as well. Mr. Gathman said that the referral referred to the respect to the safe and efficient use
of navigable air space by air craft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. He
added that they have considered matters such as the effects that the proposal would have on existing and
planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the existing air space structure and projected programs of
the FAA, the safety of persons and property on the ground and the effects of the existing or proposed man-
made objects on file with the FAA.
Commissioner Ford referred to the submitted maps and said that the flight pattern for Valley View goes
across the applicant's property. He asked if the take off -and landing patterns could be changed to avoid a
safety issue. Mr. Whitney deferred to have the applicant answer that question.
Bob Easton, 23482 CR 48, LaSalle, Colorado, said that he is concerned as it is a safety issue. He added
that he has been flying for about 45 years and hasn't had a problem until this past summer. He expressed
concern with the safety of mid-air collisions and the safety of the skydivers. He noted occasions where the
skydivers have drifted into their flight patterns.
Commissioner Ford referred to the take -off and landing patterns and asked if the traffic patterns would be
changed to a right turn. Mr. Easton said that they could change it, but they do that because of the houses
in the area.
Tom Morrow, Rocky Mountain Skydive, said that he opened this business in March 2017 and believed he
has received harassment all summer. He voiced concern on the occasions where he has had near
collisions with parachutes and skydivers. Mr. Morrow added that there has been no coordination or radio
contact.
(Elijah Hatch left the meeting at 5:20 pm)
Ron and Virginia Mix, 23430 CR 53. Ms. Mix is concerned with the numerous flights that the skydivers take
over the properties. She added that she lives 2.5 miles east of these airfields. Ms. Mix said that a single
engine plane crashed about 500 feet from their house.
Mr. Mix said that the last three years there have been more private airplanes over their house.
Commissioner Stille clarified if they are concerned with both landing strips. Mr. Mix said that there are three
landing strips within a 1 -mile radius of these two airfields.
Boyd Jenkins, 3500 35th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado stated that there is some contention between Mr.
Weaver and Rocky Mountain Skydiving. Mr. Jenkins noted occasions where he experienced safety issues
with Mr. Weaver. He said that he is concerned with the skydiving operations and believes that they should
be operated out of the Greeley -Weld County Airport. He added that they as they try to land at the sod farm,
they will be drifting into the Valley View traffic pattern.
Darrel Dilley, 20501 CR 37, said that he has been involved with aviation for 50 years. He said that when
runways are close together he said that they do a lot of special training. He added that he has been a
training instructor for an airline and is here as a safety advocate. Mr. Dilley said that there has to be a lot
of considerations, letters of authorizations, letters of agreements to operate in this close proximity. He said
that as a flight instructor they teach risk mitigation to look at the risk and try to mitigate it.
Mr. Johnson said that he can't help but disregard Mr. Whitney's comments as the FAA who did review this
case said there was no problems. Mr. Johnson referred to the question of why he located the proposed
airstrip where he did and said that he chose that location because it was on the half -circle sprinkler that he
could run at night and there are also no houses where the flight path would go over.
Mr. Johnson said that the runways intersect at 5600 feet west of Mr. Easton's runway. He said that there
are skydivers on Mr. Easton's airport. He asked if there was a reason why the skydivers for his operation
11
are more dangerous than the skydivers that go to Mr. Easton's. Mr. Johnson stated that they have total
confidence in what they are doing and hope they will be given the opportunity to operate this.
Commissioner Cope asked if there will be drifting to the south. Mr. Johnson said that the parachutes travel
at 20 mph through the air while they are sailing. He added that they never skydive when the wind is above
15 or 20 mph.
Jamin Katzer, 12500 Bellaire Street, Thornton, Colorado, said that he holds the highest license in the USPA
which is a governing body that the FAA has deciphered to govern a parachute and he is also a tandem and
IAD instructor and a coach as well. Mr. Katzer said that they take into consideration of drift with parachutes
and the communication between pilots of where they will drop the parachutes. The parachute will fly for 20
mph. He added that they have to mitigate safety when they have to make a decision whether they need to
jump or not. Mr. Katzer said that he is confident that if they can communicate and follow the FAA
recommendations that there will be no conflict and they will operate this safely.
Commissioner Ford referred to the landing patterns of the north/south airstrip of Valley View and said that
he is concerned that plane patterns go right across Mr. Johnson's property. He asked with that landing
pattern if any of the pilots will be flying for Mr. Johnson's operation. Mr. Johnson said that they will not be
flying and will not put them in any jeopardy.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Stille said that based on what he has heard today it seems that there is more concern about
competition. He added that safety has been mitigated as much as possible and he feels bad for the
community that these two organizations don't get along.
Commissioner Beck referred to Section 23-2-220.A.3 regarding the uses permitted will be compatible with
the existing land uses and Section 23-2-220.A.4 regarding uses permitted will be compatible with future
development. He said that he has confidence in the pilots they listened to today and the guys who know
how to operate the skydiving, however, he has no confidence that the whole thing doesn't work without
communication between these two airports. Therefore, he will probably vote against this.
Commissioner Ford said that the real problem here is communication. He said that they need to
communication with each other for the safety of the community.
Commissioner Holland said that safety is a number one concern for him. He said that consistency with
existing uses is important in Weld County and is concerned with communication as well.
Commissioner Cope agreed with the safety issues. He said that his concerns are probably not with this
airport or this land strip. He asked if the FAA was notified that this was for the purpose of jumping or not.
He referred to the referral from the FAA and said that there is no discussion at all about it being a jump
situation and the potential of parachutes also being involved in this. He added that they talk strictly about
the flying concerns and the landing concerns. He is also concerned with the existing landing strip and said
if there are beginner pilots they may be the biggest danger to anything. He said that things happen, and
he doesn't want to be responsible to have made a situation that he thinks is a little bit marginal right now
with just the one air strip to throw another air strip into it.
Commissioner Sparrow said there seems to be a lot going on in a small area. He said that he is not sure
if FM was aware of the jumping going on as the same time as the flights.
The Chair asked Staff if the FAA received all of the application materials that explain the full use. Mr.
Gathman replied that they received all of the information, as they were a referral agency. Mr. Johnson said
that he submitted a form to the FAA which included the request for a private air strip for landing skydiver
airplanes.
Commissioner Wailes said that it is hard to separate the two air strips and as far as airport owners are
concerned they need to look beyond any competing interests and make sure that they are putting public
safety as a paramount. As far as the contractors operating out of either of those establishments, the hope
12
again is that there is some mutual cooperation. Mr. Wailes said that he doesn't worry so much about the
student pilots because he thinks they are probably more aware of the surroundings, where the pilot who
flies into the Easton airport that has never had to look for other planes or skydivers off of other air strips.
He said that for the sake of being good neighbors he hopes that they can come to some agreements and
figure out how to make things work.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0120 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Gene Stille, citing compliance with Sections 23-2-260 and 23-2-220, Seconded by Michael
Wailes.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 3, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Tom Cope.
No: Bruce Johnson, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Elijah Hatch.
Commissioner Wailes believes that the applicant has shown that they have met with all seven (7) items of
Section 23-2-220. He said that he doesn't think the use of the word mitigation is ever a bad thing as they
try to mitigate risks.
Commissioner Cope referred to Section 23-2-220.A.7 that there is adequate provisions for the protection
of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. He said that he has
to rely on the FAA as being the formidable experts on this.
Commissioner Ford said that he is very concerned about safety but based on the Staff presentation and
the testimony he heard today he is in favor of recommending approval.
Commissioner Beck cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 and said it is not compatible with surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Holland said that he doesn't believe this application is in compliance with the health and
safety issues of the neighborhood. He believes that it is inconsistent with the existing uses.
Commissioner Sparrow asked the operators and landowners to please communicate to each other because
the alternative is that someone will lose their life out there if communications fall apart.
The Chair called a recess at 5:58 pm and reconvened at 6:08 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR19-0001
APPLICANT: QUOKKA INVESTMENTS COLORADO LLC
PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE,
OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (LAND REMEDIATION BUSINESS INCLUDING A SHOP,
OFFICE TRAILER, TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE) PROVIDED THAT
THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED
SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PART OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO
ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B RECX17-0154, PART SW4 SECTION 22, T6N, R64W OF THE 6TH P.M.,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 66; APPROXIMATELY 0.3 MILES EAST OF
CR 55.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, presented Case USR19-0001, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Snyder noted that six (6) letters of opposition were received outlining
concerns of disruption of a quiet, rural lifestyle, decrease in property values, increase in traffic and noise,
disruption of local wildlife, incompatibility with the residential character of the neighborhood, commercial
use of prime agricultural land, not wide enough access, and loss of mountain views. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
13
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site. Mr. McRoberts recommended removing Condition of Approval 1.8 as the applicant has
completed this condition.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Light noted that the noise level for commercial is specified,
however if the Planning Commission believes that noise would be an issue that can be amended to the
residential noise level.
Steve Mumm, 9202 Minsmere Circle, Spring, Texas, stated that this request is for the parking of up to 10
trucks and five (5) pickup trucks. He added that there will be machine shop where light maintenance can
be performed on the trucks. Additionally, they are requesting a future building for future potential growth.
Commissioner Ford asked if he plans to build a home on site. Mr. Mumm said that he intends to build a
home on site in the future.
Commissioner Cope asked about where and how the trailers will be parked as well as the employee
vehicles. Mr. Mumm said employees will park by the proposed building and north of the employee parking
will be for the truck parking. Mr. Cope asked if there is enough room for circulation. Mr. Mumm replied yes.
In response to Commissioner Sparrow's inquiry, Mr. Mumm replied that there will be 10 trailers located on
site.
Commissioner Holland asked what the remediation business is being involved in. Mr. Mumm said that the
remediation business has large pieces of equipment such as bulldozers and blades and their work can be
done to prepare sites for housing development or sites for oil and gas development. Mr. Holland clarified
if any the equipment is hauling any hazardous waste. Mr. Mumm replied that they are not hauling any
wastes.
The Chair asked if the use is for truck parking only or will it include the equipment. Mr. Mumm said that it
is larger for the truck parking. The equipment will either be on the trailer or in one of the 10 parking spaces
proposed on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Josh Fox, 27236 CR 66, Gill, stated that he submitted a letter in objection to this request. He believes it
will be out of place for their neighborhood and added that there are many other areas in Weld County where
this business would fit in more appropriately. Mr. Fox said that the applicant stated he is an investor and
he is concerned that as an investor they are looking to make money off of it. Additionally, he is concerned
about increasing trucks on site after approval of 10 trucks.
The Chair asked if there is anything that can be mitigated to make this more comfortable in the
neighborhood. Mr. Fox stated that he would appreciate dust control and expressed concern that there may
be nighttime operations and the cleanliness of the yard.
Emanuel Miller and Alexandria Martini 27215 CR 66. Mr. Miller said that he has some of the same
concerns. He stated that there is a hill on County Road 66 where his driveway is, and it is difficult to see.
He expressed concern regarding his access and the truck traffic.
Alexander Martini said that they have horses and chickens and a rottweiler on their property and is cautious
about the safety of her and her animals with strangers adjacent to their residence.
Vicki Haithcoat stated that she lives next door to this site and expressed concerns of her views of the trucks
and equipment from her home. She said that this operation doesn't fit in this neighborhood.
Kim Helburg, 32300 CR 55, stated that her land connects with the applicant's property. She has lived there
for 23 years and would like to keep it agricultural. She added that the heavy equipment and chain link fence
is not agricultural.
14
The Chair asked the applicant if he will be leasing this property to another contractor or if he owns this
company. Mr. Mumm said that his brother-in-law owns the land remediation company and they are working
together on this site. He added that they do not intend to sell or lease it out to another trucking company.
The Chair asked Staff is they had any changes to the Resolution. Ms. Snyder referred to Development
Standard 4 and requested to amend that to 1.5 acres, as the application stated 1.5 acres.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 4 to reflect 1.5 acres as requested by Staff, Moved by Tom Cope,
Seconded by Lonnie Ford. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. McRoberts recommended deleting Condition of Approval 1.B.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.B, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked Ms. Light if she had any changes. Ms. Light asked if the Planning Commission wished to
change Development Standard 18 to the residential noise standard. The Planning Commissioner wished
to leave the development standard as it is stated.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR19-0001 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
No: Michael Wailes, Skip Holland.
Absent: Elijah Hatch.
Commissioner Holland said that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Cope said that he believes it meets all the criteria and added that it is somewhat compatible
of the surrounding properties since it is a low impact and with the nearby dairy farm.
Commissioner Stille cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 regarding compatibility with all the other trucks and farming.
He added that it is somewhat a rural residential neighborhood and is concerned with future development.
Commissioner Wailes cited Sections 23-2-220.A.3 and 23-2-220.A.4 regarding compatibility and is
concerned that it is a narrow corridor that has residential tucked in on both sides of the property.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Beck requested that the traffic studies be relatively complete prior to the Planning
Commission hearing. He added that it doesn't make sense for them to be making decisions on stuff that
not only might not come before them but also might not be ready for County Commissioners and might not
be ready until after the County Commissioners have seen it. Commissioner Johnson agreed and said it
might be the cart before the horse. Commissioner Cope agreed and added that it is something that has a
value to their decision making.
The Chair asked what kind of action they can take regarding this matter. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,
said that you are expressing your desire that it be the case, so the Board of County Commissioners will
take that into consideration. He said that currently we are working on some changes to Chapter 23 and
part of that includes the requirement of having a traffic study. He added that he has been talking to Public
Works as to exactly when it is to be submitted. Mr. Barker said that discussion has been ongoing and
15
added that he appreciated your comments and Board of County Commissioners will consider that when
they hear the changes to Chapter 23. The Chair asked if a resolution needs to be made for this change.
Mr. Barker said that a resolution can be made since it sounds like there is some concurrence that this would
be a good change. He suggested that Dawn Anderson with Public Works can relay the comments to the
Board of County Commissioners in a summary form. Commissioner Cope doesn't believe it would be a
hardship for the applicant to get the traffic study done earlier because it is generally a two to three month
process on their end that they could be asking for the traffic study fairly early on.
The Chair asked if Commissioner Beck is comfortable with providing comments to the County
Commissioners or if he would like a formal action to be taken by resolution.
Motion: Provide traffic studies prior to the Planning Commission hearing, Moved by Richard Beck,
Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
16
Hello