Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of September 17, 2008

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Oppenheimer was absent.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Jill Bennett, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, Heather Zimdahl, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, Wallace, and Weitkunat on a site visit to Lettis Ridge Estates Subdivision and Becker Subdivision on September 17, 2008.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 20, 2008 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

A few members of the audience were in attendance to discuss Lettis Ridge Estates Subdivision.

Chariman Morgan asked those in attendance for their concern.

 

Rebecca Huth and Mark Kulick, 727 Sunbird Lane explained that they owned the property directly to the west of the proposed Subdivision and their major concern was drainage.  Mrs. Kulick elaborated on the historical drainage pattern of the property as it related to the proposed subdivision and stated that a resolution to the problem had been discussed by the surrounding property owners but nothing had been resolved.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the drainage issue could be resolved at the final plat stage of the project.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that staff would like to understand and discuss the drainage issues at the current stage of the project.

 

Chairman Morgan moved the item to discussion item #5.

 

TABLED ITEM:

Mr. Lafferty stated that the applicant had requested that the Prospect Mountain Water District Service Plan, file #08-G0156, be tabled to October 15, 2008 at 6:30pm. 

 

MOTION by Commissioner Cox to table the Prospect Mountain Water District Service Plan (08-G0156) to October 15, 2008 at 6:30pm; seconded by Commissioner Glick. 

 

Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  LIVERMORE COMMUNITY WELL LOCATION AND EXTENT, FILE #08-Z1712:  

Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a community water supply to serve 3 residences, the “Forks” restaurant, and the Road and Bridge facility.   The applicant proposed to replace the well and construct a treatment and distribution system that would meet the requirements of the Colorado Department of Pubic Health and Environment.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if there was a difference between a water system and a well as it pertained to the project.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that because the existing well water would be serving private residences and the public at the Forks restaurant, it had to receive a certain level of treatment that the well could not offer.  Because of that and permitting issues, a water system was needed.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if a building on the site would be needed.

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes, there would be a small building put on the site.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Hart moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Livermore Community Well Location and Extent, file #08-Z1712, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes.

 

Commissioner Hess seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING 1041 REGULATIONS, FILE #08-CA0084: 

Mrs. Bennett provided background information on the proposed Land Use Code Amendments regarding the 1041 regulations.  More specifically, to add Section 14 and designate power plants, electric transmission lines and electrical substations as Matters of State Interest, and also to amend Table 12.3.I. Public Hearing Notice Requirements. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Joe Wilson, representative for the Platte River Power Authority explained that they were a generation and transmission provider and supplied wholesale power to the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, and Estes Park.  He remarked that he felt staff had developed a good draft of the regulations that would work well with the Platte River Power Authority.  He further provided his support to the regulations as presented.

 

Margaret Beer, 2419 Creekwood Drive stated that she believed that wind farms were a wave of the future.  However, she was concerned with industrial wind farms.  She believed the proposed setbacks in the 1041 regulations were inadequate.  She felt neighbors would be subject to noise, flash lighting, and shadows as a result of industrial wind farms.  She requested that the Planning Commission err on the side of caution and increase the setbacks for the wind farms to minimize any effects on neighbors. 

 

Berry Feldman, 401 E County Road 56 remarked that the regulations should be written with care in order to protect the citizens of Larimer County.  He felt that there was no protection from projects already approved but have not yet begun construction.  He asked that the Planning Commission send the proposed regulations back to the Planning Department to clean up the loop holes.

 

Mrs. Bennett explained that the regulations that pertained to projects already approved through the Location and Extent process were put in place based upon legal advice received by staff.  She elaborated on the belief that once the project had been approved through location and extent the Planning Department could not legally go back on that approval.  She explained that the proposed regulations were based upon an extensive amount of research, discussion with experts, and comments received.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the section that pertained to effects on the public health and safety with regards to the review criteria would be subject to the specific design of the project.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied yes.  She explained that the standards could change for specific projects based upon neighboring conditions.

 

Commissioner Glick asked what triggered significant adverse affects and negative impacts.

 

Mrs. Bennett explained that there was a good deal of judgment involved in the process.  She stated the review criterion was not precise. 

Commissioner Glick asked if staff had seen any language in the research that was done that would trigger additional review criteria that would clear up and make the standards more specific.

 

Mrs. Bennett stated that as information evolved with the process and best practices were established, more specific standards could be incorporated. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked is staff was able to find any precedence as to when best practices were reviewed to keep them current and protect the citizens of Larimer County. 

 

Mrs. Bennett replied no, but it would make sense to make a policy on that.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the proposed setback would be enough for solar access for neighbors.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied that it had not been specifically looked at.  She explained that the regulations had been set to accommodate safety standards.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she thought that height and voltage were taken into consideration.  She asked if both increase in height and/or voltage would require review with 1041 regulations.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied no, not in the draft that was being presented.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if Joe Wilson would be able to comment on the question at hand.

 

Joe Wilson, Platte River Power Authority, remarked that there could be a possibility that the voltage of a line would need to be changed, without necessarily increasing the height.  He explained that current projects that they had for consideration were increasing conductors not voltage.  He elaborated on the types of voltages and lines in Larimer County.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if staff could add in some language that dealt with voltage increases, or could look at this issue before the Board of County Commissioner hearing.  She expressed concern that a change in voltage would not be subject to a Location and Extent review either, and therefore would not have any County review.

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested a change to section F that added increases to voltage.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if there should be a time associated with the upgrades so that they are not being done every year.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the voltage was increased would the height need to increase.

 

Mr. Wilson said no.  He elaborated on the types on increases.

 

Nate Ader, 1105 10mile Canyon Road, Livermore stated that he had concerns with setbacks for wind generators, property values, and quality of life for neighbors.

Commissioner Morgan closed public comment.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Benton asked what zoning districts wind farms would be allowed in.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied that the 1041 regulations would override zoning. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if compatibility with the Master Plan would still be considered.

 

Ms. Bennett replied yes.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the right-of-way needed for transmission lines to support a power plant was also considered as part of the 1041 permit.

 

Ms. Bennett replied yes.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if glare and low-frequency noise were considered in the research that was conducted.  He also asked about the setback issues that had been brought up with the public comment; he questioned whether they were addressed in the best practices and literature.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied that noise was becoming less of an issue as technology and design improved.  She explained that the shadow and strobe affect drop off with distance.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if the setbacks could be changed in the future if needed.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied yes, and the issue could also be addressed case-by-case.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat suggested that the regulations give different setbacks for buildings and residences.

 

Commissioner Wallace commended staff for all the great work that was done preparing the regulations. She indicated that the two issues discussed, setbacks for residences and increases in voltage on transmissions lines, should be looked at further.

 

Commissioner Hart concurred with Commissioner Wallace.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding 1041 regulations, file# 08-CA0084, be approved with the recommended changes shown in the staff report; and in addition in sec. 14.4.F direct staff to recommend language that would include an increased voltage that would be a percentage or a number over a specific time period, and direct staff to speak with industry represented to determine what specific language would be appropriate; and concerning setbacks sec. 14.11.A.1.a direct staff to recommend language to be added that would reflect that additional setbacks would be contemplated when there are houses or structures in the vicinity.

 

Add the following Section:

 

Section 14.0 Areas and Activities of State Interest

 

14.1 Purpose and Intent

The purpose of this section is to facilitate the identification, designation and regulation of areas or activities of state interest consistent with applicable statutory requirements.

 

14.2. Applicability

These regulations shall apply to all proceedings concerning the designation and regulation of any development in any area of state interest or any activity of state interest which has been or may hereafter be designated by the Board of County Commissioners, whether located on public or private land.

 

14.3. Designation process for matters of state interest.

 

A. The Board of County Commissioners may in its discretion designate and adopt regulations for the administration of any matter of state interest.

 

B. Public hearing required.

1.  The Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing before designating any matter of state interest and adopting regulations for the administration thereof.  No less than thirty (30) calendar days but no more than sixty (60) calendar days before the designation hearing, the Board shall publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.

2.  The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing and provide a recommendation to the Board on the proposed designation prior to the Board hearing.  Notice of any hearing before the Planning Commission shall be published no less than fourteen (14) days before the Planning Commission hearing date in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.

 

C. Criteria for designations.

At the public hearings(s), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider such evidence as they deem appropriate, including, but not necessarily limited to testimony and documents addressing the following considerations.

1.  The intensity of current and foreseeable development pressures.

2.  The reasons why the particular area or activity is of state interest, the dangers that would result from uncontrolled development of any such area or uncontrolled conduct of such activity, and the advantages of development of such area or conduct of such activity in a coordinated manner.

3.  Applicable policies of the Larimer County Master Plan and any duly adopted intergovernmental agreements affected by the area or activity under consideration.

4.  The extent to which other governmental entities regulate the area or activity proposed to be designated.

5.  The testimony, evidence and documents taken and admitted at the public hearing.

6.  The recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission.

 

D. Adoption of designation and regulations.

1.  At the conclusion of the hearing, or within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board may, by resolution, adopt, adopt with modification, or reject the proposed designation and accompanying guidelines or regulations.

2.  Each designation order adopted by the Board shall, at a minimum:

a.  Specify the activity or area of state interest to be designated;

b.  Specify the boundaries of the designated area of state interest, if applicable;

c.  State reasons why the designation is appropriate in light of the review criteria considered at the public hearings pursuant to the above section; and

d.  Specify the regulations applicable to the designated matter of state interest.

 

14.4. Designated Matters of State Interest.

 

The Board of County Commissioners, having conducted a public hearing consistent with the requirements of Section 24.65.1-404 C.R.S. and having considered the intensity of current and foreseeable pressures on and within Larimer County; the dangers that would result from uncontrolled conduct of such activity or development in an area of state interest; and the advantages of conduct of such activity in a coordinated manner, does hereby find and declare the following to be matters of state interest.  A 1041 permit shall be required prior to any of the following activities, unless specifically exempted.

 

A.  Siting and development of any electrical power plant with a generating capacity of fifty (50) megawatts or more, or any addition to an existing power plant which increases the existing design capacity by fifty (50) megawatts or more.  This designation shall not include use of temporary generators at an existing electrical power plant in an emergency situation. 

 

B.  Conversion of an existing electrical power plant to a new type of fuel or energy, but not including a change from coal to natural gas, and also not including a change in start-up fuel. 

 

C.  Siting and development of a nuclear power plant of any size, or any addition thereto.

 

D.  Siting and development of a wind power plant in which there are more than three wind towers or where any wind generator tower exceeds a hub height of 80 feet, or any addition thereto increasing the existing design capacity of the facility by 10% or more or expanding the area of the plant.

 

E.  Siting of electric transmission lines and appurtenant facilities that are designed to transmit electrical voltages of 69,000 volts or greater, whether erected above ground or placed underground.

 

F.  Any existing transmission line upgrade that involves expanding an easement or right-of-way or increases the height of transmission structures by more than ten (10) feet.

G.  Siting of an electrical substation or transition site designed to provide switching, voltage transformation or voltage control required for the transmission of electricity at 69,000 volts or greater.

 

14.5. Exempt Development Activities.

 

A.  Statutory Exemptions. 

These regulations shall not apply to any development in an area of state interest or any activity of state interest if any one of the following is true as of May 17, 1974.

1.  The specific development or activity was covered by a current building permit issued by the county.

2.  The specific development or activity was directly approved by the electorate of the state or the county, provided that approval by the electorate of any bond issue by itself shall not be construed as approval of the specific development or activity.

3.  The specific development or activity is on land which has been finally approved by the county, with or without conditions, for planned unit development or land use similar to a planned unit development.

4.  The specific development or activity is on land which was either zoned or rezoned in response to an application which contemplated the specific development or activity.

5.  The specific development or activity is on land for which a development plan has been conditionally or finally approved by the county.

 

B. Specific Exemptions.

The regulatory provisions of this section shall not apply to any of the following.

1.  Any activity which, as of the date of designation as a matter of state interest, meets one of the following criteria.

a.  The activity is part of  a final discretionary county land use approval and protected by a site specific development plan or agreement whose vesting period has not expired.

b.  The activity has a complete application filed and in process for a discretionary county land use approval, provided the applicant (if a public entity) commits to being bound by any conditions of a final county approval or by denial of the application.

c.  The specific activity has been acted upon by the Planning Commission as a location and extent application.

 

 

 

14.6. Relationship to other county, state and federal requirements.

 

A.  If a 1041 Permit is required under this Section 14, other sections of the Code shall not apply unless specifically stated in this Section 14, or unless applied by the County Commissioners as conditions of approval.

 

B.  Review or approval of a project by a federal or state agency does not obviate, and will not substitute for, the need to obtain a 1041 permit for that project under this section.

 

C.  These regulations shall not be applied to create an operational conflict with any state or federal laws or regulations.

1.  The applicant may request that the county application and review process be coordinated with the applicable state or federal agency review process

2.  To the extent practicable and appropriate, the county may coordinate its review and approval of the application, including the terms and conditions of such approval, with that of other agencies.

 

14.7. Appeal of 1041 permit requirement.

An applicant may appeal the requirement for obtaining a 1041 permit.

 

A.  Appeal process.

1. Initiation of appeal.  A written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director on a form provided by the planning department.  An application fee established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is submitted. 

2. Contents of appeal.  The appeal application must include a description of the scope of the proposed activity and evidence that supports the appeal including evidence that demonstrates how section 14.7.B. review criteria are met. 

3. Scheduling.  Upon receipt of the appeal, the planning director will schedule the appeal on the next available agenda of the county commissioners, no later than 60 days after the date on which a properly completed application is filed. 

4. Notice.  Notice shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 12.3 Notice of Public Hearing.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing date.

5. Action by the county commissioners.   

a. At the appeal hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff and any interested party.

b. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that granting the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section 14.

c. The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning commission for a recommendation. The decision to refer an appeal to the planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14 days of the date the appeal was submitted.

d. The decision of the county commissioners shall be final.  The decision may include a requirement for an additional review process including but not limited to Site Plan Review or receipt of a Construction Permit from the County Engineer.

 

B.  The county commissioners shall consider each of the following review criteria and make findings pertaining to each one which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal.

1.  Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose or intent of this Section 14.

2.  The development or activity has received approval through a state or federal permitting process which has utilized review criteria substantially the same as those contained in this regulation, and which has afforded a similar or greater amount of input by affected citizens and property owners of Larimer County. 

 

14.8. Intergovernmental agreements.

 

A.  Upon request of the State of Colorado or a political subdivision of the state proposing to engage in an area or activity of state interest, the requirements of this Section 14 may be met by the approval of an intergovernmental agreement between the county and such applicant.  The county commissioners may, but shall be under no obligation to do so, approve such an intergovernmental agreement in lieu of a permit application and review as provided by this section.  In the event such an agreement is approved by the county commissioners, no 1041 permit application to conduct the activity or area of state interest shall be required, provided that all of the following conditions are met.

1.  The state or political subdivision applicant and the county must both be authorized to enter into such an agreement.

2.  The purpose and intent of this Section 14 must be satisfied by the terms of the agreement.

3.  A public hearing must be conducted by the county commissioners. Notice of the hearing must be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in Larimer County not less than 30 nor more than 60 days before the date set for the hearing.  Prior to the hearing, the county commissioners shall approve the form of any proposed intergovernmental agreement, subject, however, to final approval of the agreement at the conclusion of or subsequent to the public hearing and based upon the evidence presented there.  The public hearing shall be for the purpose of taking comment upon the proposed intergovernmental agreement, the provisions of which have been determined to be acceptable to the applicant and to the county.

4.  Both the county commissioners and the state or the governing body of the political subdivision applicant must approve the agreement in the manner required of each of them by the state constitution, statutes and any applicable charter, ordinance or resolution.

 

B.  Exercise of the provisions of this section by the state or an applicant that is a political subdivision of the state shall not prevent that entity from electing at any time to proceed under the permit provisions of this regulation.  Additionally, any entity which has previously proceeded under the permit provisions of this regulation may at any time elect to proceed instead to seek the establishment of an agreement.

 

14.9. 1041 permit application and review process.

 

A.  No person may engage in development in a designated area of state interest or conduct a designated activity of state interest without first obtaining a 1041 permit, unless the county commissioners have granted an appeal to the requirement for a 1041 permit or have adopted an intergovernmental agreement per Section 14.8 such that a permit is not required.

1.  If a development or activity subject to these regulations is proposed as an integral part of a land division process, the applicant shall comply with this section prior to obtaining final plat approval.

2.  No building permit shall be issued by the county for an activity or development subject to this Section without the applicant having first obtained a 1041 permit, unless the county commissioners have granted an appeal to the requirement for a 1041 permit or have adopted an intergovernmental agreement per Section 14.8 such that a permit is not required.

 

3.  1041 permits issued under this section shall not be considered to be a site specific development plan and no statutory vested rights shall inure to such permit.

 

B.  General process outline.  The following is a general outline of the steps required for any permit decision under this Section.  More specific information regarding these referenced steps is contained in Section 12 Common Procedures for Development Review and in the Technical Supplement to the Land Use Code.

1.  Pre-application conference.

2.  Complete and sufficient application received.

3.  Referral to affected agencies.

4.  Public hearing before the planning commission and county commissioners.

5.  Post-approval requirements.

 

C.  Notice of 1041 permit hearing.  Notice shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 12.3. Notice of public hearing.

1.  Not later than 30 days after receipt of a completed application for a 1041 permit, the planning director shall set and publish notice of the date, time and place for a hearing before the county commissioners.  The notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in Larimer County, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days before the date set for the hearing.

2.  Within the time constraints above, the planning director shall schedule the application for a hearing before the planning commission.  Notice of the planning commission hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation for the county at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing date.

3.  A notice will be mailed to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing(s) according to the procedures and requirements of Section 12.3.3 Mailed notice. 

4.  C.R.S. §§ 30-28-133(10) and 24-65.5-103(1) require an applicant for development to notify all owners and lessees of a mineral interest on the subject property of the pending application. The applicant must submit, to the planning department, a certification of compliance with this notice requirement, prior to the initial public hearing for a 1041 permit, except for those types of development applications specifically excluded below. Failure to submit the required certification of notice will result in the public hearing being rescheduled to a later date.  According to C.R.S. §§ 24-65.5-102(2) an application for development does not include applications with respect to electric lines, crude oil or natural gas pipelines, steam pipelines, chilled and other water pipelines, or appurtenances to said lines or pipelines; therefore notification of mineral interest owners and lessees is not required for those activities.

 

D.  Any application for a 1041 permit which relates to the location, construction or improvements of a major electrical or natural gas facility as contemplated by 29‑20‑108 C.R.S. as amended shall be subject to the terms of that statute.  In the event of an inconsistency between the statute and these regulations, the statute shall control.

 

14.10. General requirements for approval of a 1041 permit application.

 

A.  The applicant must submit a complete and sufficient application that is consistent with the submittal requirements that are stated at the pre-application conference.

 

B.  A 1041 permit application may be approved only when the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal, including all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, complies with all of the applicable criteria set forth in this Section 14.  If the proposal does not comply with all the applicable criteria, the permit shall be denied, unless the county commissioners determine that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the permit which will enable the permit to comply with the criteria.

 

C.  If the county commissioners determine at the public hearing that sufficient information has not been provided to allow it to determine if the applicable criteria have been met, the board may continue the hearing until the specified additional information has been received.  The commissioners shall adopt a written decision on a 1041 permit application within 90 days after the completion of the permit hearing. The 1041 permit will be in the form of a Findings and Resolution signed by the Board of County Commissioners.  The effective date shall be the date on which the Findings and Resolution is signed.

 

D.  Review criteria for approval of all 1041 permits.

1.  The proposal is consistent with the Master Plan and applicable intergovernmental agreements affecting land use and development.

2.  The applicant has presented reasonable siting and design alternatives or explained why no reasonable alternatives are available.

3.  The proposal conforms with adopted County standards, review criteria and mitigation requirements concerning environmental impacts, including but not limited to those contained in Section 8 of this Code. 4.  The proposal will not have a significant adverse affect on or will adequately mitigate significant adverse affects on the land on which the proposal is situated and on lands adjacent to the proposal.

5.  The proposal will not adversely affect any sites and structures listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places. 

6. The proposal will not negatively impact public health and safety.

7.  The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from natural hazards including floods, wildfire or geologic hazards.

8.  Adequate public facilities and services are available for the proposal or will be provided by the applicant, and the proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems.

9.  The applicant will mitigate any construction impacts to county roads, bridges and related facilities. Construction access will be re-graded and re-vegetated to minimize environmental impacts.

10.  The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands as a result of the proposed development.

11.  The proposal demonstrates a reasonable balance between the costs to the applicant to mitigate significant adverse affects and the benefits achieved by such mitigation.

12.  The recommendations of staff and referral agencies have been addressed to the satisfaction of the county commissioners.

 

14.11. Additional specific review criteria and standards.

 

A.  Additional review criteria for power plants.

1.  Proposed transmission facilities have been identified and included as part of the power plant project.

2.  Wind power plants must meet the following standards:

a.  All towers must be set back at least 750 feet from property lines and public rights of way.

b.  The wind generator turbines and towers must be painted or coated a non-reflective white, grey or other neutral color.

c.  Facilities must not be artificially illuminated unless required by the FAA.

d.  Facilities must not be used to display advertising. 

e.  Electrical controls must be wireless or underground and power lines must be underground except where the electrical collector wiring is brought together for connection to the transmission or distribution network, adjacent to that network.

f.  Noise generated from the wind power plant must be in compliance with the Chapter 30, Article V. Noise of the Larimer County Code.

g.  The operator of the plant must minimize or mitigate any interference with electromagnetic communications, such as radio, telephone or television signals caused by the plant.

h.  Towers for wind generators must be constructed of a tubular design and include anti-climb features.

i.  The facility design must use best practices available to protect wildlife.

 

B.  Additional review criteria for electrical transmission lines.

1.  The siting and design of the proposal addresses potential levels of electrical and magnetic fields (EMFs) by exercising “prudent avoidance” to limit exposure. 

 

14.12. Post approval requirements.

Prior to the issuance of a 1041 permit approved under this section the follow conditions must be met, if applicable.

 

A.  The applicant may be required to obtain a construction permit from the county engineer.

 

B.  A development agreement may be required as a condition of approval of the 1041 permit and may include requirements for performance guarantees.

 

C.  An agreement concerning decommissioning, abandonment or reuse of the permitted facility may be required as a condition of approval of the 1041 permit.

 

14.13. Technical revisions and 1041 permit amendments.

 

A.  Any change in the construction or operation of the project from that approved by the county commissioners shall require staff review and a determination made by the planning director in writing as to whether the change is a technical revision or1041 permit amendment. 

 

B.  A proposed change shall be considered a technical revision if the planning director determines that there will be no increase in the size of the area affected or the intensity of impacts as a result of the proposed change(s); or any increase in the area or intensity of impacts is insignificant.

 

C.  Changes other than technical revisions shall be considered 1041 permit amendments.  A permit amendment shall be subject to review as a new permit application.

 

Amend Table 12.3.I Public Hearing Notice Requirements with the following additions:

Type of Hearing

Published Notice**

APO Notice**

Sign Posted**

County Commissioners

 

 

 

1041 Permit

30 days but no more than 60 days

14 days

N/A

Designation of a matter of state interest

30 days but no more than 60 days

N/A

N/A

1041 Appeal

14 days

14 days

N/A

 

 

 

 

Planning Commission

 

 

 

1041 Permit

14 days

14 days

N/A

Designation of a matter of state interest

14 days

N/A

N/A

**Days are the minimum number of days prior to the hearing.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #4  BECKER SUBDIVISION, FILE #07-S2736:  

Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide approximately 34.97 acres in the Laporte area into three lots for single-family residential use.  The request included two appeals to requirements in the Land Use Code.  One was an appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q, related to the maximum length of a dead-end road and the requirement for a second point of access, and the second was an appeal to Section 8.14.2. S related to connectivity.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked about connectivity issue.

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department pointed out that connectivity was part of every subdivision review.  She explained that there was not a benefit for the subdivision to develop roads that went beyond its individual need to service neighboring properties.  She remarked that staff members were in support to waive the code requirement related to connectivity.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the location and purpose of the outlot.

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that the outlot was to provide shared access to the well.

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that the applicant and staff were in agreement for the application as presented.

 

Mark Oberschimidt, Northern Engineering explained that the final plat would designate three lots.  One lot for the existing single family residence and two new residential lots with one outlot that would have shared ownership.  He remarked that the development agreement would designate maintenance of the outlot. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the outlot would be under an HOA.

 

Mr. Oberschimidt replied that the outlot would be deeded to an HOA until the other 2 lots were sold.  At that time, the outlot would be deeded to all owners of the three lots. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that as part of the final plat process the applicant would be asked to form an association and that the outlot be deeded to benefit all owners of the lots.

 

 

 

 

.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Brian Gerington, 317 Green Mile Drive stated that he was concerned about the access off of Highway 287 and road maintenance. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if staff would respond to the public comments made.

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that Larimer County did have a shared road maintenance agreement and that it could be required as part of the project if need be.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the shared road maintenance agreement was a standard part of the development agreement.

 

Mr. Wheeler replied yes and also explained that the document would be reviewed by the Engineering Department as well as the County Attorney’s office.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked about the access issue that was brought up.

 

Ms. Coleman replied that the area was a concern for site distance.  The applicant was asked to complete a site distance evaluation, and the analysis of site distance did meet both Larimer County and CDOT standards.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there would be any additional requirements related to that standard.

 

Mrs. Colemen replied no.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the shared road maintenance agreement said anything about additional development in the surrounding area.

 

Mr. Wheeler explained that the shared road maintenance agreement would be per subdivision.  He stated that staff would ask any new developers to work with existing property owners to draft an agreement that would meet the needs of all property owners involved.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that existing property owners would not be obligated to enter into any agreement; they would only be required to enter into an agreement if they decided to further subdivide their property.

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that staff could put an additional condition on the project for the shared road maintenance agreement, as long as the applicant would be in concurrence.

 

Mr. Oberschmidt stated that Mr. Becker had already been involved in the maintenance of the road and would probably be ok with such agreement, but he would have to confirm that with his client.

 

Commissioner Morgan closed Public Comment

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Becker Subdivision, file #07-S2736, request to subdivide approximately 34.97 acres into three lots, appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q, related to the maximum length of a dead-end road and a requirement for a second point of access, and an appeal to Section 8.14.2. S related to connectivity, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Becker Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #07-S2736 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Poudre School fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.

 

3.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Subdivision. 

 

4.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice must include, but is not limited to; all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

5.   Lots 2 and 3 shall include building envelopes to define the areas outside of designated hazard zones and at least 100-foot setback from the irrigation Ditch.

 

6.   The Final Plat, construction plans and supporting documents shall comply with the requirements related to the Irrigation standards contained in Section 8.8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

7.   The area of the shared water well shall be placed in an outlot to be owned in common by each of the lot owners within the subdivision.  The outlot shall be of sufficient size to allow for the installation and maintenance of any necessary appurtenances such as storage cisterns and control structures.

 

8.   Adequate access and utility easements shall be provided for piping connections from the well to Lot 2 and Lot 3 and to allow for maintenance purposes.

9.   A well sharing agreement outlining how the three lot owners will share in the ownership, operation and maintenance of the water system shall be provided.

 

10. A water system plan, prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer, for the pumping, storage and distribution of water from the shared well shall be provided for the subdivision file and for use by the lot owners.

 

11. Installation of the improvements identified in the water system plan shall be completed in conjunction with the initial development of this subdivision. 

 

12. Developer shall construct all sections of the Access road within the bounds of the existing access easement, and outside of any neighboring residential properties whose owners have not agreed to have the access road within the boundaries of their property.

 

13. Developer shall provide right-of-way dedications for the area contained within the subdivision to be shown on the Final Plat.  Developer shall also make all required improvements to Green Mile Drive required by the County Engineering Department.  These improvements shall be shown on construction plans provided for review and approval, prior to recording of the Final Plat.

 

14. For exterior lighting, all lots are required to use shields that direct lighting downward to minimize lighting impacts off-site.

 

15. Residential sprinkler systems are required for all new habitable construction for lots at this Subdivision.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 8-0

 

ITEM #2  LETTIS RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, FILE #08-S2769:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide approximately 13 acres into two lots for single-family residential use. The subject property was in an area of varying sized rural, residential lots.  An existing single-family home was shown on proposed Lot 2 at the north end of the site.  The new lots would be 4.93 and 8.06 acres in size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Coleman explained that as the project was being reviewed staff became aware that there was a historical drainage issue on the property.  She stated that the property was fairly flat and a neighboring property owner may have further impacted the drainage issue.  She elaborated on the criteria for standard subdivision drainage concerns.  She explained that as part of the subdivision process the applicant could not further impact the already deficient drainage, but would not have to bear the full responsibility for the historical drainage pattern as long as they could provide safe and adequate infrastructure for their own use.

 

Jim Bunkers, Intermill Land Surveying stated that the applicant was in agreement with staff on the project as it was presented.  He explained that the applicant would be willing to talk to neighboring property owners to help resolve the drainage issue.

 

Commissioner Hess confirmed that the applicant was aware of the drainage issues and would be willing to help rectify the problem.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Rebecca Huth and Mark Kulick, 727 Sunbird Lane remarked that they were concerned about the extension of the driveway.  Mrs Huth expressed concern for how the drainage was going to work.  Mrs Huth explained that a new lot with a new driveway was going to turn a bad situation into an unmanageable situation.  Mr. Kulick pointed out some of things that have had to be done to his property to prevent flooding.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked in what direction the water flowed.

 

Mrs. Coleman explained that the water flowed east.  But when the water could no longer flow east it pooled up and moved back to the west.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there had been past development on the property that modified the historical drainage problem.

 

Mr. Kulick explained that a culvert was raised on Mr. Heaton’s property at 3528 W County Road 8.

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that the problem existed prior to when application for the Lettis Ridge Subdivision was made.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the project of one additional lot would aggravate the issue.

 

Ms. Huth replied that they did believe it would.

 

Commissioner Hart asked what driveway would be used.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that the driveway that was historically used would be vacated from a specific point, but there would still be an access for the property owner to use from another point.  He remarked that all access for the lots would come off of Sunbird Lane.

Commissioner Morgan asked if it was staff’s position that the driveway would not further impact the drainage issue.

 

Ms. Coleman explained that the driveway would need to stay at or below existing grade so that it would not impound water.

 

Doug Heaton, 3528 W County Road 8 explained that he had been at the property since 1988 and had not done anything to the property except a room addition.  He stated that they had always had a retaining pond to the east of the house.  He expressed concern for the property east of him with regards to drainage.

 

Dennis Messner, Messner Engineering stated that the entire area drained to the north end of Sunbird Lane.  He elaborated on the historical drainage patterns.  He remarked that building another house would not change the drainage pattern.  He explained that it would not increase the amount of water that drained from the Mr. Lettis’ property.

 

Jim Lettis, 4931 Bella Vista Drive, Longmont stated that originally they wanted to have the 13 acres subdivided into three lots but because of the drainage issue that was not possible.  He explained that he had offered many times to hire an engineer to look at the drainage problem and help find a solution.

 

Commissioner Morgan closed public comment.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick asked for clarification of the road that was to be vacated.

 

Ms. Coleman explained that Sunbird Lane was a better and safer point of access for the property in regards to site distance.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that the drainage issue could be resolved at the final plat stage.

 

Commissioner Hart moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Lettis Ridge Estates Subdivision, file #08-S2769, request to subdivide approximately 13 acres into two lots for single-family residential use, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Lettis Ridge Estates Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #08-S2769 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Thompson School fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.

 

3.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Subdivision.

 

4.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice must include, but is not limited to; all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

5.   The applicant’s shall provide an Access Easement Agreement for the remaining properties that take access off the drive for review and approval by the County Attorney during the Final Plat review.

 

6.   For exterior lighting, all lots are required to use shields that direct lighting downward to minimize lighting impacts off-site.

 

7.   Basements will not be allowed on lot 1 unless a minimum 3 foot separation between the lowest floor elevation (including basements) and groundwater can be established at time of building permit application.  The submitted geotechnical report indicated that ground water is approximately 10 feet below grade on this lot.

 

8.   The applicant shall repair existing roadway deficiencies such as potholes in Sunbird Lane. Collateral for these improvements shall be included in the Opinion of Costs provided for the Development Agreement, or through some other mechanism acceptable to both the applicant and the County Engineering Department.

 

Commissioner Benton seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

Rob Helmick provided an update on the NISP comments

 

 

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

 

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Roger Morgan, Chairman                                           Karen Weitkunat, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

The proposed Livermore Area Water System is located in the community of Livermore, Colorado, located about 17 miles north-north-west of Fort Collins, Colorado along Larimer County Road 74E, in Larimer County. A location map is attached. The location of the water treatment facility (WTF), distribution system and water source are in Section 34, Township 10 North, Range 70 West of the principal meridian.  Metes and Bounds Description: A tract of land situated in the North half of Section 34, Township 10 North, Range 70 West of the Sixth P.M., which considering the West line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 34 as bearing North 00o50' West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears North 00°50' West 1326.15 feet and again East 2740.00 feet and again South 11o00' West 150.00 feet and again South 79o00' East 235.00 feet and again South 11o00, West 50.75 feet from the West quarter comer of said Section 34 and run thence South 11o00' West 136.49 feet to a point on the Northerly line, of Colorado Highway No. 200; thence along said Northerly line, North 87o23' East 33.43 feet and again North 81o25' East 117.46 feet; thence North 07o22' East 87.54 feet; thence North 78o13' West 137.62 feet to the Point of Beginning. County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

A tract of land situate in the East Half of Section 19, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which considering the East line of said Section 19 as bearing South 00 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the North 1/16 comer on the East line of said Section 19; and run thence along said East line South 00 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East I21 1.64 feet to the East Quarter Comer of Said Section 19;

thence along said East line South 00 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East 175.70 feet: thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 959.06 feet to a point on the Westerly line of the Larimcr County Canal; thence along said Westerly line North 04 degrees 56 minutes 30 seconds West 119.84 feet, and again North 28 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds West 118.15 feet, and again North 41 degrees 55 minutes 20 seconds West 223.95 feet, and again North 27 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds West 147.00 feet. and again North 22 degrees 13 minutes 00 seconds West 99.80 feet, and again North 36 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 120.75 feet, and again North 30 degrees 23 minutes 45 seconds West 156.73 feet and again North 46 degrees 56 minutes 45 seconds West 37.50 feet; thence North 62 degrees 42 minutes 33 seconds East 1132.96 feet to a point on the north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19;

thence along said North line, South 89 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds East 451.20 feet to the Point of Beginning.

 

Together with a nonexclusive 60.00 foot wide access easement situate in Section 19, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the East line of the Northeast 114 of said Section 19 as bearing North 00 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, the centerline of which begins at a point which bears North 00 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds West 121 1.64 feet and again North 89 degrees 40 minutes West 45 1.20 feet and again South 62 degrees 42 minutes 33 seconds West 487.79 feet from the East 1/4 corner of said Section 19 and run thence North 39 degrees 27 minutes 16 seconds West 207.41 feet; thence along the arc of a 332.96 foot radius curve to the left a distance of 99.26 feet, the long chord of which bears North 47 degrees 59 minutes 41 seconds West 98.89 feet: thence North 56 degrees 32 minutes 06 seconds West 260.93 feet; thence North 53 degrees 22 minutes 04 seconds West 315.87 feet; thence North 51 degrees 02 minutes 30 seconds West 283.51feet; thence along the arc of a 725.25 foot radius curve to the left a distance of 139.57 feet. the long chord of which bears North 56 degrees 33 minutes 17 seconds West 139.35 feet; thence North 62 degrees 04 minutes 04 seconds West 47.53 feet; thence North 72 degrees 04 minutes 08 seconds West 177.45 feet; thence along the arc of a 311.79 foot radius curve to the left a distance of 237.77 feet. the long chord of which bears South 86 degrees 05 minutes 06 seconds West 232.05 feet; thence South 64 degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds West 168.39 feet; thence along the arc of a 108.12 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 161.40 feet, the long chord of which bears North 72 degrees 59 minutes 48 seconds West 146.83 feet; thence North 30 degrees 13 minutes 54 seconds West 61.57 feet to a point on the Southerly right of way line of Colorado Highway No. 14. County of Larimer, State

of Colorado.

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER AND THE STATE OF COLORADO MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 17, THENCE ALONGTHE EAST LINE OF THE SW QUARTER SECTION 17, NORTH 1 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST 215.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE NORTH 1 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST 1355.93 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 1 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST 1120.63 FEET FROM THE NE CORNER OF SW QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE APPROXIMATELY ALONG AN EXISTING FENCE LYING NOTH OF AN EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCH THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; (ALL ANGLE POINTS ARE MARKED BY A ¾ IRON PIPE WITH PLUG L.S. 4845) SOUTH 88 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST 61.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 64.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST 82.72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 56 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST 231.83 FEET; TEHNCE LEAVING SAID FENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST 1504.77 FEET OT A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 1 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST 215.50 FEET FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SW QUARTER; THENCE EAST 404.68 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.