Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of October 17, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Hart, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners Karabensh and Waldo were absent.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Jill Bennett, Principal Planner, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, Wallace, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to the Greeley Waterline Location and Extent.  Commissioners’ Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, and Waldo were absent.  Commissioner Boulter visited the site independently.

 

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 SEPTEMBER 19    , 2007 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Commissioner Wallace moved to have Item 2:  Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code and Item 3:  Red Feather Lakes Business Rezoning moved to the consent agenda.  Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0077:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to amend sections of the Larimer County Land Use Code which included:  changing the term “waiver” to “appeal” in Section 8.9.2.A.1.I.F.6, deleting Section 8.9.2.A.1.I.D, changing the reference to “county road standards” to “Urban Area Street Standards and Rural Area Road Standards” in Section 8.16.I, adding Section 4.8.8 as a “reserved” section, adding a review criterion to Section 5.7.3, modifying section references in Sections 8.01.C, 8.01.D, 22.2.1, 22.3.1, 4.1.1.B.2 through 4.1.2.B.2, 4.1.5.B.3 through 4.1.8.B.3, changing the title of Section 4.9, and clarifying “use by right” in Section 4.1.B. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan 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, file #07-CA0077, be approved as follows:

 

 

 

1.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.9.2.A.1.I.F.6, by changing the term “waiver” to “appeal” as follows:

 

6. Waiver Appeal of drive-in uses prohibition.  The board of county commissioners may waive the prohibition against approve an appeal to allow drive-in uses contained in subsections 4.(c)(3) and 5.(b c)(8) of this section F under the following circumstances: 

a. The strict application of the prohibition would result in peculiar difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of the affected property; or

b. The plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and the purposes of the prohibition equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the prohibition; and

c. In either of the foregoing circumstances the waiver appeal may be granted without substantial detriment to the substantial good.

d. Any finding made under paragraphs a. and/or b. above shall be supported by supplemental findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said paragraphs a. and/or b.

e. Applicants seeking an appeal waiver shall file a written request with the planning director. The board shall administratively review the request in an open meeting no later than 30 days after the request has been filed. Prior written notice of this meeting shall be provided to the applicant and shall be included in the board's posted agenda. At the meeting the board shall consider relevant information presented by the applicant, the planning director, or interested members of the public. Based upon the information, the board may grant the appeal waiver, or grant the appeal waiver with conditions.

 

2.   Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 8.9.2.A.1.I.D and renumber the remaining Sections E. through I.

 

3.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.16.1 as follows:

 

A. All fences are subject to sight triangle standards included in the county road standards Urban Area Street Standards and Rural Area Road Standards that are part of the technical supplement to this code.

 

4.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding Section 4.8.8 as a “reserved” section.

 

5.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.7.3, as follows and renumber the remainder of the section:

 

D.   The resultant lots will meet the requirements of subsection 8.14.2.I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.01, as follows:

 

C. Building permits for single-family and duplex dwellings, which are the principal building on a lot or parcel, must comply with sections 8.17 and 8.19 4.9. Subsection 8.17.3 4.6.7 may be applied to these permits at the discretion of the planning director. Building permits for accessory dwellings that are part of a farmstead must comply with all applicable standards in section 8, except subsection 8.5, landscaping.

 

D. The applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards for all development at the planning commission hearing on any preliminary plat, or special review, at the board of adjustment hearing on any or special exception and at the time of application for site plan review.

 

7.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 22, as follows:

 

Section 22

Section 22.2.1.

b. Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19 4.9.1, 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

 

Section 22.3.1.

1. b. Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19 4.9.1, 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

2. b. Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19 4.9.1, 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

3. b. Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19 4.9.1, 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

 

8.   Amend the Land Use Code, Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21, as follows:

 

B.2.

a. Front yard--Refer to section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways and county roads). 4.9.1  Setbacks from highways and county roads.

 

9.   Amend the Land Use Code, Sections 4.1.5.B.3 and 4.1.8.B.3, as follows:

 

B.3.

a. Front yard--Refer to section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways and county roads). 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.

 

10.   Amend the Land Use Code by changing the title of Section 4.9 as follows:

 

4.9   SETBACKS, LOT REQUIREMENTS AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT

 

11.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1.B, as follows:

 

Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right but they may be subject to Section 6 (site plan review) and all other requirements of this code.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  RED FEATHER LAKES BUSINESS REZONING #07-Z1662:  Ms. Bennett provided background information on the request to rezone the existing business and civic uses in the Red Feather Lakes Plan Area to RFLB – Red Feather Lakes Business zone. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace thanked Ms. Bennett for her efforts.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 existing business and civic uses be rezoned to the Red Feather Lakes Business Rezoning, file #07-Z1662, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  W.O.L.F. AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #07-Z1640 – TABLED FROM SEPTEMBER 19, 2007:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to amend the existing W.O.L.F. Special Review approval (file #96-Z0943) to reconfigure the allowed development area; expand the area used for the facility from five acres to 30 acres; increase the number of animals allowed at the facility from 30 to 60; modify a condition of approval to allow fundraiser/educational events; and increase the notification time of animal deaths, relocation, and adoption.  The site location was located at 1693 Spring Valley Road, located off of Rist Canyon Road, approximately three miles east of Stove Prairie School.  He spoke to the several issues involved with the project which included fire protection, road access and capacity, and noise ordinance compliance.  He noted that the County had not received complaints regarding the noise since the original Special Review was approved in 1999.  He stated that it was recommended that a formal road maintenance agreement be created and executed for the property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bob Gann, Fire Chief-Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department, addressed some misunderstandings that arose from the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department’s recommendations.  Upon review, the letter provided to the County was inconsistent to the recommendations he had made as Fire Chief.  He stated that the W.O.L.F. facility was reviewed in detail.  He noted that a condition of approval for the Special Review was that “Fire protection and mitigation plans consistent with the recommendations of the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department shall be implemented within one calendar year for the approval” implied the believe that he had provided a set of recommendations where if the applicant met those recommendations then he would withdraw his objection.  However, he stated that Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department did not support the proposed expansion.  He did provide a number of recommendations but were recommendations for the W.O.L.F. facility as it existed today or upon expansion in recognition that he considered the facility indefensible.  In other words, in the event of a major wildfire he would not send firefighters into the area to try to defend it for the simple reason that it was not defendable.  It would be unsafe for the firefighters and unsafe for the people to stay there.  He advised the applicant on the things that they could do to make the facility able to “survive in place” which meant that the people would need to leave and the animals and facilities would stay.    The second condition of approval read, “An evacuation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the staff, Emergency Services Unit (Sheriff’s Department) and the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department” but he did not feel that the animals could be evacuated from the facility due to the time and access which was not sufficient to allow.  It was very troublesome or problematic with the number of animals there today.  He stated that they did evacuate the facility during the Davis Ranch/Buckhorn Fire in 2001 successfully but it was on the edge of being able to do that.  If there was any expectation that the fire would impinge the road or the fire trucks needed access down there he would not allow people to try to evacuate the animals.  Doubling the number of animals to 60 would make that problem more difficult. 

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that in his letter dated July 8, 2007 it stated that the fire department could not support an increased number of animals housed at the facility?

 

Mr. Gann stated that was correct. 

 

Commissioner Hart confirmed that the facility was not increasing the number of vehicle trips except for the proposed eight days out of the year?

 

Traci Downs, Engineering Department, stated that her understanding was that the number of trips would not be increased above the seven round trips per day even on the days that the facility wanted to invite some special guests. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the possibility of urine getting into the watershed.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, replied that the management technique to handle the dog feces was to have it physically picked up, bagged, and taken to the landfill with the regular trash service.  In the particular case with the natural environment the urine was not picked up and the density of animals was reasonably low and he did not anticipate any water quality impacts. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that on the original Special Review approval it stated that the applicant would submit a road maintenance plan and schedule for the road and address the issues raised by the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department.  He asked if that was ever received?

 

Ms. Downs stated that it was not completed.  She remarked that she had mentioned in her comments that it was important to be done as a condition of the approval.  To her understanding it was never recorded and was not due to the uncertainty of the road rights.  She stated that it was important to have that completed this time in a timely manner.  She stated that the applicant had been trying to maintain the road on their own and comply with the requirements but did not believe that the document was ever officially recorded.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant had submitted annual reports pursuant to the approval. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked about the noise levels?

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the Larimer County Noise Ordinance had two broad classes of standards.  One was a decibel standard that was not to be exceeded.  The second was a prohibition against what the ordinance called a noise disturbance, which was interference with people’s lives of ordinary sensitivities.  The County had not received any complaints over the period of time where W.O.L.F. had operated under the Special Review, which was 1999.  He noted that it was important to hear from the community members about the noise disturbance.  He stated that based on the information he currently had the facility was and could remain in compliance with the County’s noise ordinance. 

 

Stewart McNab, Attorney on behalf of Wolves Offered Life and Friendship (W.O.L.F.), showed the commission a short video on the facility.  He addressed the issue of liquid waste and stated that mulch-like material was put down and removed from the site in the same way the solid waste was discarded.  The existing Special Review was approved in 1999 and was amended by stipulation in 2001.  He stated that a road maintenance agreement was not required but a road maintenance plan was to be submitted but not required to be recorded.  He stated that W.O.L.F. had met all their obligations placed by the Special Review.  He noted that they were not aware of any complaints that had occurred since the Special Review approval.  He explained what amendments the applicants were requesting.  One was to change the size of the area covered by the Special Review.  He explained that the land as it was configured currently consisted of three parcels, and the plan was to revise the entire tract into four diagonal tracts.  The use was limited to five acres, and the amendment would effect Lots 2 & 3 only and would encompass 30 acres total.  The next aspect was to increase the number of animals from 30 to 60 over the period of six years.  The third element was to allow eight days a year where W.O.L.F. could have donor appreciation days to allow people who have donated or were interested in donating to go and see the facility.  He stated that it could be accomplished without increasing the number of vehicle trips.  The fourth was a technical change to change the notification time of the death of the animals from 5 working days to 10 working days.  The last requested change was to remove the requirement that existed in the 2001 stipulation that permited the County to revoke the Special Review without any hearing.  He spoke to some of the concerns that were brought about at the neighborhood meeting.  He also talked about the access to the road and the number of vehicle trips, which was limited to 7 trips a day.  W.O.L.F. was willing to commit to not exceed that number even on the donor appreciation days proposed and an increased number of animals would not increase the number of trips.  The plan was to use the same number of volunteers, and W.O.L.F. did not use all seven trips that were allocated in a day.  He mentioned the fire safety issue and stated that W.O.L.F. was willing to pursue the recommendations made by the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department.  He showed the progress made in some of the “safe zones” addressed in the comments made by the fire department.  He explained that in the case of a wild

 

land fire the animals would be evacuation pursuant to a plan that had been created that consisted of five trained teams of volunteers that would evacuate the animals.  He stated that the animals would only be evacuated when there was adequate time warning.  If there was insufficient warning then the plan was to have the animals survive in place.  He remarked that the enclosures were constructed of post, chain-linked fence, and used existing trees as fence posts to provide added strength to the enclosure.  He noted that brush was cleared on the sides of the enclosure fences and there was not much undergrowth in the enclosures.  He noted that another issue commonly raised was noise.  He stated that there had not been any noise complaints since the 1999 approval.  In 1999 a noise study was conducted where the noise was measured at the boundary line of the property, and the animals were encouraged to make noise.  He stated that the noise level measured was less than 50 decibels and there was 42 animals at the property when the evaluation was done.  W.O.L.F. also had an evaluation done this year and an engineer determined that an increase in the number of animals might increase the amount of decibels at the property line but only by three decibels.  Another aspect of noise control was that the W.O.L.F. Sanctuary took into account the personalities of the animals and compatibility with other animals in order to minimize the noise.  The last issue to address was regarding the danger to the public by the animals.  He stated that the public was not invited to the site except for the donor days.  In the years since the facility had existed there had been no animals that escaped.  He explained how the enclosures were built to prevent escaping.  He mentioned that W.O.L.F. had set a standard for gating and fencing enclosures for animals of that type.  He noted that there had not been a documented case of a healthy wolf attacking a human being in North America in the wildlife.  He pointed out a study that showed the number of bites incidents for different breeds of dogs which showed the wolf hybrid being very low on the list.  He stated that the application met the criteria for Special Review and was compatible with existing uses.  It was a rural, remote, and agricultural area.  The density in terms of animals per acre would be far lower with the Special Review request.  It was also consistent with the Master Plan and supported rural land use and open character of the land.  It complied with the Land Use Code and there were no substantial adverse effects to property in the vicinity or property values.  He asked that the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked where the animals would be evacuated to?

 

Frank Wendland, owner of the property, replied that they had made some arrangements with some conventional kennels in the Fort Collins area.  There was also a separate holding facility near the Blackhawk area for some of the animals.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked how many people were on the property at any given time?

 

Mr. McNab replied that it varied but it was about ten at the most.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what a life expectancy of a wolf hybrid?

 

Mr. McNab stated that it was the same as any large breed dog. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer asked how long it would take to evacuate 60 animals?

 

 

 

 

Mr. Wendland stated that it would vary depending on what kind of animals they had.  Some would need to be darted and others would just need a leash.  He stated that they had changed the design of the enclosures since the original plan in 2000, which helped gather the animals quicker.  He stated that it could take approximately 2-3 hours to evacuate. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how many adjacent owners used the road and asked if they coordinated with those people to maintain the road?

 

Mr. Wendland replied that there were six permanent residents on the road and four other properties that had seasonal occupancy or no occupancy at all.  He stated that there had been meetings in the past but stated that everybody pretty much worked on their own section of the road.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how much of the road he maintained?

 

Mr. Wendland stated that it was based on the criteria that was established in there road maintenance plan.  He remarked that they had maintained the entire road at some times, which involved when there were large snowfalls or when they were trying to meet a 24 hour turn around time on snow removal.  He stated that in general everybody maintained there own section.  He stated that his section of the road was about one half mile.  He viewed his immediate responsibility to be the entire 2 ½ miles according to the original plan that was established. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Kathryn Stowe, 765 Dirt Road, stated that she was speaking for people in the Davis Ranch Road area that signed petitions opposing the expansion.  She stated that there were 138 parcels in the area in which approximately 100 were full time residences.  She stated that they had collected 73 names of opposition to the expansion.  She remarked that the sound from the kennel seemed to reach to the north and to the east, approximately ¾ mile by two miles.  She read the comments that were voiced by the neighborhood, which included concerns about noise, number of animals, location of kennel, safety, and expansion.  She mentioned some specific concerns that were addressed in the applicants’ submittal regarding road maintenance, building permits, the number of acres per animal, noise, number of vehicle trips, and proximity to neighbors.  She stated that since the approval in 1999 the neighbors had felt that they had to live with the kennel whether it bothered them or not because the County approved it.  She remarked that the kennel had never been compatible with the area.  She asked that the stipulation regarding revocation of the Special Review not be removed.  In conclusion, she stated that the organization would always want to expand, and the neighborhood would continue to suffer.  It had never been an appropriate use for the land in the context of the residential nature of the area and would not become so with time.  They urged the Commission to deny all the Special Review requests and encouraged the applicants to move to a truly remote location so they could carry out there work unencumbered. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patty Rosenfelder, 3086 Davis Ranch Road, was representing the residents of Davis Ranch Road/Red Stone Estates Road Association.  She stated that her husband and she had lived there since 1980.  She mentioned that she had a bachelor degree in biological science and zoology and worked for an agency that dealt with animal health and disease.  She stated that through a Freedom of Information request she obtained the USDA application for license renewal for the facility.  She had the applications from 2004 to 2007 and pointed out that the 2006 application listed 35 animals.  She stated that the kennel had been over the number of animals allowed every year except for the year 2007.  She stated that the evacuation was an issue because of how long it would take the applicant to evacuate the animals.  She remarked that in 1999 when the Special Review was granted one of the conditions stated, “The use of the access road shall be limited to vehicles of occupants of the property and persons performing daily care for the animals.”  The kennel had ignored that condition as evidence from printouts from the applicant’s website detailing how for a fee a person could become a patron volunteer for a day and make repeated trips to the kennel.  She addressed the noise issue by stating that she had been told by a Larimer County Sheriff’s Deputy that “there was no noise ordinance” when she called relating to an issue unrelated to the kennel.  She stated that if County officials would not respond to the noise complaints then the ordinance was worthless.  Secondly, the kennel was licensed with the State of Colorado under Colorado Revised Statue 35-80-101 – Pet Animal and Facilities Act.  The Larimer County Animal Control and Dog licensing ordinance specifically stated that kennels licensed under the act were exempt from Section 4B of the dog ordinance, which was disturbance of the piece and quiet prohibited.  There had been no complaints received because under the stated conditions the neighbors were powerless and left them with no avenue to go down. 

 

Irene Holtzer, 147 Cox Court, stated that she had continuously lived on that road since June 1989.  She was concerned about the safety issues the wolf-hybrids could pose.  She pointed out that many of the supporters did not live in the vicinity of the sanctuary. 

 

Tom Holtzer, 147 Cox Court, asked who would benefit from the expansion.  He felt that the animals did not benefit from living there and the neighbors bore the risk of the animals living in the area.  He pointed out the proximity of homes, schools, etc. to the area.

 

Peter Sherman, 1914 Richards Lake Road, stated that he owned property in the proximity of the sanctuary.  He stated in the three years that he had owned the property virtually nothing had been done in terms of maintenance to the road.  It was deeply rutted and stated that it took 20 minutes to drive 2 ½ miles on the road to his property.  He hoped that a road maintenance agreement could be made between the neighbors to improve the situation. 

 

Russ Johnson, 1486 Spring Valley Road, stated that he bordered W.O.L.F. to the west.  He pointed out that the sanctuary was located about 2 miles down Spring Valley Road, which was private.  He mentioned the issues that were of concern which was noise, traffic, access, safety, and oversight.  He explained that an increase in the number of animals would contribute to increased noise, number of volunteers, and traffic.  W.O.L.F. had no written easement agreement allowing volunteers and others to cross neighboring properties to access the refuge.  The applicant had done no road maintenance. 

 

 

 

 

 

Cinthia Johnson, 1486 Spring Valley Road, stated that W.O.L.F. was located in a heavily wooded area.  She was concerned about weather conditions that could allow the animals to escape.  She stated that the three to four onsite caretakers were not sufficient to guarantee the care or containment of 30 let alone 60 animals.  She felt that the dogs should be tagged and mark in case they did escape.  She requested that the Planning Commission recommend against the expansion.

 

Karen Salas, Key V Ranch, stated that she was at the Board of County Commissioners hearing in 2001 and was promised that the approval was contingent upon the W.O.L.F. facility getting legal easement for the intended use and a maintenance agreement be developed, which had not been done. 

 

Ian Stewart, representative of the majority shareholders of Key V Ranch, stated that they represented 720 acres that had been in the family for over 50 years.  He stated that they did not have the right to use the road for commercial purposes.  He stated that all of the community was sick of the traffic and noise. 

 

Wayne Arndt, 2515 Davis Ranch Road, stated that he had lived there for 30 years and had only heard the wolves maybe three or four times.  He stated that there were myths regarding the danger of the wolves.  He agreed that a road association should be set up. 

 

Kathy Dykstra, 256 George Stadler Road, stated that where she lived she did not hear the wolves but had heard from neighbors that they were bothered by the noise.  She stated that the people on Fire Route 5 could have a hard time selling there property because of the noise.  She was concerned about the road and evacuation.  She noted that Wyoming had outlawed hybrids. 

 

Moby Wile, felt strongly that it was an inappropriate use of the property.  He stated that the remoteness of the area had disappeared.  He agreed with the other comments that had been mentioned.

 

Glenn Johnson, 1367 Spring Valley Road, stated that the wolves did make noise and more dogs would cause more noise.  He also worried about the danger.

 

Patrick Piscain, 609 Atwood Court, stated that he was a volunteer at W.O.L.F.  He explained that the volunteers were trained how to handle the wolves and on respect for the land.  He mentioned the best practices that the owners tried to instill and stated that they deeply cared for the environment.  He also mentioned that part of the training was respecting the neighbors and the surrounding area and road. 

 

Mark Gilpin, Clear Creek Animal Control, stated that he had been an animal control officer for Clear Creek for 14 years.  He stated that W.O.L.F. provided safety in the way the facility was built, controlled, and how the animals that were dealt with.  He stated that there would be nothing to compromise the public’s safety in the evacuation plan or prioritization during an evacuation event.  He stated that there had been no issues with the facility in terms of safety and animal welfare and evacuation. 

 

Patricia Mount, Clear Creek County Animal Control Sheriff’s Department, pointed out that the licenses that W.O.L.F. held addressed issues of housing, care, safety, and facility concerns and would not be licensed by those entities if they did not meet or exceed those requirements.

 

Laura Sebastian, agreed with the comments.  She stated that she was a volunteer and showed the handbook that was given out on safety, respect of neighbors, and caring for the animals.  She spoke to the nature of the animals.  She stated that it was the best sanctuary that she had ever worked for.

 

Christine Campbell, stated that she did not live in Colorado.  She also spoke to the nature of the wolves. 

 

Chaplin Mary Dobbs, established that there had been no complaints about W.O.L.F. for eight years.  She stated that the facility took care of the area during major weather events.  She spoke to the nature of the wolves.  She stated that the owners and staff were responsible caretakers. 

 

Ken Dobbs, 5475 Ute Highway, Boulder, wondered why the fire chief did not recuse himself from speaking since he was friendly with the neighbors.

 

Loren Kimball, stated that she had worked with wild animals and sent in her application to work for W.O.L.F.  She stated that it was a sanctuary not kennel for hybrids, which were not dogs.  It was a sanctuary for education.

 

Pricilla Dressen, veterinarian for W.O.L.F., stated that she was at the fire evacuation in 2001 and the animals were evacuated quickly and efficiently.  In 2002, the evacuation system was refined and organized.  She believed that an evacuation could take place in two hours and did not believe that it would cause a problem with interference on the road.  She explained the issue regarding urine and stated that all animals were vaccinated. 

 

Bonnie Mandel-Rice, resident of Broomfield, stated that she had been an attorney with wildlife rehabilitators and wildlife sanctuaries in Colorado since 1976 and had been associated with W.O.L.F. for the past five years.  She remarked that it was one of the best ran sanctuaries in the state and even in the country.  It had set the standards for fencing and safety. 

 

Katrina Stowasser, stated that she had been associated with W.O.L.F. since April 1, 2007.  She noted that all the animals were well taken care of and explained the fencing used at the facility. 

 

Billy Hensen, resident of Fort Collins, spoke to the noise level, which he felt was very low. 

 

Bear Gebhardt, 606 Hanna Street, stated that he was a freelance journalist and had researched wolf refuges.  He had discovered through his research that the W.O.L.F. facility was one of the best in the country.  As far as the noise issue, he compared it to other areas affected by noise such as traffic, etc.

 

Tom Van Nelson, 11821 Rist Canyon Road, stated he had concerns about the fire protection and road maintenance agreement being extended.  He did not feel that a recommendation should go forward to the County Commissioners unless it stated that those issues were completed before the next animal was added to the inventory at the sanctuary. 

 

Mr. Gann responded to some comments by stating that he had been a volunteer fire chief for 14 years and a part of the fire department for 21 years.  He stated that his recommendations were made as the fire chief not as a citizen of the area, and he took his responsibility very seriously. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the status of the road had changed since the initial approval in 1999?

 

Mr. Gann replied that the road conditions were similar and had seen no change in the maintenance.  He stated that the character of the road was usual for the area.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what the priority of response was for the overall issues in terms of evacuating people and animals?

 

Mr. Gann replied that his first priority would be the firefighters’ safety.  Second would be the safety of people.  He stated that he could not force people to leave without a court order but he could deny access.

 

Mr. McNabb reiterated that the road maintenance plan was submitted to the County in 1999.  He stated that W.O.L.F. would acquire building permits for the fences that were needed.  He noted that the allowed number of vehicle trips, which was seven per day, would not change.  He stated that in the application in April of 2006 there were more then 30 animals listed because the numbers used in that USDA application were the numbers of 2005.  It wasn’t until the end of 2005 until the last animal died to bring the number down to 30. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Helmick stated that the recommendation from the fire department caused the Special Review to not meet Section 8.1.4 (Fire Protection) of the Land Use Code.  He noted that he did have a copy of a road maintenance plan from 2000.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that he did not see that there would be any change to the vehicle trips.  He felt that the access issue was an issue between the applicant and the neighbors, and the noise level did not seem that it would be violated under the current permit or the expansion.  His major concern was regarding the review criteria which stated that the proposed use would be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area.  He stated that it was clear that the vast majority of the neighbors did not consider it to be compatible with their use. 

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she was impressed by the number of people that came to speak about the compatibility issue. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that there would be a major change to numbers, size, and impacts.  The compatibility with the neighbors was an issue, and she was concerned about the fire authority regulation and recommendation.

 

Commissioner Wallace examined the review criteria and based on the neighborhood input it did not seem that the use would be compatible with the neighborhood.  She also noted the recommendations of the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department.  She questioned if the increase in size would increase the impact to traffic, noise, and developed area.  She stated that she could not find that all the review criteria could be met.

 

Commissioner Morgan agreed with Commissioner Wallace.  He felt that it would be irresponsible to approve the expansion based on the recommendations from the fire department.  He stated that he would vote to deny the application.

 

Chairman Boulter recognized that Larimer County was heavily developed, which caused the neighborhood compatibility issue.  He was also well persuaded that the fire protection issue was significant.  He felt that it was a wonderful facility and served an amazing purpose but his recommendation would be to address the fire protection and road issues.  He stated that he could not support the expansion.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer agreed with his fellow Commissioners.  He stated that he had done a lot research on W.O.L.F. and thought that it was a great facility.  He had an issue with the fire protection issue also.

 

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 W.O.L.F. Amended Special Review, file #07-Z1640, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #4  GREELEY WATERLINE NORTHERN SEGMENT LOCATION AND EXTENT #07-Z1660:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Location and Extent review of a water transmission line for the City of Greeley, which would be the last segment of the line to connect Greeley to the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant.  The pipeline route would extend from just south of the intersection of Highway 287 and Shields Street west through LaPorte to the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant.  He stated that prior segments had been reviewed through Location and Extent including the segment through Timnath and the segment that would end at Shields Road.  He noted that the current proposal was heard by the LaPorte Area Advisory Committee (LAPAC) and a neighborhood meeting was also held.  Their recommendation was in the agenda packet and included a recommendation that the proposal be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Board. 

 

Dan Moore, Project Manager of the City of Greeley for the proposed pipeline, stated that Daniel Rice of Boyle Engineering would present on the proposed pipeline.

 

Daniel Rice, Boyle Engineering, showed a map of the Bellvue pipeline segments.  He stated that in picking a route they tried to minimize the overall disturbance to the community as a whole by reducing the number of impacts to properties, wetlands, heavily forested areas, and future utilities.  He stated that they started out with 18 different phase-1 corridors and reduced those down to three phase-2 corridors.  He discussed the various community concerns that arose.  He explained that it was Greeley’s preference to be as close as possible to the existing pipelines where possible.  He explained that over half of the northern segment was located parallel to the existing pipelines but in the middle of the segment they tried to avoid Overland Trail historical property, significant disruption to existing residential development, disruption to the Cache La

 

Poudre School, and a heavily forested area west of the school.  He explained that there was the option to parallel County Road 56G but it would cause significant disruption to traffic, the school zone, local business, future utilities and would require a pump station.  The other option was to use the LaPorte bypass but from an economical standpoint would be the highest cost option and would also require pumping and CDOT approval.  He remarked that the effects on wildlife, wetlands, Poudre River corridor, etc. would be temporary and all activities would be governed by the Army Corps. of Engineers permitting process.  He stated that there had been concerns regarding groundwater due to a previous pipeline that had been installed.  He stated that that pipeline had been examined by the City of Greeley and that that pipeline design was different from the one the City of Greeley would be using.  He stated that during the final design the exact water locations would be determined, and the bedding and backfill was pervious material which would allow flows to go through.  He also stated that cut-off walls would be put in place were needed to redirect water back to the native material.  He mentioned that they had strict guidelines regarding noxious weeds to make sure it did not become an issue.  He also remarked that in 2003 the City of Greeley Water Master Plan examined relocating the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant but it was a cost prohibited alternative, would result in degraded water quality, increase water treatment costs, and cause a loss in Greeley’s water source. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jim Martell, representative for Jim and Rose Brinks, stated that they were the owners of a property that would be principally affected by the pipeline.  He submitted the plan of the property along with the plan shown by the applicants that had the various route choices.  He stated that when discussing land use issues cost was not to be considered and that some of the reasons that Greeley did not choose some of the alternative routes was due to cost and timeline restrictions placed by CDOT.  He remarked that the first theme of the Master Plan stated that land use should be suitable for and compatible with the environmental characteristics of the site.  The second theme was that natural and cultural resources should be identified, conserved, and protected.  He stated that the applicants indicated that they would work with people to make the mineral extraction possible.  Section 6.4 of the Master Plan along with C.R.S. 34-1-301 talked about preservation of commercial mineral deposits for extraction, and the State Statue specifically stated that no Board of County Commissioners governing body of any city and county, city, town, or other government authority that had control over any land use issues should permit any area know to contain commercial mineral deposit to develop in any manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposits.  He remarked that Subsection 6 stated that the government could acquire property that had mineral deposits and could use it for public purposes except that such use should not permit erection of permanent structures which would preclude permanently the extraction of commercial mineral deposits.   He stated that he had a mineral study of the Brink’s property showing that there were commercial mineral deposits on the property and also had a report from Lafarge reporting that there were two million tons of gravel on the Brink’s property.  He also noted that the property was classified as a Class III wetland.  Section 6.2.1 of the Master Plan dealt with wetlands which indicated priority was given to inventorying wetlands.  Section ER-1 of the Master Plan indicated that a wetland study be conducted at the initial stage of the development, and he stated that the applicant had not provided wetland studies.  He stated that the manner in which the wetlands were mitigated might bring the mineral deposit act back into effect.  He noted that ER-3 was the specific action in the Master Plan to take into consideration the wetlands.  He stated that Section 6.2.2 of the Master Plan related to wildlife, which was a significant factor to the area, and Section 8.4.6 of the Land Use Code set forth the impact criteria to avoid or mitigate any impact.  Section 8.4.6.A.2 stated

 

that the site development should not disrupt necessary life cycle functions, should not disrupt areas that species rely on for its unique features, and should not impact on the movement patterns and displacement and adoption of populations.  He stated that the most significant provision of the Master Plan that was applicable to the project and the property was Section 6.8 which talked about special places that had geological features as historical bridges and train tracks would be removed by the proposed plan.  He noted ER-18 of the Master Plan which listed the areas that needed to be protected because they were special places.  He quoted from that section “Maintain the integrity of the identity of landmarks”.  He also showed pictures of the historic places on the site.  He mentioned the City of Greeley’s application to the water court to change the classification of Water Supply and Storage Company shares from agricultural to municipal use.  It listed all the points of diversion, the storage and transport facilities that they would use in connection with the change of use and stated that one of those was the New Mercer Ditch were the head gate was located on the south side of the Poudre River at a place called Point of Rocks.  He stated that in the City’s own application to the water court they consider that place a significant enough special place to refer to it as one of there diversion points.  He remarked that the particular proposed route did not satisfy the various criteria of the Master Plan, and the alternative route had absolutely no adverse impacts on anyone except the City of Greeley because of the cost, and cost was not an issue for the Planning Commission’s consideration.  He submitted the study of the minerals, the photographs referred to, the City of Greeley’s petition to the water court, the City’s map of the alternative routes, the map showing his clients property, and the Colorado Statue on the mineral deposits.  He noted that the LaPorte Area Plan indicated that the river corridor should be maintained as a resource area for riparian vegetation, wildlife recreation, and mineral resources and stated that the proposed pipeline would run right down the Poudre corridor and interfered with every one of those items listed. 

 

James Prichett, 3000 N. County Road 25E, stated that his property was on the Poudre River corridor and south and slightly east of the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant.  He stated that he had a PH.D in Agricultural and Resource Economics and in the last five years had worked on the value of water in irrigated agriculture to rural communities as well as aspects of water transfers to rural areas to municipalities.  He wanted considered what the return flows meant to the Poudre River system as they flowed down the Cache the Poudre and down along side the pipeline.  He stated that the pipeline was a 60 inch pipeline buried five feet underground which would preclude the flow of water both in time and perhaps in quality as it flowed from the three ditch system that lied to the south and west of the Brinks property back to the Poudre River.  He explained that as the water was diverted below it would take more time to return to the river habitat in which wildlife relied on.  It was low flows that flowed through that portion of the Poudre River as they came out of Watson Lake but stated that also as water flowed above there may be increased quality concerns and a loss of water due to evapotransporation.  As a result less water went back into the river system making the river system less healthy.  He stated that mitigation was very important in that context and urged the Planning Commission to take that into account.  He also stated that the area was a wildlife corridor and not only were there bears that went through that area but also mountain lions, eagles, deer, and a variety of other wildlife.  He remarked that he was concerned because as construction took place he worried that the wildlife would be passed through the Cache the Poudre School District corridor.  He noted that the plan was an initial stage of what Greeley’s water development plans were for the Poudre River basin.  He stated that putting the 60 inch pipe in would mean expanding treatment facilities at the Bellevue Water Treatment Plant.  They would also have to firm up water rights and acquire new water rights.  He remarked that while it was an incremental decision that would be made tonight there would

 

certainly be other aspects of Greeley’s water development plans that would affect Larimer County in the future.  He stated that it was an opportunity to learn more about what Greeley’s Master Plan was and how the Plan would directly affect the Poudre River corridor. 

 

Mary Humstone, 4420 Bingham Hill Road, stated that her property was on the route of the pipeline although the City of Greeley had never given her any notification of it.  She mentioned that she was a national parks service qualified architectural historian with 25 years experience in evaluating historic sites for the national register of historic places.  She stated that the entire railroad right-of-way was historic, and the city was planning on running a pipeline under a railroad that was built in 1880.  She believed that a portion of the railroad was eligible for the national register for historic places.  She noted that she had turned in the preliminary application for national register for a nomination of a half of mile of the railroad right-of-way.  She stated that it would be very difficult to restore the land to the way it was before the pipeline was put in.  She stated that the Point of Rocks was a very narrow space and part of the historic landscape, and a 150 foot construction corridor would demolish that and could never be restored.  She stated that there was very dense forest in the area, which was incredible shelter and habitat for the animals, and she did not see how the vegetation and habitat could be restored.  She noted that the railroad was at times ten feet from the Poudre River and wondered how 150 foot construction would not affect the river.

 

Ed Stoner, 2929 W. County Road 54G, stated that he was concerned about the noxious weeds that would occur, the destruction of major trees on his property, the flow of groundwater, and the decrease in value to the Rose and Jim Brinks’ property.

 

Dave Slatten, 2412 N. Taft Hill Road, stated that he had lived in his home for 20 years.  He stated that he had never been contacted by the City of Greeley about the proposed pipeline.  He stated that the Greeley Master Plan showed an easement running right through his house.  Greeley would not tell him exactly how much of the easement they wanted but a letter he received stated that it could be up to 50 feet, which was 1/3 of his property.  Putting all the water issues aside, which he knew would happen; he stated that he could not give them 1/3 of his property.

 

Judy Jackson, 5200 W. County Road 52E, stated that if the pipeline did go through the Brinks’ property it would be a travesty.  There would be too much loss to that family as well as the habitat and the historic railroad.  She stated that the pipeline that was constructed a few years ago through the Division of Wildlife property from the Bellvue Water District was a horrendous experience.  She explained that the proposed pipeline would run east of her property, and stated that when the other pipeline was put in the property owners were promised that the land would be put back as it was.  She stated that on the Division of Wildlife property one could see where the pipeline was because it was full of weeds and going up over Binghim Hill the natural habitat had not been restored.  She remarked that if they wanted to minimize the disturbance to the community or reduce the number of effected properties they needed to go north where they would not affect anybody.  She stated that her home was put on the national register of historic places of March 1, 2007.  She also stated that with the previous pipeline she had endured 24 hour pumps, cracks inside her home, and doors that would not open, which she never had to deal with before.  She stated that the whole water table was disturbed, and she did not want to go through it again.  She stated that if the proposal was approved she would bring about a lawsuit.  She did not

 

 

want to see the homes treated the way they were before.  She pleaded for the Commission to protect the integrity of historical sites of the area and let them go north.

 

Nancy Grice, 3409 Killarney Court, stated that she was on the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee but made clear that she was not representing LAPAC but was there as a private citizen.  She stated that she had reviewed the City of Greeley’s request for the pipeline and had talked to a number of LaPorte area residents and water experts.  It was her understanding that Greeley had followed procedures required of them for their pipeline request and acknowledged that the city had a right to imminent domain.  She asked the question of whether the City of Greeley had followed public protocol that respected LaPorte area land use and the values of the community because there were a number of LaPorte area residents that believed that Greeley had not.  She stated that the Greeley representative, Dan Moore, acknowledged that the City of Greeley had been working on the proposal for a number of years, and if that was true wondered what the rush was and why not follow good neighbor procedures and give the public adequate opportunity for input.  Why not give the City of Greeley the opportunity to answer the public’s questions.  She also found it interesting that the request came before LAPAC prior to the neighborhood meeting.  She asked the Commission to put themselves in the LaPorte area residents’ shoes.  She stated that residents had found people trespassing on their property and surveying the land without contacting the property owners in advance.  The City of Greeley had a responsibility to ensure the actions of the people that they subcontracted and/or hired for the project that they were in compliance with the law and respectful to the LaPorte area residents.  The Greeley representative acknowledged that LaPorte had developed through the years, and the City of Greeley had not kept up with the LaPorte area’s growth and development.  She asked that the Larimer County residents be listened to.  She stated that she would like to see the LaPorte/287 bypass as Option 1 and County Road 54G as Option 2 and cost analysis projections for both of those options.  In addition, the City of Greeley needed to clarify the timeline for the response to any request from Larimer County and address all concerns from the neighborhood meeting before any decisions were made.  She stated that she did not feel comfortable approving the Greeley Water line segment passing through the LaPorte Area Plan boundary without the City of Greeley demonstrating good neighbor practices with the LaPorte area and its citizens.  She stated that she objected to the river corridor being disrupted.  She also remarked that Larimer County owed it to the community to listen to the citizens and act in their best interests. 

 

John Stegner, 2219 County Road 54G, stated that he was very concerned about the impact to ground water flow that would take place on and around the Brink’s property.  The damage to the land would be permanent and in the past had had tremendously reduced crop production on the area where the line had came through.  He also had lost a significant amount of gravel deposit and potential water storage.  He stated that he already had a 27 inch line through his property and now potentially a 60 inch line would be next to it.  He stated that he would loose a strip of land permanently in terms of any kind of economic benefit that would be approximately 60-70 feet wide by a ½ mile long. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Margaret Hyde, 2504 N. Overland Trail, stated that her main concern was her two septic tanks with leech fields, which were 60 feet a part.  The City wanted to go right between them, and it was her understanding that you should not have a water line within 100 feet of your leach field.  She stated that she was not able to tap in to the sewer line that was put in place through her farm because Greeley would not allow it to go under their line on County Road 54G.  She was concerned about what would happen to her leach fields during construction and after.  She advised Greeley to go north with the line and not ruin her livelihood.

 

Jon Monson, Water and Sewer Director for the City of Greeley, stated that it was the first pipeline that Greeley had built in the area in over 50 years.  The first pipeline went through the LaPorte area in 1907.  He stated that a water master plan was created in 2003.  He stated that 18 different routes for the pipeline had been evaluated and stated that they felt that if everyone on those 18 routes were contacted it would create a huge disruption.  He stated that the pipeline would be going downhill and pumping the water when gravity worked would be irresponsible.  He stated that the route chosen was because of gravity.  He stated that they had heard a lot of negativity regarding the Pleasant Valley pipeline that went through the area as well and noted that the design for the pipeline was different then that one.  He explained that the Pleasant Valley pipeline, which was about the same size as Greeley’s, backfilled an entire trench with a very weak concrete to make a wall, and he could only imagine that it would change the groundwater flows through the properties.  He stated that Greeley had learned from that mistake and their design tried to take that into account and put pervious sand and gravel material around it to minimize the impact of the five foot wall that would be put in.  He stated that Greeley was trying to minimize the effects to the landowners but the other alternatives they believed were worse options.  He remarked that the option to go down County Road 54G was something that the Larimer County Engineering Department did not want to occur, and the option to go through the existing pipeline route would cause some homes to be taken down.  The third route went through the Brink’s hay field, which Greeley chose. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if Greeley had two pipelines in the area?

 

Mr. Monson replied that there were three.  They ran parallel to each other and in some sections there were only two and others there were three.  He stated that the sizes were 27 inch and 38 inch, and the proposed pipeline would be 5 feet deep at the top of the pipe and ten feet deep at the bottom of the pipe.

 

Commissioner Morgan wondered if it would keep water from getting to its historical flows.

 

Mr. Monson stated that it could act as a barrier and that was why the design they were suggesting differed from the design that the Pleasant Valley pipeline used.  Greeley’s design would wrap the pipe with gravel so that when the flow of water was interrupted by the steel pipe then it had some place to go either under or over the pipe through the gravel.  He stated that it would probably move more quickly through the gravel then it would in the existing ground.  He stated that there would be transverse barrier cut off walls that as the flow hit the pipe and had the tendency to follow the gravel bed down the pipe then there would be barrier wall to stop the water from following the pipe and go back to its normal route.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if they had any information to the effectiveness of that method? 

 

 

Mr. Moore stated that it was standard engineering practices, and it would depend on the specific design on each property. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he had a concern about disturbing the Poudre River corridor again.  He stated that installing a pipeline would impede many of the flows that regenerated the corridor.  He agreed that the route on County Road 54G was not a good option. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat was interested in the analysis on how Greeley came to the current route decision. 

 

Commissioner Hart suggested that the City of Greeley discuss the proposal in more depth with the communities affected before they moved forward.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the irrigation and wetlands issues were important.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that the long-term impacts needed to be considered. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he was very conflicted. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he agreed with his fellow Commissioners.  He also noted that he believed in the rights of private property owners and did not believe in imminent domain.  He knew the City of Greeley needed to get the water and believed that they would try to do the right thing but stated that he would vote against the project.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was a sense whether LAPAC would deal with the pipeline given certain limitations or whether they thought the pipeline should be denied?

 

Mr. Helmick thought that LAPAC was very concerned but did not think that their sense was to say absolutely no.  He noted that their comments were included in the agenda packet.  He stated that they did not say no and if given the option they might have but they did not have the conversation. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she would approve the application with conditions.  She did not feel that any of the other options were realistic.  She wanted to condition the motion on the requirement that the City of Greeley examine and consider how the pipeline would go through the wetlands so that it did not interfere with the water that was returning to the wetlands. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that his concerns were regarding the detailed engineering that needed to be examined in order to avoid long-term lasting impacts with the return flows and that best practices be used in terms of the Poudre River corridor, landowners, etc. all the way through the construction process. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he wanted the landowners to be considered and their concerns addressed.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Monson stated that Greeley wanted to do the right thing.  He stated that they were hosting “A Shared Vision Process” with the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and various environmental groups to come up with a shared vision of what the North Fork and the main stem of the Poudre River would look like if and when Greeley built an expansion to the Milton-Seaman Reservoir.  He proposed that Greeley pay to hire an engineer to lay out the best practices as a condition of approval to the request.  He stated that he may not sign off on what was recommended but suggested that the City of Greeley would pay for a third party to come up with a best practices approach.  He stated that with that commitment and an understanding that the best practices could be defined they may be able to satisfy the concern. 

 

Mr. Helmick recapped that the added condition meant that someone would need to develop a best practices manual that dealt with the engineering issues along with the engineering design, preconstruction, construction, post-construction, and property owner contacts.  He suggested that the conditions state, “The City of Greeley shall fund the development of and agree to the implementation of a best practices manual that addresses engineering and design issues related to the preservation of the Poudre River corridor including sustaining the groundwater flows that shall include engineering design, pre-construction, construction, post-construction, and a code of conduct in respect to the property owners.” 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he did not hear the property owners worrying about compensation but worrying about how to replace 100 year old trees, etc. and the value of their properties.  He stated that he disagreed with the manual idea.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Greeley Waterline Northern Segment Location and Extent, file #07-Z1660, subject to the following conditions and added condition #4:

 

1.   The City of Greeley and its contractors shall work with local conservation groups to assist in monitoring the impact of construction of the pipeline.

 

2.   The City of Greeley shall work with individual landowners affected by the preferred alignment to assure, to the maximum extent possible, the preservation of local historic resources.

 

3.   The City of Greeley and it contractors shall coordinate with Colorado Division of wildlife regarding the construction schedule and avoidance of nesting raptor conflicts. 

 

 

4.   The City of Greeley shall fund the development of and agree to the implementation of a best practices manual that addresses engineering and design issues related to the preservation of the Poudre River corridor including sustaining the groundwater flows that shall include engineering design, pre-construction, construction, post-construction, and a code of conduct in respect to the property owners.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

 

Commissioner Cox wondered if there was any other wildlife that needed to be considered in Condition of Approval #3.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that he felt that the condition was adequate. 

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that the best practices manual would also cover the issues concerning wildlife. 

 

Commissioners’ Hart, Oppenheimer, and Weitkunat voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Morgan, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 12:25 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “B”

 

TRACT 2:

A tract of land situate in the North i/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, and in the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, a11 in Township 7 North, Range 71 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado. which considering the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 1 as bearing N88°58'47’'E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on said North line which bears N88°56'47"E 1143.72 feet from the

Northwest Corner of said Section 1, and run thence along raid North line, N88°56'47"E 160.00 feet to the West 1/16 Comer on the North line of said Section 1; thence along the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 1, N88°53'19'E E 694.93 feet thence S03°27'36"W 681. 32 feet; thence S46°00'00"W 519.10 feet; thence S89°'00'00"W 1762.26 feet; thence S58°26'38W 1336.71 feet to a point on the South line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 2; thence along said South line,

S89°49'58"W 172.13 feet to the Northeast 1/16 Corner of said Section 2; thence along the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast ¼ of said Section 2, N03°08’07"E 388.24 feer; thence N48°15’24’’E 1363.39 feet; thence N89°00'00’’E 1159.00 feet; thence N46°00’00"E 673.88 feet to the point of beginning, containing 58.3370 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of

record or existing or as indicated on this plat.

 

 

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