HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 January 25, 2023
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities.
Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when
possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma
inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios,
programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado).
Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
Regular Hearing
January 25, 2023
6:00 PM
David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue
Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado
Adam Sass
Julie Stackhouse Virtual (Zoom or Telephone)
Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion &
York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
Planning and Zoning Commission
Hearing Agenda
Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in
person.
Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may
attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote
public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93177180672. Individuals participating
in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on January 25, 2022. Participants should try to sign in
prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button
to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants
have an opportunity to address the Commission.
(Continued on next page)
Packet pg.1
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 January 25, 2023
ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows:
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time.
• Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes.
• In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that
30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak
has ended.
• CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that
are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an
item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full
presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote.
The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived
controversy, and routine administrative actions.
Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone.
Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 931 7718 0672.
The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For
public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak
at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure
all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted
status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those
materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged
to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the
Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled,
please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting.
As adopted by City Council Ordinance 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation
with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent.
Packet pg.2
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 January 25, 2023
1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z November Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the November 17, 2022, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. Land Use Code Amendment – 1041 Regulations
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this item is 1. to provide an update on community engagement
as directed by City Council during the November 7 work session; and 2. provide
an overview of the proposed version-three draft of the regulations ahead of the
Commission’s hearing. Version-three of the draft regulations will be presented
for City Council’s consideration during the February 7 regular meeting.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
STAFF ASSIGNED: Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet pg.3
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 25, 2023
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 2022 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the November 17, 2022
Planning & Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft November 17, 2022 P&Z Minutes
Packet pg.4
David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers
Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Hall West
Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue
Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado
Adam Sass
Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion &
Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
November 17, 2022
Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse
Absent: None
Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Sizemore, Myler, Schumann, Mapes, Geary, Dinger, Axmacher, Claypool,
Vonkoepping, Hahn, Mounce, Lorson, Lindsey, Kleer, Longstein, and Manno
Chair Katz provided background on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (Commission’s) role and what the
audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures:
•While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen
input is valued and appreciated.
•The Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission once for
each item.
•Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land
Use Code (Code).
•Should a citizen wish to address the Commission on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be
allowed for that as well.
•This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that
everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be
heard as originally advertised.
Planning and Zoning
Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg.5
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 2 of 13
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None noted.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from September 15, 2022, P&Z Hearing
2. Draft Minutes from September 28, 2022, P&Z Extra Hearing
3. 3-Mile Plan Update
4. North College MAX Plan
5. Wireless Land Development Code
6. 2023 Commission Work Plan
7. Recommendation for Proposed Remote Meeting Code Changes
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted.
Chair Katz provided a final review of the items on the consent agenda and reiterated that those items will not have
a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda.
Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent
agenda for the November 17th, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised.
Member Haefele seconded the motion.
Vote: 7:0.
Vice Chair Shepard noted there is a great deal of information in the Commission’s packet online about the policy
changes adopted in the Consent Agenda, particularly the North College MAX Plan and Wireless
Telecommunication Policy.
Discussion Agenda:
8. Powerhouse 2
Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) proposes to develop a research and office building to
promote climate and energy sustainability related to the existing Powerhouse development in the historic power
plant building on North College Avenue.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Clark Mapes, City Planner, addressed some issues that were discussed at the Commission’s work session.
Regarding how street trees along Vine can best provide scale for such a large building, Mapes noted tree species
will be selected at the time of final plan and attention will be given to the scale during that process. He stated the
applicants will address the question as to whether office use parking requirements are sufficient. Regarding the
proposed gated emergency-only access entry on College Avenue, Mapes noted it is set well back from the street
and the access connection to the street and across the sidewalk is interlocking pavers. Additionally, he noted the
gate is a simple design that should blend with the landscaping. He stated this option was proposed as opposed to
right-in, right-out only access because the latter would require an access permit from CDOT which may not match
standard spacing requirements.
Bryan Willson, Powerhouse 2 Innovation Leader, discussed the linkage between this project and Colorado State
University and outlined the history of the existing powerhouse building. He discussed the focus of the use of the
building being on energy, noting energy studies have impacts on global carbon emissions which need to be DRAFTPacket pg.6
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 3 of 13
addressed in an urgent fashion. He discussed the goals of Powerhouse to address the five areas that are forcing
climate issues: electric power production, transportation, industry, agriculture, and buildings.
Mr. Willson outlined the plans for Powerhouse 2, which he referred to as the decarbonization campus, and detailed
various projects that will be undertaken.
Roger Sherman, BHA Design, outlined the City plans that apply to the development area and discussed the ways in
which the project meets those plans and goals. He discussed the extra bicycle parking being provided, detailed the
design of the solar array which will cover 101 parking spaces, and provided information on the natural habitat buffer
zones.
Bob Hosanna, Neenan Company, stated 40% of the carbon emissions in the world are from buildings and he
detailed the ways in which this project will address those concerns, including the use of mass timber rather than
steel. He discussed the proposed materials, which are similar to Powerhouse 1, and the massing of the building.
He noted the modification request for height is being presented due to the need for bus service in the building. He
noted there are no classrooms in this facility.
Mapes commented on the intent for the green edge street frontages being completely met by the plan and building
placement. He noted much of the building is lab space, which does not have a designated parking requirement in
the Code; therefore, the general office parking requirements were used, and a modification has been requested.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if the natural habit buffer zone on the north side will be irrigated to establish plantings.
Mapes replied in the affirmative and stated that it has become standard practice.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Jennifer Spencer expressed support for the project and its design. She stated all of her concerns have been
addressed.
Mike Freeman, Innosphere Ventures CEO, discussed Innosphere’s role in this innovation district and expressed
support for the project.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Vice Chair Shepard thanked staff and the applicant for looking into making the emergency access a right-in, right-
out and stated he understands why CDOT may be reluctant to grant that access.
Chair Katz asked about the required 50-foot buffer which seems to be 35.5 feet. Mapes replied the buffer varies
from approximately 24 to 57 feet, and the standard allows for a non-contiguous buffer zone to compensate for
development near a natural feature. He stated the total of the natural habitat buffer zone along the canal plus the
detention area in the southeast corner, which is also being landscaped as a buffer zone, total well over the square
footage of solely a 50-foot buffer. Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager, noted the Code outlines nine performance
standards for a buffer that must be met for the Commission to find Code Section 3.4.1 is met. She stated the
performance standards relate to recognizing the habitat value that exists on site and adequately protecting that or
replacing any habitat that is lost, and in this case, no habitat is being lost. Rather habitat is being expanded.
Therefore, staff felt the standard was met with the meandering buffer.
Mapes commented on the environmental impact study which recognized the habitat improvement that is going to
occur with the development.
Vice Chair Shepard stated the project meets the Downtown Plan and the spirit of the innovation district, and he
commended the applicant team. He commented on the first modification related to parking lot interior landscaping
which is using solar canopies instead of trees, which is equal to or better than a complying plan.
Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
requested modification of standard to the Land Use Code, Section 3.2.1(E)(5) regarding parking lot interior
landscaping to not require canopy shade trees in the landscaped islands. The Commission finds that this
modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the plan as submitted will promote the DRAFTPacket pg.7
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 4 of 13
general purpose of the Section 3.2.1(E)(5) for which the modification is requested equally well or better
than a plan with trees because the shade structures provide more shade, add visual interest, and meet the
spirit of the innovation campus. Additionally, this is done without impairing the intent and purpose of the
Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would substantially address an important community need
by demonstrating innovation in energy and sustainability which are prominent themes in City Plan and the
Downtown Plan, and the strict application of the standard would render the project infeasible. The plan as
submitted will not diverge from the Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered
from the perspective of the entire development plan. This decision is based on the agenda materials,
information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission
discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts information, analysis, findings of fact,
and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the
agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded the motion. The motion was adopted
7:0.
Member Haefele made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K)(2) to allow 161 parking spaces
instead of the required 172 spaces. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental
to the public good and the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 3.2.2(K)(2) for
which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with said
section because the parking is sufficient based upon the lab space and street parking along the frontage
and without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would
substantially address an important community need by showcasing and demonstrating innovation,
sustainability, and lower carbon climate economy as described in City Plan, the Downtown Plan, and the
Climate Action Plan, and the strict application of Section 3.2.2(K)(2) would render the project practically
infeasible. Additionally, the plan as submitted will not diverge from Section 3.2.2(K)(2) except in a nominal
and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will
continue to advance the purposes of Land Use Code Section 1.2.2. This decision is based on the agenda
materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the
Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts information, analysis,
findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report
included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded the motion.
Member Schneider stated he would support the motion but suggested the future Code updates examine including
parking requirements for this type of use. He expressed concern about a potential change of use for the building in
the future. Everette replied that the phase two Code updates will examine parking standards and use categories
for commercial and industrial use types.
Chair Katz noted most lab uses fall into an industrial category which has lower parking standards.
The motion was adopted 7:0.
Member Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested
modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 4.16(B)(1) regarding street frontage build-to range. The
Commission finds that the following modification criteria are met: by reason of exceptional physical
conditions unique to the property, the strict application of 4.16(B)(1) would result in exceptional or undue
hardship on the property owner, the hardship was not due to an act or omission of such owner, and the
plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of 4.16(B)(1) equally well or better than a plan which
complies with 4.16(B)(1). This decision is based on the agenda materials, information and materials
presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further,
this Commission hereby adopts information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this
modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing.
Chair Katz made a friendly amendment to the motion that the requested modification would not be
detrimental to the public good. Member Sass accepted the amendment.
Vice Chair Shepard seconded the motion. The motion was adopted 7:0.
DRAFTPacket pg.8
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 5 of 13
Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 4.16(C)(1) regarding the building height to
allow the building to be 79 feet in height as shown in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the
modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criteria are met:
the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 4.16(C)(1) for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with Section 4.16(C)(1) because the
additional height will not affect the perceived scale, and without impairing the intent and purpose of the
Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would substantially address an important community need
by showcasing technology, strategies and innovation in line with the goals set forth in City Plan, the
Downtown Plan, and the Climate Action Plan, and the strict application of Section 4.16(C)(1) would render
the project practically infeasible, and the plan as submitted would not diverge from Section 4.16(C)(1)
except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code Section 1.2.2. This
decision is based on the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work session
and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts
information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained
in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded the motion.
The motion was adopted 7:0.
Vice Chair Shepard thanked the applicant team for its detailed and informative presentation.
Member Stackhouse stated she believes this project will spur additional development on North College and stated
we should be proud of the proposal as a city.
Member Hogestad stated this is a well-done, well-thought-out project and he commended the design team.
Vice Chair Shepard noted this is a difficult site to develop and commended the resolution of very complicated
issues.
Chair Katz applauded the design team.
Member Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
Powerhouse 2 Project Development Plan #210021. The Commission finds in consideration of the approved
modifications that the Project Development Plan complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements.
This decision is based on the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the work
session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby
adopts information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project development plan
contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Hogestad seconded
the motion.
Vice Chair Shepard commented on Fort Collins being one of six places in the United States in the National
Museum of American History Lemelson Center for the Study of Innovation.
The motion was adopted 7:0.
9. The Savoy
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a 243-unit multi-family
development. The proposal includes nine buildings and a centrally located clubhouse with fitness center, pool, and
amenity area. Primary vehicular access will be taken from Le Fever Drive to the north and Brookfield Drive to the
east. This parcel (#8604127001) is in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district and is subject to a Type 2, Planning
and Zoning Commission review.
Recommendation: Approval
Vice Chair Shepard disclosed that he visited the site yesterday. Member Sass disclosed he also visited the site.
DRAFTPacket pg.9
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 6 of 13
Manno stated emails were received from residents expressing concern about the width of roadways and parking.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Kai Kleer, City Planner, discussed the proposed project for a 243-unit multi-family development located in the
Harmony Corridor (HC) zone, noting this is the last remaining portion of secondary use area within the Harmony
Technology Park. He stated one modification of standard for the seven-acre block maximum is being requested
and staff is recommending two conditions of approval.
Kleer discussed the history of the Harmony Corridor Plan and stated this project complies with its standards. He
provided photos of the site and discussed existing development in the area. He noted the project will be
constructing the extension of Le Fever.
Adam Kantor, Kephart Planning Architecture, discussed the location of the proposed development and noted the
parking requirement is completely met on site. He commented on the clubhouse amenities and pedestrian
connectivity provided on the site. Regarding the proposed modification for the parcel size, which is 8.3 acres where
the Code calls for a maximum of 7, he stated a street would typically be used on a larger site to meet the block
standard; however, this parcel cannot accommodate that based on its size and the locations of existing streets. He
stated the plan instead creates a pedestrian walkway which meets the standard equally well or better than placing a
street through the site.
Mr. Kantor discussed the two conditions of approval, one describing how the buildings address the streets and one
related to bicycle parking, which was a clerical error on initial plans that has now been corrected. He went on to
detail the ways in which the buildings address the streets and noted the breezeways that face the parking are the
primary entries into the building. He noted the entries that face streets are not primary building entries but primary
unit entries, and those have been enhanced to address the street at a pedestrian level.
Mr. Kantor discussed how the building variation standards are being met. He stated great effort was taken to
differentiate neighboring buildings from one another and to create an active street front. He noted concerns about
the existing street section were raised at the neighborhood meeting and subsequent changes were made to the
plan to not have entry points on Precision. Additionally, he noted the City suggested providing a larger right-of-way
section and work was done to develop a solution for existing roadways that includes inset parking, bump-outs, and
ways to provide required street trees in a slightly different fashion.
Nick Hawes, Northern Engineering, commented on the intentional efforts to increase the travel lane width given the
already constructed streets, when continuously parked, provide little opportunity for cars to navigate. He discussed
the mature on-site landscaping and noted the street tree requirements will still be met.
Mr. Kantor provided additional renderings of the project.
Kleer provided a detailed staff analysis of the project noting the clubhouse building meets the requirement for a
multi-family central feature and gathering space. Additionally, he stated the building variation standards are met as
are bike parking standards. Regarding the concerns about the existing narrow streets, Kleer noted they were built
under previous Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards; however, the newly constructed streets will meet the
current standards. He discussed the proposed modification of standard for the multi-family block size and noted
the intent of the standard is to create compact, walkable streets for people. He noted the existing streets on the
site preclude the construction of a new street to help meet the standard; therefore, the project is proposing a major
walkway spine to provide the pedestrian connection. He stated staff is recommending approval of the modification
request.
Kleer commented on the building materiality and noted staff has yet to fully review the updated entry features;
therefore, staff will be asking the Commission to determine whether they meet the requirements. He stated staff
finds the PDP complies with Article 2 and the relevant standards of Article 4 of the Land Use Code, is consistent
with the Harmony Technology Park ODP, and complies with the relevant standards of Article 3 subject to two
conditions of approval.
DRAFTPacket pg.10
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 7 of 13
Vice Chair Shepard requested clarification on the travel width of the newly constructed roadways. Kleer replied it
will be 20 feet for Le Fever and 23 feet for Brookfield and Precision.
Member Stackhouse asked about the number of street-facing entry doors. Mr. Kantor replied there are six street-
facing entry doors on Precision with two side entries and four along Brookfield.
Member Stackhouse asked why so many residents are using street parking as opposed to other parking. Kleer
replied staff speculates that some of the multi-family developments in the area utilize garage spaces, which
sometimes cost additional rent; therefore, residents may opt for street parking instead. He stated the current Code
prevents counting garage spaces toward parking minimums; however, that may not have been in place when those
multi-family developments were constructed.
Ken Kiken, Milestone, stated his company built Terra Vida and The Vibe developments, and at that time, the
garages were free with units. He stated he believes the existing owners are doing the same and he suggested
many of the garages may be used for storage.
Member Hogestad asked about the location and function of the shed roof structures. Mr. Kantor replied they are
shade structures with benches and signage. He stated they are entryway features, or portals, and there are four
throughout the site that help provide texture and create a pedestrian-scale experience. He noted the structures
have roofs and have amenities in some cases.
Member Hogestad asked about the connections of the pedestrian spine. Mr. Kantor replied it connects to the
existing pedestrian experience on the public streets.
Vice Chair Shepard stated he believes the entry portals are effective and requested clarification as to whether there
is one on Brookfield. Mr. Kantor replied there is a label on the site plan in the packet that is obscuring the symbol.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if there is any need for striping down the middle of Precision and Brookfield that have
inset parking. Mr. Hawes replied that is not typically seen in a local residential setting; however, that will ultimately
be up to the City. He stated the inset parking will be concrete.
Vice Chair Shepard commented on the inset parking placing passenger doors right up against the attached
sidewalk and asked if any consideration has been given to widening the sidewalk from five to six feet. Mr. Hawes
replied that did not come up in conversations with staff; however, that could be considered. He noted there will be
a vertical curb.
Vice Chair Shepard noted the continuous parkway and consistent street tree spacing is lost with inset parking and
bump-outs. He stated the compensation for that seems to be the placement of trees behind the walk and he asked
if consideration has been given to moving those closer to the attached walk rather than closer to the buildings.
Steve Allen, Henry Design, replied the Code requires the trees to be three to seven feet from the back of the walk
and that requirement has been met. He noted there is a gas line that runs closer to the sidewalk which has limited
their ability to plant trees right against the walk.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Peter King expressed concern about the desire to maximize the residential density in the development. He stated
the situation is being exacerbated by the modification request to eliminate the roadway that would otherwise be
required.
Staff and Applicant Response
Kleer confirmed the gross density of the project is 25 dwelling units per acre with the net density being closer to 30.
He stated he believed there were modification requests for roadways for two nearby projects. He noted the
minimum parking requirements are being met and noted the future multi-family Code will reduce the parking
minimums.
DRAFTPacket pg.11
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 8 of 13
Mr. Kantor noted the project is aiming to meet the community objective of providing needed housing units and
stated it also aims to prioritize pedestrians, bicycles, and residents by not introducing that additional public street.
Vice Chair Shepard requested clarification as to whether the on-street parking spaces count toward the
development meeting its required minimum number. Kleer replied all required off-street parking spaces are
provided internal to the development and all on-street parking was not counted toward meeting the minimum
requirements.
Vice Chair Shepard noted comments were received from an individual expressing concern regarding the
narrowness of Precision and Brookfield.
Member Sass asked if there are emergency vehicle entrances to the site and, if so, how they are identified. Kleer
replied emergency access is proposed to be taken from Le Fever on the north and there is also a 26-foot
emergency access easement that circulates internally to the site around the clubhouse. Additionally, the entrance
off Brookfield is overlayed with an emergency access easement as well.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Member Sass stated the requested modification seems reasonable given the way the properties around the subject
developed.
Chair Katz concurred and stated requiring the roadway would be detrimental to the development. He expressed
support for the modification.
Member Hogestad stated the modification itself would be fine; however, the mitigation is poorly designed and does
not act as a central walkway spine.
Member Haefele concurred with Member Hogestad and noted the neighboring projects were completed by the
same developer; therefore, it seems the hardship was created by that situation. She questioned the walkability of
the project and stated the walkway spine should function more like an avenue than a path through the parking lot.
Chair Katz asked for suggestions on how the walkway could be enhanced to make the modification meet the
‘equally well or better than’ criteria. Member Haefele suggested the walkway should be widened with additional
landscaping and gathering spaces and should not simply be a path through parking lots.
Chair Katz stated a street would not be better than the walkway; however, the mitigation in the form of the walkway
needs to be improved.
Vice Chair Shepard commented on the history of the standard being requested for modification. He agreed there is
quite a bit of density in the project but noted it is contained by public streets. He stated the street pattern,
entrances, and New Urbanism basis of the standard provides the fundamental layout of the project. He concurred
the walkway could perhaps be enhanced but clarified it is not, by definition, a major walkway spine because that is
not a requirement as the buildings face streets.
Member Stackhouse stated she does not have a problem with the modification request given the location and size
of the parcel. She expressed concern about possibly placing a condition of approval on the modification given it is
not particularly clear as to what would be sought.
Member Hogestad stated the mitigation has not been done appropriately and should be wider, more well
landscaped, and with additional gathering spaces.
Vice Chair Shepard noted most gathering will occur at the clubhouse amenity area to which the walkway leads. He
commented on the possibility of encouraging the design team to qualitatively improve the space without making a
condition.
DRAFTPacket pg.12
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 9 of 13
Mr. Allen stated the intent of the pedestrian corridor is to bring the community into the site. He commented on the
design of the corridor and stated there are benches, gathering spaces, and significant landscaping, including park
areas. Chair Katz stated that description helps with the mitigation of the standard.
Mr. Kantor stated the team will take the comments into consideration for final design.
Member Haefele stated the Commission can place a condition of approval on a project without consent of the
applicant as long as it meets the Land Use Code. Chair Katz concurred; however, he stated the unclear,
conceptual conditions are more difficult to word.
Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.8.30(D)(2) regarding block size to allow the
project to exceed the seven-acre maximum block size by 1.13 acres. The Commission finds that the
modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the following modification criterion is
met: the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 3.8.30(D)(2) for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan that complies with 3.8.30(D)(2) because
of the enhanced internal network of pedestrian walkways, the pocket park between buildings 7 and 8, and
dividing the block with a street would not result in a greater level of pedestrian walkability than what is
proposed. This decision is based on the agenda materials, information and materials presented during the
work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission
hereby adopts information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification of
standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Schneider
seconded the motion.
Member Haefele stated her objection is that the walkway does not feel comfortable and seems to be more parking
lot than anything.
Vice Chair Shepard stated he believes the applicant has heard the discussion and stated it is also possible a
hardship was created that was not caused by an act or omission of the applicant.
The motion carried 5:2 with Haefele and Hogestad dissenting.
Member Stackhouse stated she has been concerned about the narrow streets and has been trying to consider how
this development would make things worse. She stated efforts have been made to offset some of the issues with
the narrow streets and that seems to be a fair tradeoff for the neighborhood. She commented on Colorado’s
escalating housing prices leading to increased density.
Member Haefele stated increased density is occurring not because of a lack of supply, but because it is lucrative to
build dense housing due to the high housing prices. She stated increased density will never address affordability.
Vice Chair Shepard stated he was initially very concerned about the inset parking and bump out landscaping, but
after driving the site, he has changed his mind. He commended the creativity of the design and stated the
clubhouse amenities in the two existing developments bring a lot to the neighborhoods.
Member Hogestad commented on the architecture being different from other multi-family developments and
commended the design.
Chair Katz also commended the design and use of materials. He stated the clubhouse far exceeds many similar
projects. He stated he would have liked to have seen the project have more than one of the three-plex buildings,
though the Code is technically met. He expressed concern about the over-use of faux cedar shake shingles and
stated the material does not fit the area contextually.
Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
Project Development Plan for The Savoy #210019 finding the PDP is consistent with the staff
recommendation and the following conditions: prior to final plan approval, the project shall provide 75
additional bicycle parking spaces to meet the minimum bicycle parking requirement in Section 3.2.2(C)(4),
and, prior to final plan approval, the street-facing façade shall contain a minimum of one primary entryway DRAFTPacket pg.13
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 10 of 13
similar to what is found on the opposing side of the building. This entryway shall be emphasized using
landscaping, roof forms, balconies, overhangs, block wall features, and shall be a primary entrance to at
least one or more units of each building in a manner acceptable to City staff. The Commission finds in
consideration of the conditions and approved modification to the block size, that the Project Development
Plan complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based on the agenda
materials, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the
Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts information, analysis,
findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project development plan contained in the staff report
included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded the motion.
Member Hogestad stated he would not support the motion as the project is flawed given the granted modification.
The motion carried 6-1 with Hogestad dissenting.
(**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
10. Oil and Gas Land Development Code Regulations
Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Land
Development Code amendments to regulate the zoning, siting, and design of new oil and gas facilities. The code
amendments address regulatory gaps and opportunities that were created with the adoption of Colorado Senate Bill
19-181.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff Presentation
Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner, commented on the focus areas of oil and gas regulation work: new
oil and gas facilities, operational standards, and reverse setbacks, and stated this presentation will focus on new oil
and gas facilities. He discussed the state and local roles in regulation and stated this draft Code language aims at
regulating surface activities as it is outside of the local purview to regulate in-hole operations.
Longstein discussed the October Council work session during which general support was provided for restricting
new oil and gas wells to industrial zone districts and continuing to align with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC) minimum setbacks of 2,000 feet from occupied buildings, trails, and natural areas. He
noted the original proposed Code regulations would have added oil and gas facilities as an allowed use to industrial
zone districts and add oil and gas pipelines as an allowed use to all zone districts. He commented on feedback
received that pipelines should not be allowed on public lands or in residential areas; therefore, staff’s current
recommendation is to remove oil and gas pipelines as an allowed use within public open lands and residential zone
types, including mixed-use neighborhoods. He discussed the proposed setback regulations for new oil and gas
facilities, which would be 2,000 feet from residential buildings and 1,000 feet from wetlands, water, ditches,
conservation easements. For new oil and gas pipelines, a 50- to 100-foot setback from buildings and a 150-foot
setback from surface water features are being proposed. He also noted there are quite a few buffering
requirements related to wildlife at the state level.
Longstein noted the intent of the draft language is to make new oil and gas facilities and pipelines fall under
Planning and Zoning Commission review with a quicker basic development review process being used for plugging
and abandoning existing wells. He noted this was based on public stakeholder feedback related to public notices
and input opportunities being minimal and inadequate.
Longstein stated the draft also includes some prohibitive oil and gas facilities, including injection wells, some gas
storage wells, and disposal pits. He also commented on included development standards related to landscaping,
fencing, artificial lifts, and environmental protection and discussed the regulations and requirements related to
plugging and abandoning wells.
Longstein commented on the ways in which the draft Code addresses financial security in the development
agreement language. He also noted all existing development standards within the Land Development Code will DRAFTPacket pg.14
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 11 of 13
apply when a PDP is submitted for oil and gas facilities. He stated the staff recommendation is for support of the
draft oil and gas Code regulations including updates to the table of primary uses.
Member Haefele asked if the City could add financial security requirements with bonding specifically for City
resources. Longstein replied that could be a possible inclusion and it would likely be similar to the existing
development agreement language.
Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager, noted financial securities are required for public infrastructure, natural
habitat buffer zone restoration, and landscaping. She requested clarification as to what other financial securities
would be desired.
Member Haefele asked if the state financial securities would cancel any the City would require. Everette replied the
state has multiple financial securities, including some that give the state the ability to reclaim a well and plug it if an
operator goes out of business and abandons a well without plugging it.
Member Haefele asked about landscaping for fire safety. Longstein replied there is a buffer distance between the
facilities and where landscaping would be allowed.
Member Haefele asked if there are requirements for landscaping to mitigate the impacts of the screening.
Longstein replied in the negative and stated the fencing requirement is not specific to screening or aesthetics.
Chair Katz asked if other parts of the Code would cover mitigating impacts of screening. Everette replied in the
affirmative noting there are requirements related to operational compatibility.
Member Haefele asked if the City is required to add oil and gas facilities as an allowed use in the industrial zone.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied he would recommend an executive session to discuss those types of legal
issues.
Member Schneider stated the use must be added to comply with SB181 and the ultimate effect of the regulations
will be a prohibition on drilling new wells in Fort Collins, though that cannot be explicitly stated.
Member Stackhouse stated the proposed regulations do not prohibit oil and gas development, nor is the City
attempting to do that; however, the conditions under which oil and gas development can occur are going to be
extremely narrow.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated, prior to SB181, the City’s ability to regulate the surface impacts of oil and
gas facilities was severely limited, and post-SB181, the City acquired much greater authority. He stated the
COGCC has the ability to regulate surface impacts if the City does not adopt regulations.
Everette noted the intent in Council directing staff to develop these Code standards was to address what Council
perceived as a regulatory gap and to ensure there are strong regulations that reflect the will of Council and the
community to ensure that gap no longer exists.
Member Haefele asked if the recommendation as written includes allowing pipelines in all zones. Everette replied it
was not feasible to make the Code draft changes related to not allowing pipelines in public open lands and
residential zones; however, staff is recommending that amendment and it is possible that language could be
changed in the draft that goes before Council.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Ed Behan, Larimer Alliance for Health, Safety, and the Environment, expressed concern about the proposed
language, specifically related to proposed setbacks that apply to structures rather than property lines, notification
requirements only for owners of record, and the application only of basic development review to the siting of
pipelines. He requested the Commission not recommend the regulations for adoption without additional time for
study by relevant stakeholders and public input.
DRAFTPacket pg.15
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 12 of 13
Tim Gosar requested the Commission seriously consider the process by which these draft regulations are being
rolled out and presented to the public and whether there has been meaningful opportunity for the public to read,
understand, and engage on the matter. He specifically citied concerns related to setbacks and financial assurance.
He requested the regulations be held in abeyance until staff can prepare a more complete and comprehensive set
of regulations that truly protect public health, safety, and the environment.
Longstein stated the proposed setbacks include a variety of stipulations, including distance to property lines for
parks, playgrounds, and outdoor venues. He acknowledged there was a great deal of input related to allowing
additional time for consideration of the draft language; therefore, the item has been pushed to the December 20th
Council meeting. He noted some of the pipeline concerns have been addressed by limiting the zones in which they
would be allowed. Additionally, oil and gas development does not have eminent domain authority.
Everette noted the public engagement process for these Code updates primarily happened in 2019 and several
work sessions with Council have occurred over the last two years. She also noted all Code standards that apply in
a type 2 Planning and Zoning Commission process also apply in a Basic Development Review process and any
requested modifications are subject to the same review criteria. Regarding notifications only going to property
owners of record, Everette noted that is the standard practice within the current development review process. She
stated a pilot was done a couple years ago sending mailings to tenants and it was found there is no reliable
database upon which to rely and many expensive mailing errors occurred.
Longstein stated the City of Fort Collins was recently awarded an EPA grant through Environmental Services and
purchased an infrared camera in partnership with Larimer County to address ongoing leak detection and reporting.
He stated this draft language does not relate to ongoing operational inspections.
Member Haefele asked if there are going to be additional regulations developed by another City department for
operational issues, such as requiring air quality monitoring. Longstein replied the staff recommendation is to
partner with Larimer County, regional partners, and the operator for ongoing monitoring. Everette noted there
would be a reliance on Larimer County’s operational standards and inspectors given the low number of wells within
the city limits.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if these standards generally match the County’s. Longstein replied he could not speak
to that specifically.
Chair Katz asked if annexation would be triggered by an oil and gas development in the GMA that is adjacent on
three sides by city limits. Everette replied certain types of development applications trigger review for annexation;
therefore, it would depend on how Larimer County classifies oil and gas facilities.
Member Sass noted monitoring of abandoned wells is required for five years and asked where that information
goes. Longstein replied the City would collect the information and that would be a condition of the development
agreement. Everette noted Environmental Planning staff would review the reports which would be prepared by an
industry professional.
Member Sass asked how the City is financially protected for those five years of monitoring should an issue be
detected. Everette replied the first course of action would be coordination with the COGCC and there would be
mechanisms at the state level to address replugging a well.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Member Haefele stated pipelines are not utilities and should not be treated as such. She expressed concern the
draft regulations are not yet adequate to fully take advantage of the control the City has been given with SB181.
Vice Chair Shepard requested input as to why oil and gas facilities would be allowed as an addition of permitted
use (APU). Everette replied some of the criteria for an APU are conformity with the basic premise of the underlying
zone district and ensuring more impact than a permitted use does not occur. She stated those would be high bars
to meet for an oil and gas facility.
DRAFTPacket pg.16
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 17, 2022
Page 13 of 13
Member Haefele stated there is no reason to open up the possibility of allowing oil and gas facilities as an APU and
she recommended striking that clause all together. She also suggested changing the setbacks from building wall to
property boundary for all properties.
Vice Chair Shepard asked if other Code provisions could be invoked to increase setbacks. Everette replied there
are few properties that are big enough to accommodate a 2,000-foot buffer without touching a property line. She
noted the property line setback is included for schools, playgrounds, and recreational fields.
Member Haefele expressed concern that even though these situations are unlikely, it is inappropriate to be as
amenable as possible with the regulations.
Member Schneider noted the Commission is not the final decision maker and Council, as elected officials, will make
a decision based on input from the community.
Member Stackhouse stated she is comfortable moving forward.
Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the
proposed Land Development Code changes with regard to new oil and gas facilities including the changes
mentioned by staff. Member Schneider seconded the motion.
Chair Katz noted voting against this motion is actually voting for less regulation.
Member Haefele stated voting against the motion is voting against this specific package of regulations.
The motion carried 6-1 with Haefele dissenting.
Other Business
Member Stackhouse commented on the need for public input processes to be better advertised.
Everette commented on various engagement techniques used by the City.
Adjournment
Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: January 25, 2022.
Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair
DRAFTPacket pg.17
Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report Agenda Item 2
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
1. Project Introduction
A. BACKGROUND
The purpose of 1041 powers is to give local governments a seat at the table during the review of
particular development projects occurring within their jurisdiction, even when the project has statewide
impacts. The term “1041” refers to the number of the bill, House Bill 74-1041, that created the 1041
powers in 1974 and the statutes regarding 1041 powers are also referred to as the Areas and Activities
of State Interest Act (“AASIA”).
The City of Fort Collins is developing regulations for water and highway projects that are contextually
appropriate to Fort Collins, provide predictability for developers and decision makers, and adequate
guidance for review by City staff. The intent is to match or exceed state requirements to ensure the
protection of public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife resources.
The City is authorized to create these rules under the authority given by the State of Colorado through
a 1974 law commonly known as "1041" (for House Bill 1041). The bill essentially allows local
government to regulate activities of state interest through a local permitting process.
As currently proposed, a 1041 permit would be required for projects that are included in one of the
categories designated by Council and show a potential for adverse impact. Based on community
engagement, staff recommend changes to the draft 1041 regulations and will submit a version-three for
the Commission to review ahead of its hearing. The Version three draft of the 1041 regulation limits the
scope by project size thresholds (e.g., pipe diameter, pipe length, easement size, and service size
equivalence) similar to Larimer County regulations. Although project size is not the best proxy for
environmental impacts, it does provide predictability for applicants and impacted stakeholders.
Whereas initial community concerns implied the creation of “loop-holes” and “casting too wide of a net”,
upon further scenario planning, adding geographic thresholds to version-two of the regulations also
included similar concerns. Based on stakeholder feedback, the revised scope of the regulations
continues to focus on impacts to specific resources through pre-application submittal documents,
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: January 25, 2023
Land Use Code Amendment – 1041 regulations
Summary of Request
The purpose of this item is 1. to provide an update on community
engagement as directed by City Council during the November 7
work session; and 2. provide an overview of the proposed version-
three draft of the regulations ahead of the Commission’s hearing.
Version-three of the draft regulations will be presented for City
Council’s consideration during the February 7 regular meeting.
Next Steps
The Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss its
recommendation for City Council’s consideration of adoption of the
proposed Land Use Code changes.
Applicant
City of Fort Collins
Staff
Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner
970-416-2865 | klongstein@fcgov.com
Contents
1. Project Introduction ......................................... 1
2. Comprehensive Plan & City Policy Alignment 2
3. Summary of Community Engagement ............ 3
4. Staff Recommendations .................................. 4
5. Attachments .................................................... 6
Packet pg.18
P&Z Agenda Item 2
LUC Amendment – 1041 Regulations
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 | Page 2 of 6
Back to Top
FONAI determination, the common review standards applied to a full permit and by providing
predictability for applicants.
B. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
During the November 7 City Council work session, Several Councilmembers recognized Staff progress
towards a balanced approach focusing on the most sensitive natural and historic resource impacts.
Councilmembers expressed general support for the version-two draft 1041 regulations with geographic
thresholds and sought additional options to consider the final decision-making framework. Based on
Council’s direction, staff sought additional feedback from stakeholders and received input on how to
improve version-two of the proposed 1041 regulations. based on stakeholder feedback, staff
recommend a version-three be considered during the February 7 regular city council meeting.
2. Comprehensive Plan & City Policy Alignment
A. CITY PLAN
The proposed code amendments directly align to City Plan
Policy ENV 1.3 - NATURE IN THE CITY
Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources
throughout the GMA by:
• Directing development away from natural features to the maximum extent feasible;
• Identifying opportunities to integrate or reintroduce natural systems as part of the
built environment to improve habitat in urbanized areas and expand residents’
access to nature;
• Utilizing green infrastructure to manage stormwater and increase greenspace in
public right-of-ways and as part of public and private development; and
• Supporting the use of a broad range of native landscaping that enhances plant and
animal diversity.
Policy ENV 6.4 - DEVELOPMENT ALONG WATERWAYS
Use development regulations, such as setbacks from natural features and performance
standards, to conserve and protect natural resources along the Poudre River, Spring
Creek, Fossil Creek, Boxelder Creek and other waterways. Redevelopment in areas with
natural resource values or potential natural values will consider the creation or
enhancement of those values with an emphasis on natural attributes.
Policy ENV 7.1 - ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE
Support a healthy river ecosystem that has the capacity to persist and adapt over time in
the face of natural and human-caused challenges. Protect or enhance opportunities for
natural processes to drive ecosystem renewal
Policy LIV 10.5 - PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT
Recognize the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through
ongoing planning efforts and enforcement of regulations.
B. OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES
• The proposed code amendments were directed by City Council through Resolution 2021-055.
Directing the city manager to investigate and evaluate the regulation of areas and activities of
state interest pursuant to powers established in state law commonly referred to as 1041
Powers.
Packet pg.19
P&Z Agenda Item 2
LUC Amendment – 1041 Regulations
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 | Page 3 of 6
Back to Top
• Ordinance NO 122 – 2021 Designating certain matters as matters of state interest and imposing
a moratorium on the conduct of such activities until city council makes a final determination
regarding the adoption of guidelines for the administration.
3. Summary of Community Engagement
Throughout the time since the release of the initial draft code in June, 2022 in addition to organized outreach
events, staff has met or spoken by phone at length with individual stakeholders, both in support of and
opposed to the regulations, to discuss questions and feedback in great detail. Staff has listened deeply and
worked to find balance among the perspectives and concerns expressed by various individuals, organizations,
utility providers, agencies, developers, Boards and Commissions, and Northern Colorado communities.
Significant revisions in the current draft regulations are in direct response to the insights and information
gathered through these conversations.
The following table summarizes feedback from public comments, an anonymized survey, 1:1 discussions and
focus group meetings earlier in 2022:
Community Feedback Themes
Housing
Resilience
• Value for natural habitat features that increase community wellbeing through benefits
like clean air, landscape aesthetics, and flood control.
• Concerns that environmental regulation can impact the supply of housing if they
increase the amount of time necessary to build housing units.
High
Performing
Government
• Value for transparency, access to more information and opportunities to address
inequities.
• Concerns that additional permitting requirements are redundant, create uncertainty,
project delays, require additional time, and investment in City-specific mitigation
requirements.
Economic
Resilience
• Preference for local control of large projects to ensure community-wide benefits are
realized.
• Importance of balancing the burdens of bureaucracy and the demands of a fast-
growing community.
Since the November 7, 2022 City Council work session, staff sought input from engaged community partners
on 1041 regulations for domestic water and highway projects that continue to meet the following regulatory
goals (1) contextually appropriate to Fort Collins, (2) provide predictability for developers and decision makers,
and (3) provide adequate guidance for staff review and implementation of permits.
Stakeholder Outreach Activities since November 7 City Council work session:
• Staff convened four 90-minute working groups representing regional economic, and environmental
interest, as well as representation from City Boards and Commissions, local water provider, and
regional C-DOT representatives. Notes from these group conversations are provided as an attachment
to the memo.
• Staff meet 1:1 with interested groups to discuss redline edits to version-two of the draft regulations and
provide general feedback on policy direction. 1:1 meeting in November through January 2023 include:
o Boxelder Sanitation
Packet pg.20
P&Z Agenda Item 2
LUC Amendment – 1041 Regulations
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 | Page 4 of 6
Back to Top
o Northern Water
o ELCO
o City Board and Commission members
o Save the Poudre
o Fort Collins Utilities
o Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
• Staff met with the following City Boards and Commissions
o Transportation Board
o Natural Resources Advisory Board
o Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
o Water Commission
o Planning and Zoning Commission
• Staff plan a public open house at Fort Fun along Mulberry Ave. January 19 at 4pm
o Spanish materials will presented, and a survey provided. A summary of the feedback themes
received from Disproportionately impacted community members will be provided in Council’s
February 7 packet.
During phase III outreach activities, the engaged stakeholders were invited to participate through working
groups and one-on-one meetings with City staff. Additionally, Staff created materials translated into Spanish
and engaged with disproportionately impacted communities along the Mulberry Corridor. Throughout the
engagement process key questions included:
1. Do you have feedback on the proposed scope to focus on the greatest areas of impacts rather than
major projects?
Geographic Thresholds:
• Parks, natural areas, and other city-owned properties
• Natural habitat buffer zones
• Historic and cultural resources
2. Councilmembers asked Staff to explore adding the definition of “Natural Resources”.
1. After Geographic thresholds are applied, what additional areas are not covered?
2. What review standards should staff consider adding related to “Natural Resources”?
The following table summarizes feedback from public comments, and working group meetings:
Version-Two Regulations Feedback Themes
Geographic Based
Thresholds
• Geographic Based Thresholds do not account for Disproportionately Impacted
Communities
• Without project size thresholds applicability for projects castes too wide a net
and will capture too many projects.
• General support to move geographic based thresholds into review standards.
FONAI Determination
• General support for FONAI review by Director
• Neighborhood meeting should be required prior to FONAI determination
• More prescriptive language related to pre-application submittal requirements
Definition of
Development
• Concern for projects within existing rights-of-way and easements. Especially
when Stormwater is not covered by regs and has a similar impact.
• Concerns that any maintenance, repair, adjustment are covered
•
4. Staff Recommendations
Packet pg.21
P&Z Agenda Item 2
LUC Amendment – 1041 Regulations
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 | Page 5 of 6
Back to Top
Based on Community engagement, staff recommend the following changes to the version-two of the draft 1041
regulations:
Version-Two Feedback Staff recommended changes to the draft 1041
regulations?
Suggest looking at specific scope and size thresholds
instead of geographic limitations (i.e. pipe sizes and
whether it’s new or a replacement).
Staff recommend updating the definitions to include
project size thresholds similar to Larimer County
regulations. Previously proposed geographic based
thresholds should be applied as criteria to the FONAI
determination.
Review pass-through fees, permit fees, inspection
fees so that there isn’t “triple dipping” or overlap
between fees for topic experts.
Staff recommend administering the full 1041 permit review
process through a third-party contract until we can have
better data to propose a new permit fee. With the
information available to staff through a recent RFI, we plan
to issue a RFP shortly after the adoption of the code for an
on-call contractor servicing third party permit review of all
phases of the 1041 permit review; including conceptual,
FONAI, and full permit review.
Remove subjectivity from the application review
process by providing more details to the submittal
requirements and processing procedures.
Additional definition to the submittal documents required at
pre-application and FONAI review should be updated;
including details for an initial cumulative impacts analysis.
Concerns about the definition of development
including work within ROW
Staff recommend updating the definitions to exclude any
maintenance, repair, adjustment; and excludes existing
pipeline or the relocation, replacement, or enlargement of
an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-
way with conditions that such work does not have a
foreseeable adverse impact on natural habitats.
The consultant’s responsibilities should be clearly
defined when reviewing a full permit.
As a part of the FONAI determination, Staff will provide
details related to additional study needed. Scope of work
and submittal documents will be provided through an
application checklist.
Staff should consider adding the definition of Natural
Resources.
C.R.S 24-65.1-104. Definitions includes a definition for
“natural resources” and so staff do not recommend adding
a new definition that might create confusion. in this way,
staff recommend including a definition for natural feature
already being used within the LUC.
Financial Security Language is too weak
In addition to the financial security language, City Council
may approve a permit with condition of approval; Sec 2-
314
Regulations do not account for construction activities
outside the jurisdiction that have an adverse impact
on City-owned assets within the jurisdiction.
Staff recommend further discussion.
Packet pg.22
P&Z Agenda Item 2
LUC Amendment – 1041 Regulations
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 | Page 6 of 6
Back to Top
5. Attachments
1. Land Use Code Article 6 Areas and Activities of State Interest
2. Additional Land Use Code Areas and Activities of State Interest
3. City Council Memos and Working Group Meeting Notes
4. Public Comments
5. Staff Presentation
Packet pg.23
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1
ARTICLE 6
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COLORADO
GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS FOR
AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST
CONTENTS
Division 6.1 Introductory and General Provisions
6.1.1 Title and Citation
6.1.2 Purpose and Findings; Scope
6.1.3 Authority
6.1.4 Applicability
6.1.5 Permit Required; Allowed Use Not Required; Stay On Issuance of Easements and Other
Permits
6.1.6 Relationship of Regulations to other City, State and Federal Requirements
6.1.7 Maps
6.1.8 Severability
6.1.9 Definitions
Division 6.2 Procedure for Designation of Matters of State Interest
6.2.1 City Council to Make Designations
6.2.2 Public Hearing Required
6.2.3 Notice of Public Hearing; Publication
6.2.4 Matters to be Considered at Designation Hearing
6.2.5 Adoption of Designation and Regulations
6.2.6 Effect of Notice of Designation – Moratorium until Final Determination
6.2.7 Mapping Disputes
Division 6.3 Designated Activities of State Interest
6.3.1 Designated Areas and Activities of State Interest
Division 6.4 Exemptions
6.4.1 Exemptions
Division 6.5 Permit Authority
6.5.1 Permit Authority Established
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.24
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2
Division 6.6 Permit Application Procedures
6.6.1 Preliminary Design Review
6.6.2 Application Fee; Financial Security Waiver
6.6.3 Pre-Application Area or Activity Review
6.6.4 Neighborhood Meeting
6.6.5 Determination of Applicability of Regulations- FONAI
6.6.6 Application Submission Requirements
6.6.7 Determination of Completeness
6.6.8 Referral Agencies
6.6.9 Simultaneous Processing of Associated Development Applications
6.6.10 Combined Application for Multiple Activities or Development in More than One
Area of State Interest.
6.6.11 Permit Decision Making Procedures
6.6.12 Conduct of Permit Hearings
6.6.13 Approval or Denial of Permit Application
6.6.14 Issuance of Permit, Conditions
Division 6.7 Common Review Standards
6.7.1 Review Standards for All Applications
Division 6.8 Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Such Systems
6.8.1 Applicability
6.8.2 Purpose and Intent
6.8.3 Specific Review Standards for Major New Domestic Water or Sewage Treatment
Systems or Major Extensions
Division 6.9 Site Selection of Arterial Highways and Interchanges and Collector Highways
6.9.1 Applicability
6.9.2 Purpose and Intent
6.9.3 Specific Review Standards Specific Review Standards for Arterial Highway,
Interchange or Collector Highway Projects
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.25
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
3
Division 6.10 Financial Security
6.10.1 Financial Security
Division 6.11 Suspension or Revocation of Permits
6.11.1 Suspension or Revocation of Permits
Division 6.12 Review, Renewal, Amendment, Transfer
6.12.1 Annual Review; Progress Reports
6.12.2 Permit Renewal
6.12.3 Permit Amendment
6.12.4 Minor Revision Not Constituting a Material Change
6.12.5 Transfer of Permits
6.12.6 Inspection
Division 6.13 Enforcement
6.13.1 Enforcement
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.26
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
4
General Provisions, Designation, and Exemptions
Division 6.1 Introductory and General Provisions
6.1.1 Title and Citation
6.1.2 Purpose and Findings; Scope
6.1.3 Authority
6.1.4 Applicability
6.1.5 Permit Required; Allowed Use Not Required; Stay On Issuance of Easements and Other
Permits
6.1.6 Relationship of Regulations to other City, State and Federal Requirements
6.1.7 Maps
6.1.8 Severability
6.1.9 Definitions
Division 6.2 Procedure for Designation of Matters of State Interest
6.2.1 City Council to Make Designations
6.2.2 Public Hearing Required
6.2.3 Notice of Public Hearing; Publication
6.2.4 Matters to be Considered at Designation Hearing
6.2.5 Adoption of Designation and Regulations
6.2.6 Effect of Notice of Designation – Moratorium until Final Determination
6.2.7 Mapping Disputes
Division 6.3 Designated Activities of State Interest
6.3.1 Designated Areas and Activities of State Interest
Division 6.4 Exemptions
6.4.1 Exemptions
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.27
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
5
Division 6.1
Introductory and General Provisions
6.1.1 Title and Citation
The various regulations constituting Divisions 1 through 13 of Article 6 are titled and may be cited
as the “Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest of the City of Fort
Collins,” or “Regulations.”
6.1.2 Purpose and Findings
(A) Purpose. The general purpose of these Regulations is to facilitate identification,
designation, and administration of matters of state interest consistent with the statutory
requirements and criteria set forth in Section 24-65.1-101, et seq., C.R.S. The specific
purposes are to:
(1) Protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and historic, cultural, and
wildlife resources;
(2) Implement the vision and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan;
(3) Ensure that infrastructure, growth and development in the City occur in a planned and
coordinated manner;
(4) Protect natural, historic, and cultural resources; protect and enhance natural habitats
and features of significant ecological value as defined in Section 3.4.1; protect air and
water quality; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance adaptation to climate
change;
(5) Promote safe, efficient, and economic use of public resources in developing and
providing community and regional infrastructure, facilities, and services;
(6) Regulate land use on the basis of environmental, social and financial impacts of
proposed development on the community and surrounding areas; and
(7) Ensure City participation in the review and approval of development plans that pass
through and impact City residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners,
resources and other assets.
(B) Findings. The City Council of the City of Fort Collins finds that:
(1) The notice and public hearing requirements of Section 24-65.1-404, C.R.S., have been
followed in adopting these Regulations;
(2) These Regulations are necessary because of the intensity of current and foreseeable
development pressures on and within the City;
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.28
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
6
(3) These Regulations are necessary to protect the public health, safety, welfare, the
environment, and historic, cultural and wildlife resources;
(4) These Regulations apply to the entire area within the incorporated municipal
boundaries of the City; and
(5) These Regulations interpret and apply to any regulations adopted for specific areas of
state interest and specific activities of state interest which have been or may be
designated by the City Council.
6.1.3 Authority
These Regulations are authorized by, inter alia, Fort Collins City Charter Article I, Section 4,
Colorado Constitution Article XX, Section 24-65.1-101, et seq., C.R.S.; Section 30-23-101, et
seq., and Section 29-20-101, et seq., C.R.S.
6.1.4 Applicability
These Regulations shall apply to all proceedings and decisions concerning identification,
designation, and regulation of any development in any area of state interest or of any activity of
state interest that has been or may hereafter be designated by the City Council.
(A) To the extent a development plan could be reviewed under these Regulations and also as a
Site Plan Advisory Review, Overall Development Plan, Project Development Plan, Final
Plan, Basic Development Review, or Minor or Major Amendment, or other site-specific
development plan, such development plan shall only be reviewed under these Regulations
unless the Director issues a FONAI pursuant to Section 6.6.5 or an exemption as set forth
in Section 6.4.1 applies, in which case the development plan shall instead be reviewed
under the other applicable review process.
(B) Development plans that have completed Site Plan Advisory Review pursuant to the Land
Use Code prior to the effective date of these Regulations and been denied by the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall be subject to these Regulations unless a FONAI is issued
pursuant to Section 6.6.5 or an exemption applies pursuant to Section 6.4.1.
(C) Certain work exempt from the definition of development set forth in Article 5 may be
subject to these Regulations as stated in the definition of development and these
Regulations.
(D) City Council has designated as an activity of state interest subject to these Regulations, the
Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment
Systems and the Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water and Sewage Treatment
Systems. Definitions for major new domestic water systems and major new sewage
treatment systems and major extensions of each are set forth in Section 6.1.10.
(E) City Council has also designated as an activity of state interest subject to these Regulations,
the Site Selection of Arterial Highways and Interchanges and Collector Highways.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.29
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
7
Definitions for arterial highways, interchanges and collector highways are set forth in
Section 6.1.10.
6.1.5 Permit Required; Allowed Use Not Required; Stay On Issuance of Easements and
Other Permits
(A) Permit Required.
Other than as stated in Sections 6.1.4, 6.4.1, and 6.6.5, no person may conduct a designated
activity of state interest or develop in a designated area of state interest within the City
without first obtaining a permit or a permit amendment under these Regulations.
(B) Allowed Use in Zone District Not Required.
(1) Proposed development plans subject to these Regulations shall not be considered as an
allowed use in any zone district unless a permit has been issued pursuant to these
Regulations. However, as described in Section 6.4.1(A), any fully constructed and
operating project or facility that was lawfully developed under prior law but would be
subject to these Regulations if it were currently proposed may continue to operate
pursuant to Division 1.5 as a nonconforming use or structure.
(2) A permit pursuant to these Regulations may be issued for a development plan that is to
be located in one or more zone districts regardless of whether the zone district or
districts list the use proposed by the development plan as an allowed use or otherwise
prohibit such use.
(C) Stay on Issuance of Easements and Other Permits.
No easements on City-owned real property and no permits issued by the City other than
under these Regulations, including but not limited to flood plain and right-of-way
encroachment permits, shall be granted for any development plan subject to these
Regulations without such development plan having first obtained a permit pursuant to these
Regulations or as may otherwise allowed under these Regulations.
6.1.6 Relationship of Regulations to Other City, State and Federal Requirements
(A) Whenever these Regulations are found to be inconsistent with any other Land Use Code
provision, the more stringent standard or requirement shall control.
(B) In the event these Regulations are found to be less stringent than the statutory criteria for
administration of matters of state interest set forth in Section 24-65.1-202, C.R.S., the
statutory criteria shall control.
(C) In the event these Regulations are found to be more stringent than the statutory criteria for
administration of matter of state interest set forth in Sections 24-65.1-202 and 24-65.1-204,
C.R.S., these Regulations shall control pursuant to the authority of Section 24-65.1-402
(3), C.R.S.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.30
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
8
(D) Unless otherwise specified in these Regulations, these Regulations are intended to be
applied in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other City regulations or policies, including,
without limitation, the Land Use Code, Natural Areas Easement Policy, and regulations
regarding flood plain and encroachment permits as set forth in the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, all as currently in effect or hereafter amended.
(E) Permit requirements included in these Regulations shall be in addition to and in
conformance with all applicable local, state, and federal water quality and air quality, and
environmental laws, rules, and regulations.
(F) Review or approval of a development plan by a federal or state or local agency does not
substitute for a permit under these Regulations. Any applicant for a permit under these
Regulations that is also subject to the regulations of other agencies may request in writing
that the City application and review process be coordinated with that of the other agency
or agencies. If practicable, and their discretion, the Director may attempt to eliminate
redundant application submittal requests and may coordinate City review of the application
with that of other agencies as appropriate. To the extent the Director determines that the
City’s authority is preempted with regards to any requirement under these Regulations,
such requirement shall not be applicable to the proposed development plan to the extent of
the preemption.
(G) These Regulations shall not be construed as modifying or amending existing laws or court
decrees with respect to the determination and administration of water rights. To the extent
the Director determines that any requirement under these Regulations would modify or
amend existing laws or court decrees with respect to the determination and administration
of water rights, such requirement shall not be applicable to the development plan to the
extent of the modification or amendment of existing laws or court decrees.
6.1.7 Maps
(A) Each map referred to in designations and regulations for any particular matter of state
interest adopted by the City Council is deemed adopted therein as if set out in full.
(B) Maps referred to in any such designations and regulations shall be available for inspection
in the offices of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department.
6.1.8 Severability
If any division, section, clause, provision, or portion of these Regulations should be found to be
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall not
be affected thereby.
6.1.9 Definitions
The words and terms used in these Regulations shall have the meanings set forth below subject to
Section 1.4.9 regarding the rules of construction for text. The definitions set forth below are
specifically applicable to this Article 6 and other Land Use Code provisions referencing Article 6,
including Division 2.20, and are not otherwise generally applicable to the Land Use Code.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.31
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
9
Adequate security shall mean such funds or funding commitments, whether in the form of
negotiable securities, letters of credit, bonds or other instruments or guarantees, as are deemed
sufficient, in the Director’s discretion, and in a form approved by the City Attorney, to guarantee
performance of the act, promise, permit condition or obligation to which it pertains.
Adverse impact shall mean the direct or indirect negative effect or consequence resulting from
development. Adverse impact shall refer to the negative physical, environmental, economic,
visual, auditory, or social consequences or effects that may or may not be avoidable or fully
mitigable. Adverse impacts may include reasonably foreseeable effects or consequences caused
by the development plan that may occur later in time or be cumulative in nature.
Aquifer recharge area shall mean any area where surface water may infiltrate to a water-bearing
stratum of permeable rock, sand or gravel. This definition also applies to wells used for disposal
of wastewater or toxic pollutants.
Arterial highway shall mean any limited access highway that is part of the federal-aid interstate
system, any limited access highway constructed under the supervision of the Colorado Department
of Transportation, or any private toll road constructed or operated under the authority of a private
toll road company. Arterial highway does not include a city street or local service road or a county
road designed for local service and constructed under the supervision of local government.
Collector highway shall mean a major thoroughfare serving as a corridor or link between
municipalities, unincorporated population centers or recreation areas, or industrial centers, and
constructed under guidelines and standards established by, or under the supervision of, the
Colorado Department of Transportation. Collector highway does not include a city street or local
service road or a county road designed for local service and constructed under the supervision of
local government.
Collector sewer shall mean a network of pipes and conduits through which sewage flows to an
interceptor main and/or a sewage treatment plant.
Cumulative impacts shall mean the impact on the environment and cultural impacts which result
from the incremental impact of the development plan when added to other present, and reasonable
future actions.
Designation shall mean only that legal procedure specified by Section 24-65.1-401, et seq., C.R.S.,
and carried out by the City Council.
Disproportionately impacted community or DIC shall mean a community that is in a census block
group where the proportion of households that are low income, that identify as minority, or that
are housing cost-burdened is greater than 40% as such terms are defined in Section 24-4-
109(2)(b)(II), C.R.S., as amended.
Domestic water and sewage treatment system shall mean a wastewater treatment facility, water
distribution system, or water treatment facility, as defined in Section 25-9-102(5), (6) and (7),
C.R.S., and any system of pipes, structures and facilities through which wastewater is collected
for treatment.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.32
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
10
FONAI shall mean a finding of negligible adverse impact pursuant to Section 6.6.5.
High priority habitat shall mean habitat areas identified by City Natural Areas or Colorado Parks
and Wildlife where measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to wildlife have
been identified to protect breeding, nesting, foraging, migrating, or other uses by wildlife. Maps
showing, and spatial data identifying, the individual and combined extents of the high priority
habitats are provided by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and City Natural Areas.
Highways shall mean state and federal highways.
Historic and cultural resource shall mean a site, structure, or object, including archeological
features, located on a lot, lots, or area of property and is (1) designated as a Fort Collins landmark;
(2) a contributing resource to a designated Fort Collins landmark district; (3) designated on the
State Register of Historic Properties or National Register of Historic Places; or (4) determined to
be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark.
Impact area shall mean the geographic areas within the City, including the development site, in
which any adverse impacts are likely to be caused by the proposed development plan.
Interceptor main shall mean a pipeline that receives wastewater flows from collector sewers to a
wastewater treatment facility or to another interceptor line or meeting other requirements of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to be classified as an interceptor.
Interchange shall mean the intersection of two or more highways, roads or streets, at least one of
which is an arterial highway or toll road where there is direct access to and from the arterial
highway or toll road.
Major new sewage system shall mean:
(1) A new wastewater treatment plant;
(2) A new lift station; or
(3) An interceptor main or collector sewer used for the purposes of transporting wastewater
that meets one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Transmission lines greater than 15” diameter pipe and 1,320 linear feet in the aggregate
for the proposed development plan; or
(b) Will require a new easement 30-feet or greater in width and 1,320 linear feet in length
in the aggregate for the proposed development plan.
Major new domestic water system shall mean:
(1) A system of wells, water diversions, transmission mains, distribution mains,
ditches, structures, and facilities, including water reservoirs, water storage tanks, water
treatment plants or impoundments and their associated structures, through which a water
supply is obtained, stored, and sold or distributed for domestic uses; or
(2) A system of wells, water diversions, transmission mains, distribution mains, ditches,
structures, and facilities, including water reservoirs, water storage tanks, water treatment
plants or impoundments and their associated structures, through which a water supply is
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.33
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
11
obtained that will be used directly or by trade, substitution, augmentation, or exchange
for water that will be used for human consumption or household use;
And all or part of a system described in (1) or (2) above meets one or more of the following
criteria:
(a) Distribution and transmission lines greater than 12” diameter pipe and 1,320 linear feet
in the aggregate for the proposed development plan; or
(b) Will require a new easement of 30-feet or greater in width and 1,320 linear feet in
length in the aggregate for the proposed development plan.
In determining whether a proposed development plan is a major new domestic water supply
system, the Director may consider water rights decrees, pending water rights applications,
intergovernmental agreements, treaties, water supply contracts and any other evidence of the
ultimate use of the water for domestic, human consumption or household use. Domestic water
supply systems shall not include that portion of a system that serves agricultural customers,
irrigation facilities or stormwater infrastructure.
Major extension of an existing domestic water treatment system shall mean the expansion of an
existing domestic water treatment plant or capacity for storage that will result in a material change,
or the extension or upgrade of existing transmission mains, distribution mains, or new pump
stations that will result in a material change. Major extension of an existing domestic water
treatment system shall exclude the following:
(1) Any maintenance, repair, adjustment;
(2) Existing pipeline or the relocation, or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same
easement;
(3) Expanding any existing easement to a total width of 30-feet or less and for a distance of
1,320 linear feet or less; or
(4) Any facility or pump station or storage tank that does not increase the rated capacity from
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Major extension of an existing sewage treatment system shall mean any modification of an existing
wastewater treatment plant or lift station that will result in a material change, or any extension or
upgrade of existing interceptor main or collector sewer that will result in a material change. Major
extension of an existing sewage treatment system shall exclude the following:
(1) Any maintenance, repair, adjustment;
(2) Existing pipeline or the relocation, or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same
easement;
(3) Expanding any existing easement to a total width of 30-feet or less and for a distance of
1,320 linear feet or less; or
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.34
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
12
(4) Any facility or lift station that does not increase the rated capacity from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment.
Material change shall mean any change in a development plan approved under these Regulations
which significantly expands the scale, magnitude, or nature of the approved development plan or
the adverse impacts considered by the Permit Authority in approval of the original permit.
Matter of state interest shall mean an area of state interest or an activity of state interest or both.
Mitigation shall mean avoiding an adverse impact or minimizing impacts by limiting the degree,
magnitude, or location of the action or its implementation.
Natural features shall mean land area and processes present in or produced by nature, including,
but not limited to, soil types, geology, slopes, vegetation, surface water, drainage patterns, aquifers,
recharge areas, climate, flood plains, aquatic life, wildlife, and view corridors which present vistas
to mountains and foothills, water bodies, open spaces and other regions of principal environmental
importance, provided that such natural features are identified on the City's Natural Habitats
and Features Inventory Map.
Permit shall mean a permit issued under these Regulations to conduct and develop an activity of
state interest or to engage in development in an area of state interest, or both.
Permit Authority shall mean the City Council or, with respect to matters delegated by these
Regulations, the Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, as established and further
described in Section 6.5.1.
Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways shall mean the
determination of a specific corridor or facility location which is made at the conclusion of the
corridor location studies in which:
(1) Construction of an arterial highway, interchange, or collector highway is proposed; or
(2) Expansion or modification of an existing arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway is proposed that would result in either (a) or (b), or both as follows:
(a) An increase in road capacity by at least one (1) vehicle lane through widening or
alternative lane configuration.
(b) Expansion or modification of an existing interchange or bridge.
Transmission main shall mean a domestic water supply system’s line that is designed to transport
raw or treated water from a water source to a water treatment plant, storage facility or distribution
systems.
Treatment System shall mean either, or both, the water distribution system and wastewater
collection system.
Wastewater collection system means a system of pipes, conduits, and associated appurtenances
that transports domestic wastewater from the point of entry to a domestic wastewater treatment
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.35
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
13
facility. The term does not include collection systems that are within the property of the owner of
the facility. The term is defined in Section 25-9-102(4.9), C.R.S., and as amended.
Wastewater treatment plant shall mean a facility or group of units used for treatment
of industrial or domestic wastewater or the reduction and handling of solids and gases removed
from such wastes, whether or not such facility or group of units discharges into state waters.
Wastewater treatment plant specifically excludes individual wastewater disposal systems such as
septic tanks or leach fields.
Water distribution main shall mean a domestic water supply system’s pipeline that is designed to
transport treated water from a transmission main to individual water customers through service
laterals.
Water distribution system shall mean a network of pipes and conduits through which water is piped
for human consumption or a network of pipes and conduits through which water is piped in
exchange or trade for human consumption.
Water diversion shall mean removing water from its natural course or location or controlling water
in its natural course or location by means of a control structure, canal, flume, reservoir,
bypass, pipeline, conduit, well, pump or other structure or device or by increasing the volume or
timing of water flow above its natural (pre-diversion) levels.
Water treatment plant shall mean the facilities within the domestic water supply system that
regulate the physical, chemical or bacteriological quality of the water.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.36
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
14
Division 6.2
Procedure for Designation of Matters of State Interest
6.2.1 City Council to Make Designations
Designations and amendments of designations may be initiated in three ways:
(A) The City Council may in its discretion designate and adopt regulations for the
administration of any matter of state interest.
(B) The Planning and Zoning Commission may on its own motion or upon City Council
request, recommend the designation of matters of state interest to City Council. The City
Council shall decide, in its sole discretion, whether or not to designate any or all of the
requested matters of state interest.
(C) City staff may request that City Council designate an area or activity of state interest and
adopt regulations for the administration of the matter designated. The City Council shall
decide, in its sole discretion, whether or not to designate any or all of the requested matters
of state interest.
6.2.2 Public Hearing Required
The City Council shall hold a public hearing before designating any matter of state interest and
adopting regulations for the administration thereof. Said hearing shall be held not less than thirty
(30) days nor more than sixty (60) days after the giving of public notice of said hearing.
6.2.3 Notice of Public Hearing; Publication
(A) The City shall prepare a notice of the designation hearing which shall include:
(1) The time and place of the hearing;
(2) The place at which materials relating to the matter to be designated and any guidelines
and regulations for the administration thereof may be examined;
(3) The telephone number and e-mail address where inquiries may be answered; and
(4) A description of the area or activity proposed to be designated in sufficient detail to
provide reasonable notice as to property which would be included.
(B) At least thirty (30) days, but no more than sixty (60) days before the public hearing, the
City shall publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and shall mail
the notice to each of the following as deemed appropriate in the City’s discretion:
(1) State and federal agencies; and
(2) Any local government jurisdiction that would be directly or indirectly affected by the
designation.
6.2.4 Matters to be Considered at Designation Hearing
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.37
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
15
At the public hearing, the City Council shall receive into the public record:
(A) Testimony and evidence from any and all persons or organizations desiring to appear and
be heard, including City staff;
(B) Any documents that may be offered; and
(C) The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
6.2.5 Adoption of Designations and Regulations
(A) City Council shall consider the following when determining whether to designate an area
or activity to be of state interest:
(1) All testimony, evidence and documents taken and admitted at the public hearing;
(2) The intensity of current and foreseeable development pressures in the City;
(3) The matters and considerations set forth in any applicable guidelines or model
regulations issued by the Colorado Land Use commission and other State agencies; and
(4) 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.
(B) Any City Council order designating an area or activity to be of state interest and the
adoption of any regulations for the administration of an area or activity of state interest
shall be by ordinance.
(C) In the event the City Council finally determines that any matter is a matter of state interest
within the City, it shall be the City Council’s duty to designate such matter and adopt
regulations for the administration thereof.
(D) Each designation order adopted by the City Council shall:
(1) Specify the boundaries of the designated area of state interest or the boundary of the
area in which an activity of state interest has been designated; and
(2) State 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.
6.2.6 Effect of Designation – Moratorium Until Final Determination
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.38
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
16
After a matter of state interest is designated, no person shall engage in development in such area
and no such activity shall be conducted until the designation and regulations for such area or
activity are finally determined as required by Section 24-65.1-404 (4), C.R.S.
6.2.7 Mapping Disputes
Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundary of any designated area and
where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions, the
City Council shall make the necessary boundary determination at a public hearing after providing
notice pursuant to Section 6.2.3.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.39
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
17
Division 6.3
Designated Activities of State Interest
6.3.1 Designated Activities of State Interest
The City Council has designated the following matters of state interest for regulation:
(A) Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems and Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems (Ordinance No. 22, 2021)
(B) Site Selection of Arterial Highways and Interchanges and Collector Highways
(Ordinance No. 22, 2021)
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.40
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
18
Division 6.4
Exemptions
6.4.1 Exemptions
These Regulations are not applicable to the following:
(A) Any fully constructed and operating project or facility that was lawfully developed under
prior law in effect before the effective date of these Regulations that would be subject to
these Regulations if it were currently proposed, may continue to operate pursuant to
Division 1.5, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, with the exception that enlargement or
expansion of any such project or facility shall require a permit under these Regulations
unless an exemption exists or a FONAI is issued. An enlargement or expansion requiring
a permit shall not include the maintenance, repair or replacement of existing buildings or
structures associated with an existing facility, including retrofitting or updating technology,
provided any changes do not result in a material change as determined by the Director.
Enlargements or expansions not requiring a permit may still be subject to Section 1.5.5 or
an applicable Land Use Code development review process.
(B) Any site specific development plan that would be subject to these Regulations but has
received final City approval as of the effective date of these Regulations so long as the
vested rights for such approved site specific development plan have not expired. This
exemption does not apply to any subsequent modifications to the approved site specific
development plan or expansion of the development site that was not included within the
City approved application and for which a new or revised development application is
required.
(C) Any proposed development plan otherwise subject to these Regulations but such proposed
development plan is (1) subject to review and approval as part of the review of a proposed
residential, commercial, industrial or mixed-use project under a development review
process other than Site Plan Advisory Review under the Land Use Code, including but not
limited to a project development plan or basic development review, and (2) which proposed
development plan is directly necessitated by a proposed residential, commercial, industrial
or mixed-use development.
(D) Any project previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the
Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process.
(E) Any proposed development plan issued a FONAI pursuant to Section 6.6.5.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.41
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
19
Permits
Division 6.5 Permit Authority
6.5.1 Permit Authority Established
Division 6.6 Permit Application Procedures
6.6.1 Preliminary Design Review
6.6.2 Application Fee; Financial Security Waiver
6.6.3 Pre-Application Area or Activity Review
6.6.4 Neighborhood Meeting
6.6.5 Determination of Applicability of Regulations- FONAI
6.6.6 Application Submission Requirements
6.6.7 Determination of Completeness
6.6.8 Referral Agencies
6.6.9 Simultaneous Processing of Associated Development Applications
6.6.10 Combined Application for Multiple Activities or Development in More than One
Area of State Interest.
6.6.11 Permit Decision Making Procedures
6.6.12 Conduct of Permit Hearings
6.6.13 Approval or Denial of Permit Application
6.6.14 Issuance of Permit, Conditions
Division 6.7 Common Review Standards
6.7.1 Review Standards for All Applications
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.42
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
20
Division 6.5
Permit Authority
6.5.1 Permit Authority Established
(A) The Fort Collins Permit Authority is hereby established consisting of the Fort Collins
City Council, or with respect to matters delegated by these Regulations, the Director
and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
(B) The Director shall be the decision maker regarding issuing or not issuing a FONAI.
(C) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the decision maker regarding appeals
of Director decisions to issue or not issue a FONAI and regarding recommendations
to City Council regarding permit applications.
(D) The City Council shall be the decision maker for approving or not approving a
Permit. The City Council shall also be the decision maker regarding appeals of
Planning and Zoning Commission decisions regarding the appeal of Director
decisions to issue or not issue a FONAI. Permit applications are reviewed by the City
Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in these Regulations.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.43
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
21
Division 6.6
Permit Application Procedures
6.6.1 Application Procedures
The application procedures for activities and areas of state interest are described in Land
Use Code Division 2.20 and in these Regulations.
6.6.2 Application Fee; Financial Security Waiver
(A) Each pre-application area or activity review application and development application for a
permit submitted must be accompanied by the fees established pursuant to Section
2.2.3(D). The Director may determine at any time during the pre-application review and
development application review process that it is necessary to retain a third-party
consultant to assist in reviewing the application pursuant to Section 2.2.3(D). All costs
incurred in the third-party consultant review shall be borne by the applicant in addition to
the City’s internal application review fees.
(B) A referral agency may impose a reasonable fee for the review of a development application
and the applicant shall pay such fee which shall detail the basis for the fee imposed. No
hearings by the Permit Authority will be held if any such referral agency’s fee has not been
paid.
6.6.3 Pre-Application Area or Activity Review
(A) The purpose of the pre-application area or activity review is to determine if a permit is
required for the proposed development plan, application submittal requirements,
procedural requirements, and relevant agencies to coordinate with as part of any permit
review process. Topics of discussion may include, as relevant to the specific application,
but are not limited to:
(1) Characteristics of the activity, including its location, proximity to natural and human-
made features; the size and accessibility of the site; surrounding development and land
uses; and its potential impact on surrounding areas, including potential environmental
effects and planned mitigation strategies.
(2) The nature of the development proposed, including land use types and their densities;
placement of proposed buildings, pipelines, structures, operations, and maintenance;
the protection of natural habitats and features, historic and cultural resources, and City
natural areas, parks, or other City property or assets; staging areas during construction;
alternatives considered; proposed parking areas and internal circulation system,
including trails, the total ground coverage of paved areas and structures; and types of
water and wastewater treatment systems proposed.
(3) Proposed mitigation of adverse impacts.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.44
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
22
(4) Siting and design alternatives and reasons why such alternatives are not feasible.
(5) Community policy considerations, including the review process and likely conformity
of the proposed development with the policies and requirements of these Regulations.
(6) Applicable regulations, review procedures and submission requirements.
(7) Other regulatory reviews or procedures to which the applicant is subject, the applicant's
time frame for the proposed development plan, and other applicant concerns.
(B) To schedule the pre-application area or activity review, the applicant must first provide the
Director with the following:
(1) Names and addresses of all persons proposing the activity or development;
(2) Name and qualifications of the person(s) responding on behalf of the applicant;
(3) A written summary of the desired location of the proposed development plan including
a vicinity map showing the location of three (3) siting and design alternatives, one of
which is the preferred location, drafted at approximately thirty percent (30%)
completeness. One (1) of the three (3) alternatives submitted shall avoid natural
features and historic and cultural resources and avoid the need for mitigation to the
maximum extent feasible;
(4) A vicinity map of the preferred siting and proposed development plan projected at an
easily readable scale showing the outline of the perimeter of the parcel proposed for
the project site (for linear facilities, the proposed centerline and width of any corridor
to be considered), property parcels, location of all residences and businesses, any
abutting subdivision outlines and names, the boundaries of any adjacent municipality
or growth management area, roads (clearly labeled) and natural features within a half
(1/2) mile radius and identified historic and cultural resources within a two hundred
(200) foot radius of the project site boundary; an Ecological Characterization Study as
defined by Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 within a half (1/2) mile radius of the impact
area; and a cultural and historic resource survey documentation and determinations of
Fort Collins landmark eligibility for resources within two hundred (200) feet of the
project site boundary for each of the three siting alternatives. All final determinations
of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark shall be made in the reasonable
discretion of City Historic Preservation staff after reviewing the cultural and historic
resource survey and such determinations are not subject to appeal.
(5) A written summary of the cumulative impacts on natural features within a half (1/2)
mile radius and on historic and cultural features within 200 feet of the preferred location
of the proposed development plan;
(6) Any required certificate of appropriateness pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins allowing proposed alterations to any designated historic or cultural
resource that may be affected by the proposed development plan.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.45
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
23
(7) Any conceptual mitigation plans for the preferred location of the proposed development
plan;
(8) The required application fee and applicant agreement to pay the costs of (1) the Director
retaining third-party consultants necessary to assist the Director in making a FONAI
determination pursuant to Section 6.6.5; (2) the Director retaining third-party
consultants necessary to assist the Director with the completeness review of any
submitted application pursuant to Section 6.6.7; and (3) the Director retaining third-
party consultants necessary to assist City staff in reviewing a complete permit
application or City Council in rendering a decision on a permit; and
(9) Any additional information requested by the Director as necessary to make a FONAI
determination pursuant to Section 6.6.5.
6.6.4 Neighborhood meeting
(A) Prior to a written FONAI determination being issued pursuant to Section 6.6.5, a
neighborhood meeting is required pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2.2.2 following the
pre-application area or activity review document submittal to the Director being deemed
complete.
(B) At the applicant’s cost, notifications for the neighborhood meeting shall be mailed to the
property owners and occupants within one thousand feet (1,000) in all directions of the
location of the proposed development plan as determined by the Director in their
reasonable discretion and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
6.6.5 Determination of Applicability of Regulations - FONAI
The Director shall determine the applicability of these Regulations only after a neighborhood
meeting and based upon the pre-application area or activity review meeting described in Section
6.6.3.
(A) The Director shall make a finding related to whether the proposed development plan will
result in adverse impacts. In order for the Director to determine that a proposed
development plan will only result in negligible adverse impacts and to issue a FONAI,
they must determine that the proposed project does not meet any of the below criteria (1)
through (8). The decision by the Director of potential adverse impacts may or may not
include consideration of proposed mitigation depending on factors that may include, but
are not limited to, the scale, magnitude, and complexity of mitigation, and the sensitivity
of the resource being mitigated. The FONAI shall be evaluated under the following
criteria:
(1) Is located wholly or partly on, under, over or within an existing or planned future
City natural area or park, whether developed or undeveloped;
(2) Is located wholly or partly on, under, over or within a City-owned, non-right-of-way,
property or current or anticipated City building site, whether developed or
undeveloped;
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.46
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
24
(3) Is located within a buffer zone of an existing natural habitat or feature, as defined in
Land Use Code Section 3.4.1;
(4) Is located within a buffer of a high priority habitat as identified by Colorado Parks
and Wildlife;
(5) Has potential to adversely impact a natural feature as defined by the Land Use Code;
(6) Has the potential to adversely impact natural habitat corridors identified by the
City’s Natural Area Department;
(7) Has potential to adversely impact historic or cultural resources within a two hundred
(200) foot outer boundary of the proposed development plan; or
(8) Has potential to adversely impact disproportionally impacted communities.
(B) If the Director issues a FONAI, the applicant does not need to submit a permit
application under these Regulations. However, issuance of a FONAI does not exempt the
proposed development plan from all Land Use Code requirements, and an alternative
review process may be required.
(C) If the Director issues a FONAI and the applicant subsequently makes material changes to
the development plan, the applicant is required to schedule another pre-application area
or activity review pursuant to Section 6.6.3 to discuss the changes. Based on the new
information and whether the revised development could result in adverse impacts, the
Director may rescind the FONAI by issuing a written determination pursuant to below
Subsection (F) and require a permit under these Regulations.
(D) Permit Not Required. If the Director has made a finding of negligible adverse impacts, or
FONAI, a permit pursuant to these Regulations is not required. However, the proposed
development plan may be subject to a different Land Use Code development review
process.
(E) Permit Required. If the Director determines a FONAI is not appropriate, the proposed
development plan requires a permit and is subject to these Regulations. The Director shall
provide the applicant with written comments, to the extent such comments differ from
comments provided for any conceptual review, regarding the proposal to inform and
assist the applicant in preparing components of the permit application; including a
submittal checklist pursuant to Section 6.6.6, and additional research questions to address
common review standards pursuant to Section 6.7.1.
(F) Notice of Director’s Determination.
(1) The Director’s determination to either issue a FONAI and not require a permit or to
not issue a FONAI and require a permit shall be in writing and describe in detail the
reasons for the determination. The Director shall make this determination within
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.47
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
25
twenty-eight (28) days after the neighborhood meeting pursuant to Section 6.6.4 or
the date of receipt of any requested additional information or third-party consultation.
(2) If a permit is required, the Director shall provide additional information needed to
deem a permit application complete; including additional scope of analysis needed to
review.
(3) The Director shall provide the written determination to the applicant by email if an
email address has been provided and promptly mail a copy of the written
determination, at the applicant’s cost, to the applicant and to property owners within
one-thousand (1000) feet in all directions of the location of the proposed development
plan as determined by the Director in their reasonable discretion and shall also be
posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com.
(G) Appeal of the Director’s Determination. The Director’s determination whether to issue or
not issue a FONAI is subject to appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 2.2.12(D). The Planning and Zoning Commission decision on
the appeal is further subject to appeal to City Council pursuant to the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Ch. 2, Art. 2, Div. 3. After the filing of a timely notice of appeal pursuant to
Section 2.2.12(D), the Director shall not accept any application that may be affected by
an appeal decision and, if an application has been accepted, shall cease processing such
application until the appeal has been decided, which in the case of an appeal to Council
shall be the date of adoption of the appeal resolution. The filing of a timely notice of
appeal shall reset any time period set forth in 6.6.7 and 6.6.11 and such time period shall
begin from the date the appeal is decided as previously described.
6.6.6 Application Submission Requirements
In addition to specific submission requirements for the activities addressed in Divisions 6.8 and
6.9, all applications for a permit under these Regulations shall be accompanied by the following
materials:
(A) Completed application form and submittal checklist in the format established by the
Director.
(B) Any plan, study, survey or other information, in addition to the information required by
this Section, at the applicant’s expense, as in the Director’s judgment is necessary to enable
the Permit Authority to make a determination on the application. Such additional
information may include applicant’s written responses to comments by a referral agency.
Additional materials may be required by the Director for a particular type of proposed development
plan. To the extent an applicant has prepared or submitted materials for a federal, state, county, or
city permit which are substantially the same as required herein, a copy of those materials may be
submitted to satisfy the corresponding requirement below.
6.6.7 Determination of Completeness
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.48
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
26
(A) No permit application may be processed, nor shall a permit be deemed received pursuant
to Section 24-65.1-501(2)(a), C.R.S., until the Director has determined it to be complete.
Following the pre-application areas and activities review meeting and neighborhood
meeting, the applicant may submit a permit application only after at least fourteen (14)
days have passed since the FONAI determination. Upon submittal of the application, the
Director shall determine whether the application is complete or whether additional
information is required, and if so, shall inform the applicant and pause the completeness
review until information is received. Any request for waiver of a submission requirement
shall be processed prior to the Director making a determination that an application is
complete. The Director may retain at the applicant’s cost third-party consultants necessary
to assist the Director with the completeness review. If the Director retains a third-party
consultant for permit review, the scope of work will be available for review by the
applicant.
(B) No determination of completeness may exceed sixty (60) days unless one or more of the
following occurs:
(1) The Director determines in writing that more than sixty (60) days is necessary to
determine completeness in consideration of the size and complexity of the proposed
development plan or available City resources. In such case, the Director shall determine
how many additional days are needed, which shall not exceed sixty (60) additional
days; or
(2) The Director and the applicant agree in writing to exceed sixty (60) days.
(C) When the Director has determined that a submitted application is complete, or the time
limit for making the completeness determination has elapsed even though the application
may not be complete, the Director shall inform the applicant in writing of the date of its
receipt. Only upon the Director’s determination that an application is complete, or the time
limit for making the completeness determination has elapsed even though the application
may not be complete, may the City’s formal review process commence pursuant to these
Regulations.
6.6.8 Referral Agencies
All permit applications under these Regulations shall be referred to internal and external review
agencies or City departments as determined by the Director, including for pre-application
submittals, completeness reviews and final application submittals. Copies of any such referral
agency comments received shall be forwarded to the applicant for its response at the time that
comments are provided from City review staff.
6.6.9 Simultaneous Processing of Associated Development Applications
If a development plan subject to these Regulations contains project components not subject to
these Regulations but subject to other requirements in the Land Use Code that result in an
additional and separate development application, then both development applications can be
processed simultaneously.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.49
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
27
6.6.10 Combined Application for Multiple Activities or Development in More than One
Area of State Interest
When approval is sought to conduct more than one activity of state interest, engage in development
in more than one activity or area of state interest, or a combination of activities and areas, a
combined application may be completed for all such activities or developments in areas of state
interest and may be reviewed simultaneously and, if appropriate in the discretion of City Council,
a single determination made to grant or deny permit approval. The City reserves the right to charge
an application fee pursuant to Section 6.6.2 of these Regulations for each activity or area that is
the subject of a combined application.
6.6.11 Permit Decision Making Procedures
When an application has been determined complete by the Director pursuant to Section 6.6.7 of
these Regulations, or the time limit for making the completeness determination has elapsed even
though the application may not be complete, then, and only then, shall the permit review process
commence. At that time, the following schedule shall apply:
(A) No later than thirty (30) days after the receipt of a completed application, the Director will
schedule a hearing before City Council. The thirty (30) day period to schedule the hearing
may be extended if the applicant agrees to an extension in writing. Prior to such hearing,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall forward a recommendation to City Council to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit application.
(B) The Director may retain third-party consultants at the applicant’s expense necessary to
assist City staff in reviewing a complete permit application or assist City Council in
rendering a decision on a permit.
(C) Upon setting a permit hearing date, the Director shall publish notice once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City of Fort Collins containing:
(1) The date, time, and place of the permit hearing not less than thirty (30) nor more than
sixty (60) days before the date set for the hearing. The thirty (30) and sixty (60) day
periods may be extended if the applicant agrees to an extension in writing.
(2) The date, time, and place of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where a
recommendation will be made at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.
(D) At least fourteen (14) days prior to the City Council permit hearing, the Director shall mail
notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing to the applicant and to property owners
pursuant to Section 2.2.6. Notice of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where
a recommendation will be made shall also be mailed at least fourteen (14) days prior to
such hearing pursuant to Section 2.2.6 and may be combined with the mailed notice for the
City Council hearing.
6.6.12 Conduct of Permit Hearing.
(A) Planning and Zoning Commission hearings where a recommendation is made shall follow
the requirements and procedures of Section 2.2.7.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.50
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
28
(B) City Council shall adopt into its rules of procedure a procedure for conducting permit
hearings. Upon the closing of the portion of a permit hearing to receiving comments and
evidence from the public, agencies, and the applicant, no further comments or evidence
will be received from the public, agencies or applicant, including at any general public
comment period for a City Council meeting or public comment associated with a specific
agenda item such as a designation associated with a permit application, unless specifically
authorized by City Council by reopening the public hearing.
6.6.13 Approval or Denial of Permit Application
(A) The burden of proof shall be upon the applicant to show compliance with all applicable
standards of the Regulations. To the extent a permit application may not comply with a
particular standard, the applicant may demonstrate compliance with such standard by
proposing mitigation measures that sufficiently offset the extent of noncompliance.
(B) A permit application to conduct a designated activity of state interest or develop in a
designated area of state interest may not be approved unless the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates that the development plan, in consideration of all proposed mitigation
measures and any conditions, complies with all applicable standards. If City Council finds
the development plan does not comply with all applicable standards, the permit shall be
denied unless City Council, in its sole discretion, imposes conditions pursuant to Section
6.6.14 which if fulfilled would bring the development plan into compliance with all
applicable standards, in which case City Council may approve the permit. City Council
may also impose additional conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 on any permit.
(C) If City Council finds that there is insufficient information concerning any of the applicable
standards to determine that such standards have been met, City Council may deny the
permit, may approve with conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 which if fulfilled would
bring the development plan into compliance with all applicable standards, or may continue
the public hearing or reopen a previously closed public hearing for additional information
to be received. However, no continuance to receive additional evidence may exceed sixty
(60) days unless agreed to by City Council and the applicant.
(D) City Council shall approve a permit application only if the proposed development plan
satisfies all applicable standards of these Regulations in consideration of proposed
mitigation measures and any conditions necessary to attain compliance with any standards.
City Council may also impose additional conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 on any
permit.
(E) City Council may close the public hearing and make a decision, or it may continue the
matter for a decision only. However, City Council shall make a decision by majority vote
within ninety (90) days after the closing of the public hearing, or the permit shall be deemed
approved. To the extent the public hearing is reopened and closed, the closing date of the
public hearing shall be measured from the most recent closing date.
(F) City Council shall adopt by resolution findings of fact in support of its decision and, if
approved, the written permit shall be attached to such resolution. To the extent a permit is
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.51
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
29
deemed approved because City Council has not made a decision, adoption of such a
resolution is not required.
6.6.14 Issuance of Permit; Conditions
(A) City Council may attach conditions to the permit pursuant to Section 2.2.9 and additional
conditions to ensure that the purpose, requirements, and standards of these Regulations are
continuously met throughout the development, execution, operational life, and any
decommissioning period. A development agreement between the City and the permittee
may be required as a condition of approval.
(B) Issuance of a permit signifies only that a development plan has satisfied, or conditionally
satisfied, the applicable Regulations, and prior to commencing any development,
conditions of the permit, additional Land Use Code, Code of the City of Fort Collins, other
City requirements, or other state or federal requirements, may need to be met.
(C) Subject to (D) below and Section 6.11.1, the permit may be issued for an indefinite term
or for a specified period of time with such period depending upon the size and complexity
of the development plan.
(D) If the permittee fails to take substantial steps to initiate the permitted development plan
within twelve (12) months from the date of the approval of the permit or such other time
period specified in the permit, or if such steps have been taken but the applicant has failed
to complete the development with reasonable diligence, then the permit may be revoked or
suspended in accordance with Section 6.11.1. This time may be extended by the Director
for only one (1) additional year upon a showing of substantial progress.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.52
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
30
Division 6.7
Common Review Standards
6.7.1 Review Standards for All Applications
In addition to the review standards for specific activities listed at Divisions 6.8 and 6.9, all
applications under these Regulations, in consideration of proposed mitigation measures, shall be
evaluated against the following general standards, to the extent applicable or relevant to the
development plan, in City Council’s reasonable judgment. To the extent a permit application
may not comply with a particular standard, the applicant may demonstrate compliance with such
standard by proposing mitigation measures that sufficiently offset the extent of noncompliance.
If City Council finds the development plan does not comply with all applicable standards, the
permit shall be denied unless City Council, in its sole discretion, imposes conditions pursuant to
Section 6.6.14 which if fulfilled would bring the development plan into compliance with all
applicable standards, in which case City Council may approve the permit. City Council may also
impose additional conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 on any permit. The common review
standards are as follows:
(A) The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits and approvals necessary
for the proposal, including surface, mineral and water rights.
(B) The health, welfare and safety of the community members of the City will be protected and
served.
(C) The proposed activity is in conformance with the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan and other
duly adopted plans of the City, or other applicable regional, state or federal land development
or water quality plan.
(D) The development plan is not subject to risk from natural or human caused environmental
hazards. The determination of risk from natural hazards to the development plan may include
but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Unstable slopes including landslides and rock slides.
(2) Expansive or evaporative soils and risk of subsidence.
(3) Wildfire hazard areas.
(4) Floodplains.
(E) The development plan will not an adverse impact on the capability of local governments
affected by the development plan to provide local infrastructure and services or exceed the
capacity of service delivery systems. The determination of the effects of the development plan
on local government services may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Current and projected capacity of roads, schools, infrastructure, drainage and/or
stormwater infrastructure, housing, and other local government facilities and services
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.53
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
31
necessary to accommodate development, and the impact of the development plan upon the
current and projected capacity.
(2) Need for temporary roads or other infrastructure to serve the development plan for
construction and maintenance.
(F) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on the quality or quantity of recreational
opportunities and experience. The determination of impacts of the development plan on
recreational opportunities and experience may include but is not limited to the following
considerations:
(1) Changes to existing and projected visitor days.
(2) Changes in quality and quantity of fisheries.
(3) Changes in instream flows or reservoir levels.
(4) Changes in access to recreational resources.
(5) Changes to quality and quantity of hiking, biking, multi-use or horseback riding trails.
(6) Changes to regional open space.
(7) Changes to existing conservation easements.
(8) Changes to City parks, playgrounds, community gardens, recreation fields or courts, picnic
areas, and other City park amenities.
(G) The development plan when completed will not have an adverse impact on existing visual
quality. The determination of visual impacts of the development plan may include but is not
limited to the following considerations:
(1) Visual changes to ground cover and vegetation, streams, or other natural features.
(2) Interference with viewsheds and scenic vistas.
(3) Changes in landscape character of unique land formations.
(4) Compatibility of structure size and color with scenic vistas and viewsheds.
(5) Changes to the visual character of regional open space.
(6) Changes to the visual character of existing conservation easements.
(7) Changes to the visual character of City parks, trails, natural areas, or recreation facilities.
(8) Changes to the visual character of historic and cultural resources.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.54
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
32
(H) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on air quality. The determination of
effects of the development plan on air quality may include but is not limited to the following
considerations:
(1) Changes in visibility and microclimates.
(2) Applicable air quality standards.
(3) Increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
(4) Emissions of air toxics.
(I) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on surface water quality. The
determination of impacts of the development plan on surface water quality may include but is
not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Changes to existing water quality, including patterns of water circulation, temperature,
conditions of the substrate, extent and persistence of suspended particulates and clarity,
odor, color or taste of water;
(2) Applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards.
(3) Changes in point and nonpoint source pollution loads.
(4) Increase in erosion.
(5) Changes in sediment loading to waterbodies.
(6) Changes in stream channel or shoreline stability.
(7) Changes in stormwater runoff flows.
(8) Changes in trophic status or in eutrophication rates in lakes and reservoirs.
(9) Changes in the capacity or functioning of streams, lakes or reservoirs.
(10) Changes to the topography, natural drainage patterns, soil morphology and productivity,
soil erosion potential, and floodplains.
(11) Changes to stream sedimentation, geomorphology, and channel stability.
(12) Changes to lake and reservoir bank stability and sedimentation, and safety of existing
reservoirs.
(J) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on groundwater quality. The
determination of impacts of the development plan on groundwater quality may include but is
not limited to the following considerations:
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.55
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
33
(1) Changes in aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity including
seepage losses through aquifer boundaries and at aquifer-stream interfaces.
(2) Changes in capacity and function of wells within the impact area.
(3) Changes in quality of well water within the impacted area.
(K) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on wetlands and riparian areas
(including riparian forests) of any size regardless of jurisdictional status. In determining
impacts to wetlands and riparian areas, the following considerations shall include but not be
limited to:
(1) Changes in the structure and function of wetlands.
(2) Changes to the filtering and pollutant uptake capacities of wetlands and riparian areas.
(3) Changes to aerial extent of wetlands.
(4) Changes in species’ characteristics and diversity.
(5) Transition from wetland to upland species.
(6) Changes in function and aerial extent of floodplains.
(L) The development plan shall not have an adverse impact on the quality of terrestrial and
aquatic animal life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life, the
following considerations shall include but not be limited to:
(1) Changes that result in loss of oxygen for aquatic life.
(2) Changes in flushing flows.
(3) Changes in species composition or density.
(4) Changes in number of threatened or endangered species.
(5) Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including calving grounds, mating grounds,
nesting grounds, summer or winter range, migration routes, or any other habitat features
necessary for the protection and propagation of any terrestrial animals.
(6) Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning
grounds, riffle and side pool areas, flushing flows, nutrient accumulation and cycling,
water temperature, depth and circulation, stratification and any other conditions necessary
for the protection and propagation of aquatic species.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.56
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
34
(M) The development plan shall not have an adverse impact on the quality of terrestrial and
aquatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life, the following
considerations shall include but not be limited to:
(1) Changes to high priority habitat identified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the
Fort Collins Natural Areas Department.
(2) Changes to the structure and function of vegetation, including species composition,
diversity, biomass, and productivity.
(3) Changes in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirable species, including
noxious weeds.
(4) Changes in threatened or endangered species.
(N) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on natural habitats and features as
defined in Land Use Code Section 3.4.1.
(O) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on historic or cultural resources as
defined in Section 6.1.9 of these Regulations.
(P) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on significant trees as defined in Land
Use Code Section 3.2.1.
(Q) The development plan will not have an adverse impact on soils and geologic conditions. The
determination of impacts of the development plan on soils and geologic conditions may
include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Loss of topsoil due to wind or water forces.
(2) Changes in soil erodibility.
(3) Physical or chemical soil deterioration.
(4) Compacting, sealing and crusting.
(R) The development plan will not cause a nuisance. The determination of nuisance impacts of
the development plan may include but is not limited to the following considerations: increase
in odors, dust, fumes, glare, heat, noise, vibration or artificial light.
(S) The development plan will not result in risk of releases of, or exposures to, hazardous materials
or regulated substances. The determination of the risk of release of, or increased exposures to,
hazardous materials or regulated substances caused by the development plan may include but
is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Plans for compliance with federal and state handling, storage, disposal, and transportation
requirements.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.57
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
35
(2) Use of waste minimization techniques.
(3) Adequacy of spill and leak prevention and response plans.
(T) The development plan will not have disproportionately greater adverse impact on
disproportionately impacted communities within the City considering, for example, the
distribution of impacts to the following:
(1) Air quality.
(2) Water quality.
(3) Soil contamination.
(4) Waste management.
(5) Hazardous materials.
(6) Access to parks, natural areas, trail, community services, cultural activities, and historic
and cultural resources, and other recreational or natural amenities.
(7) Nuisances.
(U) The development plan shall include mitigation plans that avoid or minimize adverse impacts
by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action. Mitigation plans shall include detailed
information on how the proposed project will avoid or minimize adverse impacts identified
and related to all applicable common and specific review standards, including but not limited
to the following:
(1) Detailed information on how the proposed project will avoid or minimize adverse impacts
on natural features must include an adaptive management plan and established performance
criteria based on a local reference site and analogous habitat type. Plans submitted must
address success criteria regarding quantity, quality, diversity and structure of vegetative
cover or habitat value; and
(2) Detailed information on how the proposed project will avoid or minimize adverse impacts
on historic and cultural features during the full span of ground disturbance and construction
activities, to include an archeological monitoring plan that anticipates the possibility of
new discoveries related to that activity; and plan(s) of protection that detail mitigation
strategies for any identified historic and cultural resources.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.58
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
36
Regulations for Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic
Water and Sewage Treatment Systems and Major Extension of Such Systems
Division 6.8 Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Such Systems
6.8.1 Applicability
6.8.2 Purpose and Intent
6.8.3 Specific Review Standards for Major New Domestic Water or Sewage Treatment
Systems or Major Extensions
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.59
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
37
Division 6.8
Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic
Water and Sewage Treatment Systems and Major Extension of Such Systems
6.8.1 Applicability
These Regulations shall apply to the site selection and construction of all major new domestic
water and sewage treatment systems, and major extensions of such systems within the municipal
boundaries of the City.
6.8.2 Purpose and Intent
The specific purpose and intent of this Division are:
(A) To ensure that site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage
treatment systems and major extensions of such systems are conducted in such a manner
as to avoid or fully mitigate impacts associated with such development;
(B) To ensure that site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage
treatment systems and major extensions of such systems are planned and developed in a
manner so as not to impose an undue economic burden on existing or proposed
communities within the City;
(D) To ensure that the off-site adverse impacts of new domestic water and sewage treatment
systems are avoided or fully mitigated; and
(E) To ensure that the surface and groundwater resources of the City are protected from any
adverse impact of the development of major water and sewage treatment systems and major
extensions of such systems.
6.8.3 Specific Review Standards for Major New Domestic Water or Sewage Treatment
Systems or Major Extensions
A permit application for the site selection and construction of a major new domestic water or
sewage treatment system or major extension of such system shall be approved with or without
conditions only if the development plan complies with the review standards in Section 6.7.1 and
the below standards, to the extent applicable or relevant. To the extent a permit application may
not comply with a particular standard, the applicant may demonstrate compliance with such
standard by proposing mitigation measures that sufficiently offset the extent of noncompliance. If
City Council finds the development plan does not comply with all applicable standards, the permit
shall be denied unless City Council, in its sole discretion, imposes conditions pursuant to Section
6.6.14 which if fulfilled would bring the development plan into compliance with all applicable
standards, in which case City Council may approve the permit. City Council may also impose
additional conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 on any permit. The specific review standards are:
(A) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall only be constructed in areas which
will result in the proper use of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of
domestic water and sewage treatment systems within the City; and
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.60
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
38
(B) Area and community development and population trends must demonstrate clearly a need
for such development.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.61
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
39
Site Selection of Arterial Highways
and Interchanges and Collector Highways
Division 6.9 Site Selection of Arterial Highways and Interchanges and Collector Highways
6.9.1 Applicability
6.9.2 Purpose and Intent
6.9.3 Specific Review Standards for Arterial Highway, Interchange or Collector
Highway Projects
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.62
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
40
Division 6.9
Site Selection of Arterial Highways and Interchanges and Collector Highways
6.9.1 Applicability
This Division shall apply to the site selection of all arterial highways and interchanges and
collector highways within the municipal boundaries of the City.
6.9.2 Purpose and Intent
The specific purpose and intent of this Division are:
(A) To ensure that community traffic needs are met;
(B) To provide for the continuation of desirable community traffic circulation patterns by all
modes;
(C) To discourage expansion of demand for government services beyond the reasonable
capacity of the community or region to provide such services as determined by the City;
(D) To prevent direct conflicts with local, regional and state master plans;
(E) To ensure that highway and interchange development is compatible with surrounding land
uses;
(F) To encourage the coordination of highway planning with community and development
plans;
(G) To discourage traffic hazards and congestion;
(H) To minimize sources of traffic noise, air and water pollution; and
(I) To protect scenic, natural, historical and cultural resources from destruction.
6.9.3 Specific Review Standards for Arterial Highway, Interchange or Collector Highway
Projects
A permit for the site selection of an arterial highway, interchange or collector highway shall be
approved with or without conditions only if the proposed development plan complies with the
review standards in Section 6.7.1 and the below standards, to the extent applicable or relevant. To
the extent a permit application may not comply with a particular standard, the applicant may
demonstrate compliance with such standard by proposing mitigation measures that sufficiently
offset the extent of noncompliance. If City Council finds the development plan does not comply
with all applicable standards, the permit shall be denied unless City Council, in its sole discretion,
imposes conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 which if fulfilled would bring the development plan
into compliance with all applicable standards, in which case City Council may approve the permit.
City Council may also impose additional conditions pursuant to Section 6.6.14 on any permit. The
specific review standards are:
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.63
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
41
(A) The proposed arterial highway, interchange or collector highway will be located so that
natural habitats and features, historic and cultural resources, City natural areas and parks
and other local government facilities and resources are protected to the maximum extent
feasible;
(B) The proposed arterial highway or interchange or collector highway will be located only in
a corridor for which a clear and reasonable local and regional need has been demonstrated;
(C) The location and access limitations for the arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will not isolate community neighborhoods from and, where practicable, will
enhance access from community neighborhoods to public facilities including schools,
hospitals, mass transit, pedestrian walkways and bikeways, recreational facilities and areas,
community centers, government and social services provider offices and facilities, natural
areas, and open spaces;
(D) The construction of the arterial highway and interchange or collector highway shall be
phased to minimize interference with traffic movement;
(E) The location and access limitations for the arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will not restrict access to other roadways, mass transit facilities, pedestrian
walkways and bikeways, local commercial services, residential developments, business
and employment centers, and public facilities including schools, hospitals, recreational
facilities and areas, natural areas, and open spaces;
(F) Alternative modes of transportation will be incorporated into the proposal to the extent
feasible;
(G) If park-and-ride facilities are utilized, they shall be located in areas approved by the City;
(H) The location of the proposed new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will not impede the delivery of essential community services and goods;
(I) Desirable local and regional community land use patterns will not be disrupted by the
location of the proposed new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway;
(J) The location and access limitations for the arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will not create safety hazards to motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists by causing or
contributing to overuse, improper use or congestion, or cause unnecessary diversion of
regional traffic onto other City roadways or inappropriate or inadequate connections to
pedestrian and bicycle routes;
(K) The proposed location of the new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will be located so as to complement the efficient extension of planned public
services, utilities and development in general, both regionally and within the City;
(L) The proposed location of the new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will adhere to the plan, process, procedure and requirements of the State and the
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.64
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
42
Federal Highway Administration, and such construction, expansion or modification will
be included in local and regional transportation plans;
(M) The proposed location of the new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will not result in the destruction, impairment or significant alteration of sensitive,
key commercial, tourist or visitor areas or districts within the City;
(N) The proposed location of the new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will not contribute to a negative economic impact to residential, commercial,
tourist or visitor areas or districts within the City;
(O) To the extent tolling is proposed, the use or level of tolling is appropriate in light of existing
toll levels, if any, and any prior or projected public infrastructure investment;
(P) The proposed highways can be integrated into the regional transportation network;
(Q) The new or expanded arterial highway, or interchange or collector highway will not have
an adverse impact on prime or unique farmland as defined by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(R) The proposed location and design of the arterial highway, interchange or collector highway
does not cause lighting impacts from headlights or streetlights to nearby residential
neighborhoods or other developments or night sky objectives and plans;
(S) Noise levels caused by the new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or collector
highway will follow federal noise regulations;
(T) Vertical structures will match the character of the City through materials and design; and
(U) The local air quality impacts of the new or expanded arterial highway, interchange or
collector highway shall support attainment of federal and state ambient air quality
standards and shall not increase risks to human health and the environment posed by air
pollutants.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.65
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
43
Financial Security, Post-Issuance Administration, Enforcement
Division 6.10 Financial Security
6.10.1 Financial Security
Division 6.11 Suspension or Revocation of Permits
6.11.1 Suspension or Revocation of Permits
Division 6.12 Review, Renewal, Amendment, Transfer
6.12.1 Annual Review; Progress Reports
6.12.2 Permit Renewal
6.12.3 Permit Amendment
6.12.4 Minor Revision Not Constituting a Material Change
6.12.5 Transfer of Permits
6.12.6 Inspection
Division 6.13 Enforcement
6.13.1 Enforcement
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.66
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
44
Division 6.10
Financial Security
6.10.1 Financial Security
(A) Before any development occurs pursuant to an approved permit issued pursuant to these
Regulations, the applicant shall provide the City with a guarantee of financial security
deemed adequate by the Director to accomplish the purposes of this Section, in a form
approved by the City Attorney and payable to the City of Fort Collins.
(B) The purpose of the financial guarantee is to ensure that the permittee shall faithfully
perform all requirements of the permit and the Director shall determine the amount of the
financial guarantee in consideration of the following standards, to the extent applicable or
relevant to the approved development plan:
(1) The estimated cost of returning the site of the permitted development plan to its original
condition or to a condition acceptable in accordance with standards adopted by the City
for the matter of state interest for which the permit is being granted;
(2) The estimated cost of implementing and successfully maintaining any revegetation
required by the permit.
(3) The estimated cost of completing the permitted development plan; and
(4) The estimated cost of complying with any permit conditions, including mitigation,
monitoring, reporting, and City inspections to ensure compliance with the terms of the
permit.
(C) Estimated cost shall be based on the applicant’s submitted cost estimate. The Director shall
consider the duration of the development plan and compute a reasonable projection of
increases due to inflation over the entire life of the development plan. The Director may
require, as a condition of the permit, that the financial security shall be adjusted upon
receipt of bids.
(D) The financial guarantee may be released in whole or in part with the approval of the
Director only when:
(1) The permit has been surrendered to the Director before commencement of any physical
activity on the site of the approved development plan;
(2) The approved development plan has been abandoned and the site thereof has been
returned to its original condition or to a condition acceptable to the Director in
accordance with standards adopted by the Permit Authority for the matter of state
interest for which the permit is being granted;
(3) The approved development plan has been satisfactorily completed; or
(4) Applicable guaranteed conditions have been satisfied.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.67
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
45
(E) Any security may be cancelled by a surety only upon receipt of the Director’s written
consent which may be granted only when such cancellation will not detract from the
purposes of the security.
(F) If the license to do business in Colorado of any surety upon a security filed pursuant to
these Regulations is suspended or revoked by any State authority, then the permittee, within
sixty (60) days after receiving notice thereof, shall substitute a good and sufficient surety
licensed to do business in the State. Upon failure of the permittee to make substitution of
surety within the time allowed, the Director shall suspend the permit until proper
substitution has been made.
(G) No security is acceptable if signed by or drawn on an institution for or in which the
permittee is an owner, shareholder, or investor other than simply an account holder.
(H) The Director may determine at any time that a financial guarantee should be forfeited
because of any violation of the permit. The Director shall provide written notice of such
determination to the surety and the permittee of their right to written demand of the Director
within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice from the Director.
(1) If no demand is made within said period, then the Director shall order in writing that
the financial guarantee be forfeited and provide a copy of such order to the surety and
permittee.
(2) If a timely demand is received, the Director shall make good faith efforts to meet with
the permittee and surety within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such demand. At the
meeting the permittee and surety may present any information with respect to the
alleged violation for the Director’s consideration. At the conclusion of any meeting,
the Director shall either withdraw the notice of violation or order in writing that the
financial guarantee should be forfeited and provide a copy of such order to the surety
and permittee.
(I) If the forfeiture results in inadequate revenue to cover the costs of accomplishing the
purposes of the financial guarantee, the City Attorney shall take such steps as deemed
proper to recover such costs, including imposing and foreclosing a City lien on real
property and/or certifying the same to the County Treasurer for collection in the same
manner as real property taxes, pursuant to Sections 31-20-105 and 106, C.R.S.
(J) The financial security under this Section may be waived, in the Director’s sole discretion,
if a proposed development plan is solely financed by state agencies, a political subdivision
of the state, or a special or enterprise fund that has established to the Director’s satisfaction
the availability of funds required to complete the proposed development plan.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.68
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
46
Division 6.11
Suspension or Revocation of Permits
6.11.1 Suspension or Revocation of Permits
(A) If the Director has reason to believe that the permittee has violated any provision of the
permit or the terms of any regulation for administration of the permit, and such violation
poses a danger to public health, safety, welfare, the environment or wildlife resources, the
Director has the authority to order the immediate suspension of all operations associated
with implementing the approved development plan and suspension of the permit until the
danger has been eliminated. At such time as the Director has determined the danger is
eliminated and any violations of the permit or the terms of any regulation for administration
of the permit, the Director shall withdraw the suspension. Should the danger be eliminated
but violations of the permit still exist, the Director shall suspend the permit for up to an
additional one-hundred and eighty (180) days pursuant to (B)(3) below.
(B) If the Director has reason to believe that the permittee has violated any provision of any
permit or the terms of any regulation for administration of the permit, and such violation
does not pose a danger to public health, safety, welfare, the environment or wildlife
resources, the Director may temporarily suspend the permit for an initial period of up to
thirty (30) days or until the violation is corrected, whichever occurs first.
(1) Before imposing such temporary suspension, the Director shall provide written notice
to the permittee of the specific violation and shall allow the permittee a period of at
least fifteen (15) days to correct the violation from the date notice was provided.
(2) If the permit holder does not agree that there is a violation, the permittee shall, within
fifteen (15) days of the date notice was provided, submit a written response to the
Director detailing why the temporary suspension should not occur. Upon receiving
such response, the Director shall within ten (10) days issue a written response either
withdrawing the notice of violation or imposing the temporary permit suspension. The
Director’s decision is not subject to appeal.
(3) Should a violation remain uncorrected after the initial period of temporary suspension
has elapsed, the Director shall extend in writing the period of temporary suspension for
up to an additional one-hundred and eighty (180) days or until the violation is corrected,
whichever occurs first. Notice of such extension shall be provided to the permittee and
the extended suspension may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI, of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins, however, pending such appeal hearing, the permit
suspension shall remain in effect.
(C) Subsequent to any extended temporary suspension imposed under (B)(3) above, the
Director may permanently revoke the permit upon a written determination that the violation
for which the temporary suspension was premised remains uncorrected. The determination
shall be provided to the permittee and such revocation may be appealed pursuant to Chapter
2, Article VI, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, however, pending the decision of
such appeal, the revocation shall remain in effect.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.69
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
47
(D) The Director may permanently revoke a permit upon a written determination that the
permittee has failed to take substantial steps to initiate the permitted development or
activity within twelve (12) months from the date of the issuance of the permit or within the
timeframe of any extensions granted, or, if such steps have been taken, the permittee has
failed to complete or pursue completion of the development or activity with reasonable
diligence. The determination shall be provided to the permittee and such revocation may
be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins,
however, pending such appeal hearing, the revocation shall remain in effect. The
permanent revocation of a permit does not bar the future submittal of a new permit
application for the same, or substantially the same, proposed development plan.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.70
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
48
Division 6.12
Permit Review, Renewal, Amendment, Transfer
6.12.1 Annual Review; Progress Reports
(A) Within thirty (30) days prior to each annual anniversary date of the granting of a permit,
the permittee shall submit a report detailing any and all activities conducted by the
permittee pursuant to the permit including, but not limited to, a satisfactory showing that
the permit has complied with all conditions of the permit and applicable regulations for
administration of the permit.
(B) Director shall review the report within thirty (30) days from the date of submittal thereof.
If the Director determines, based upon its review, that the permittee was likely to have
violated the provisions of the permit or applicable regulations, or both, the Director shall
make a good faith effort to meet with the permittee to discuss the matter. If the Director
determines after any meeting that the permittee has violated the provisions of the permit or
applicable regulations, or both, the Director may suspend and/or revoke the permit in
accordance with Section 6.11.1.
(C) Upon fulfillment of all permit conditions, this annual review requirement may be waived
by the Director.
(D) At any time, the Director may require the permittee to submit an interim progress report.
6.12.2 Permit Renewal
Permits issued under these Regulations may be renewed following the same procedure for approval
of new permits except the renewal process shall not include the Director’s FONAI review pursuant
to Section 6.6.5.
6.12.3 Permit Amendment
The Director shall require a permit amendment for any material change, as determined by the
Director, in the construction, use, or operation of an approved development plan from the terms
and conditions of an approved permit. The amendment shall be processed in accordance with and
subject to the same procedures and requirements set forth herein for a permit except that the
Director’s FONAI review pursuant to Section 6.6.5 shall not occur.
6.12.4 Minor Revision Not Constituting a Material Change
The permittee may apply to the Director for minor revisions to an issued permit to correct errors
or make other changes to conform the permit to actual conditions to the extent such minor revision
is not a material change to the permit as determined by the Director. The Director is granted
discretion to approve such minor revisions or to determine that a permit amendment is required
pursuant to Section 6.12.3. In reviewing a requested minor revision or revisions, the Director shall
consider the request in the context of previously approved minor revisions to determine whether
in the aggregate, the requested minor revision or revisions constitute a material change.
6.12.5 Transfer of Permits
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.71
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
49
A permit may be transferred only upon the Director’s written consent. The Director must ensure
in approving any transfer that the proposed transferee can and will comply with all the
requirements, terms, and conditions contained in the permit and these regulations; that such
requirements, terms, and conditions remain sufficient to protect the health, welfare, and safety of
the public; and that an adequate guarantee of financial security can be made.
6.12.6 Inspection
The Director in their sole discretion is empowered to cause the inspection of any development,
operation, or decommissioning activities related to a permit, including on or off-site mitigation
activities, to ensure compliance with such permit and applicable laws and regulations. The
permittee shall provide reasonable access to property for which the permittee has the authority to
do so and shall make good faith efforts to coordinate access for other property. To the extent
such inspection is ongoing or otherwise subject to advance planning, the Director shall consult
with the permittee to coordinate inspection to minimize potential disruptions. The Director may
retain a third-party consultant to conduct such inspections, including a consultant with
specialized knowledge or training, and the cost of all such inspections shall be the responsibility
of the permittee. The inspections provided for under this Section are in addition to Section
2.14.3.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.72
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
50
Division 6.13
Enforcement
6.13.1 Enforcement
Any person engaging in development in a designated area of a state interest or conducting a
designated activity of state interest who does not first obtain a permit pursuant to these Regulations,
who does not comply with permit requirements, or who acts outside the authority of the permit, is
in violation of this Land Use Code and the City may take enforcement action pursuant to Division
2.14 and may additionally take any other action available under these Regulations and civil or
criminal law, including seeking injunctive relief, or revoking or suspending any permit issued
pursuant to these Regulations or any permit issued pursuant to the Land Use Code or the Code of
the City of Fort Collins. These Regulations are not intended to create third party rights of
enforcement.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet pg.73
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 2
DIVISION 1.1 ORGANIZATION OF LAND USE CODE
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code is organized into five (5) Articles as follows:
Article 1 General Provisions
Article 2 Administration
Article 3 General Development Standards
Article 4 District Standards
Article 5 Definitions
Article 6 Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest
The General Provisions contained in Article 1 address the organization of this Land Use Code; its title, purpose and
authority; the establishment of the Zoning Map and Zone Districts; rules for interpretation and measurements;
rules for nonconformities and legal matters.
Article 2, Administration, guides the reader through the procedural and decision-making process by providing
divisions pertaining to general procedural requirements and a twelve-step common development review process,
as well as providing a separate division for each type of development application and other land use requests.
The General Development Standards contained in Article 3 establish standards which apply to all types of
development applications unless otherwise indicated. This article is divided into divisions addressing standards for
site planning and design, engineering, environmental and cultural resource protection, compact urban growth,
buildings, transportation and circulation, and supplemental uses.
All zone districts within the City of Fort Collins and their respective list of permitted uses, prohibited uses and
particular development standards are located in Article 4, District Standards. These zone districts directly relate to
the Zoning Map and Zone Districts established in Article 1.
Definitions of terms used throughout this Land Use Code are included in Article 5.
Article 6 sets forth guidelines and regulations for areas and activities of state interest adopted pursuant to Section
24-65.1-101, et seq., C.R.S.
This method of organization, which distinguishes and separates general provisions, administration, general
development standards, district standards, and definitions, and areas and activities of state interest, is intended to
provide a user-friendly and easily accessible Land Use Code by consolidating most city regulations addressing land
use and development, standardizing the regulatory format, providing common development review procedures,
separating and clarifying standards and separating and clarifying definitions.
When this Land Use Code is amended, any amendments to procedural provisions will be made in Article 2,
Administration. Amendments to general development standards will occur in Article 3, General Development
Standards. Amendments to District Standards (Zone Districts) will be made in Article 4. And Article 5 will be the
place to change or add definitions. Amendments to areas and activities of state interest will occur in Article 6.
For an overview on how to use this Land Use Code when applying for a development application or other request,
reference should be made to Section 2.1.2, Overview of the Development Review Process.
This symbol:
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.74
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 2 of 2
appears under selected subsections of the Land Use Code. It refers to a nonregulatory manual explaining the Land
Use Code's approach to development using example pictures and diagrams. The manual, called the Fort Collins
Design Manual, is available separately.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.75
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 7
DIVISION 2.1 GENERAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1.1 Decision Maker and Administrative Bodies
The City Council, Planning and Zoning BoardCommission, Zoning Board of AppealsLand Use Review Commission
and Director are frequently referenced in this Land Use Code. Reference should be made to Chapter 2 of the City
Code for descriptions of these and other decision makers and administrative bodies, and their powers, duties,
membership qualifications and related matters.
The Director or the Planning and Zoning BoardCommission will consider, review and decide all development
applications for permitted uses (overall development plans, PUD Overlays 640 acres or less, basic development
review plans, project development plans and final plans) according to the provisions of this Land Use Code. For
those development applications subject to basic development review, the Director (or the Director's subordinate)
is the designated decision maker. For those development applications subject to administrative review (sometimes
referred to as "Type 1 review"), the Director is the designated decision maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(1)). For those
development applications subject to P&Z review (sometimes referred to as "Type 2 review"), the Planning and
Zoning BoardCommission is the designated decision maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(2)). For PUD Overlays greater than
640 acres, the City Council is the designated decision maker after receiving a Planning and Zoning
BoardCommission recommendation. The permitted use list for a particular zone district and the development
review procedure "steps" for a particular development application identifies which review, Type 1 or Type 2, will
apply. For building permit applications, the Building and Zoning DirectorChief Building Official is the decision maker
(see Section 2.7.3). (See "Overview of Development Review Procedures," Section 2.1.2, below, for a further
description of different levels of review.) City Council is the decision maker regarding the issuance of permits to
conduct an activity or develop within an area of state interest pursuant to Article 6 after receiving a Planning and
Zoning Commission recommendation.
2.1.2 Overview of Development Review Procedures
This article establishes the development review procedures for different types of development applications and
building permits within the city.
(A) Where is the project located? An applicant must first locate the proposed project on the Zoning Map.
Once the proposed project has been located, the applicable zone district must be identified from the
Zoning Map and legend. Then, by referring to Article 4, District Standards, of this Land Use Code, the
applicant will find the district standards which apply to the zone district in which the proposed project
is located. The city's staff is available to assist applicants in this regard.
(B) What uses are proposed? Next, an applicant must identify which uses will be included in the proposed
project. If all of the applicant's proposed uses are listed as permitted uses in the applicable zone
district for the project, then the applicant is ready to proceed with a development application for a
permitted use. If any of the applicant's proposed uses are not listed as permitted uses in the applicable
zone district for the project, then the applicant must either eliminate the nonpermitted uses from his
or her proposal, seek the addition of a new permitted use pursuant to Section 1.3.4, seek a text
amendment to this Land Use Code or a rezoning amendment to the Zoning Map pursuant to Division
2.9, or seek approval of a PUD Overlay pursuant to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29. Any use not listed as a
permitted use in the applicable zone district is deemed a prohibited use in that zone district, unless it
has been permitted pursuant to Section 1.3.4 for a particular development application or permitted as
part of an approved PUD Overlay. Applications for permits pursuant to the Article 6 areas and activities
of state interest provisions may be reviewed regardless of whether the zone district or districts in
which the proposed project allow such a use or even expressly prohibit such use. Again, the city's staff
will be available to assist applicants with their understanding of the zone districts and permitted uses.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.76
Page 2 of 7
(C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a development
proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type of development application
should be selected and submitted. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must
be processed and approved through the following development applications: first through a project
development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If the applicant desires to
develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development plan
(Division 2.3) will also be required prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall
development plans, PUD Overlays, basic development reviews, project development plans and final
plans are the five (5) types of development applications for permitted uses. Each successive
development application for a development proposal must build upon the previously approved
development application, as needed, by providing additional details (through the development
application submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in
the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4). Overall
development plans, basic development reviews and project development plans may be consolidated
into one (1) application for concurrent processing and review when appropriate under the provisions
of Section 2.2.3. The purpose, applicability and interrelationship of these types of development
applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3. Applications for a permit pursuant to the Article 6
areas and activities of state interest provisions are addressed in Division 2.20 and Article 6.
(D) Who reviews the development application? Once an applicant has determined the type of
development application to be submitted, he or shethe applicant must determine the appropriate level
of development review required for the development application. To make this determination, the
applicant must refer to the provisions of the applicable zone district in Article 4 and the provisions
pertaining to the appropriate development application. These provisions will determine whether the
permitted uses and the development application are subject to basic development review,
administrative review ("Type 1 review"), Planning and Zoning BoardCommission review ("Type 2
review"), or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres and permits to
conduct a designated activity or develop in a designated area of state interest. Identification of the
required level of development review will, in turn, determine which decision maker, the Director in the
case of administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or the Planning and Zoning BoardCommission in the
case of Planning and Zoning BoardCommission review ("Type 2 review"), or the City Council for PUD
Overlays greater than 640 acres and permits pursuant to the areas and activities of state interest
provisions, will review and make the final decision on the development application. When a
development application contains both Type 1 and Type 2 uses, it will be processed as a Type 2 review.
(E) How will the development application be processed? The review of overall development plans, PUD
Overlays, project development plans and final plans, and permits pursuant to the areas and activities of
state interest provisions will each generally follow the same procedural "steps" regardless of the level
of review (administrative review, or Planning and Zoning BoardCommission, or City Council review).
The common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2 establish a twelve-step process
equally applicable to all overall development plans, project development plans and final plans.
The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures are the same for each type of
development application, whether subject to basic development review, administrative review,
Planning and Zoning BoardCommission review, or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays
greater than 640 acres and permits pursuant to the areas and activities of state interest provisions
unless an exception to the common development review procedures is expressly called for in the
particular development application requirements of this Land Use Code. In other words, each overall
development plan, each project development plan and each final plan will be subject to the twelve-
step common procedure. The twelve (12) steps include: (1) conceptual review; (2) neighborhood
meeting; (3) development application submittal; (4) determination of sufficiency; (5) staff report; (6)
notice; (7) public hearing; (8) standards; (9) conditions of approval; (10) amendments; (11) lapse; and
(12) appeals.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.77
Page 3 of 7
However, Step 1, conceptual review, applies only to the initial development application submittal for a
development project (i.e., overall development plan or PUD Overlay when required, or project
development plan when neither an overall development plan nor a PUD Overlay is required).
Subsequent development applications for the same development project are not subject to Step 1,
conceptual review.
Moreover, Step 2, neighborhood meeting, applies only to certain development applications subject to
Planning and Zoning BoardCommission and City Council review. Step 2, neighborhood meeting, does
not apply to development applications subject to basic development review or administrative review.
Step 3, application submittal requirements, applies to all development applications. Applicants shall
submit items and documents in accordance with a master list of submittal requirements as established
by the City Manager. Overall development plans must comply with only certain identified items on the
master list, while PUD Overlays, project development plans, and final plans must include different
items from the master list. This master list is intended to assure consistency among submittals by using
a "building block" approach, with each successive development application building upon the previous
one for that project. City staff is available to discuss the common procedures with the applicant.
(F) What if the development proposal doesn't fit into one of the types of development applications
discussed above? In addition to the four (4) development applications for permitted uses, the applicant
may seek approval for other types of development applications, including development applications for
a modification of standards (Division 2.8), an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code and/or the
Zoning Map (Division 2.9), a hardship variance (Division 2.10), an appeal of an administrative decision
(Division 2.11), a permit to conduct an activity or develop in an area of state interest (Division 2.20 and
Article 6), or other requests. These other types of development applications will be reviewed according
to applicable steps in the common development review procedures.
(G) Is a building permit required? The next step after approval of a final plan is to apply for a Building
Permit. Most construction requires a Building Permit. This is a distinct and separate process from a
development application. The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures must
be followed for the Building Permit process. Procedures and requirements for submitting a Building
Permit application are described in Division 2.7.
(H) Is it permissible to talk with decision makers "off the record" about a development plan prior to the
decision makers' formal review of the application? No. Development plans must be reviewed and
approved in accordance with the provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's decision whether to
approve or deny an application must be based on the criteria established herein and on the
information provided at the hearings held on the application. In order to afford all persons who may be
affected by the review and approval of a development plan an opportunity to respond to the
information upon which decisions regarding the plan will be made, and in order to preserve the
impartiality of the decision makers, decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions should
avoid communications with the applicant or other members of the public about the plan prior to the
hearings in which they intend to participate.
2.1.3 Types of Development Applications
(A) Applicability. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved
through the following development applications: a basic development review; or through a project
development plan (Division 2.4), then through a final plan (Division 2.5), then through a development
construction permit (Division 2.6) and then through a building permit review (Division 2.7). If the applicant
desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development
plan (Division 2.3) will also be required prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. A PUD
Master Plan associated with a PUD Overlay may be substituted for an overall development plan (Divisions
2.15 and 4.29). Each successive development application for a development proposal must build upon the
previously approved development application by providing additional details (through the development
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.78
Page 4 of 7
application submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the
General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4).
Permitted uses subject to administrative review or permitted uses subject to Planning and Zoning
BoardCommission review listed in the applicable zone district set forth in Article 4, District Standards, shall
be processed through an overall development plan, a project development plan or a final plan. If any use not
listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone district is included in a development application, it may also
be processed as an overall development plan, project development plan or final plan, if such proposed use
has been approved, or is concurrently submitted for approval, in accordance with the requirements for an
amendment to the text of this Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map, Division 2.9, or in accordance with the
requirements for the addition of a permitted use under Section 1.3.4. Development applications for
permitted uses which seek to modify any standards contained in the General Development Standards in
Article 3, or the District Standards in Article 4, shall be submitted by the applicant and processed as a
modification of standards under Division 2.8. Hardship variances to standards contained in Article 3, General
Development Standards, or Article 4, District Standards, shall be processed as hardship variances by the
Zoning Board of AppealsLand Use Review Commission pursuant to Division 2.10. Appeals of
administrative/staff decisions shall be according to Division 2.11. PUD overlays shall be processed pursuant
to Divisions 2.15, 4.29.
Applications to conduct an activity or develop within an area of state interest are addressed in Division 2.20
and Article 6.
(B) Overall Development Plan.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the overall development plan is to establish general planning and
development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals
while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an
overall development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with
the plan.
(2) Applicability. An overall development plan shall be required for any property which is intended to be
developed over time in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals. Refer to
Division 2.3 for specific requirements for overall development plans.
(C) Project Development Plan and Plat.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The project development plan shall contain a general description of the uses of
land, the layout of landscaping, circulation, architectural elevations and buildings, and it shall include
the project development plan and plat (when such plat is required pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of this
Code). Approval of a project development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property
in accordance with the plan.
(2) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review meeting and after the Director has made
written comments and after a neighborhood meeting has been held (if necessary), an application for
project development plan review may be filed with the Director. If the project is to be developed over
time in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development plan
shall also be required. Refer to Division 2.4 for specific requirements for project development plans.
(D) Final Plan and Plat.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The final plan is the site specific development plan which describes and establishes
the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. The final plan shall include the
final subdivision plat (when such plat is required pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of this Code), and if required
by this Code or otherwise determined by the Director to be relevant or necessary, the plan shall also
include the development agreement and utility plan and shall require detailed engineering and design
review and approval. Building permits may be issued by the Building and Zoning Director only pursuant
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.79
Page 5 of 7
to an approved final plan or other site specific development plan, subject to the provisions of Division
2.8.
(2) Applicability. Application for a final plan may be made only after approval by the appropriate decision
maker (Director for Type 1 review, or Planning and Zoning BoardCommission for Type 2 review) of a
project development plan, unless the project development and final plans have been consolidated
pursuant to Section 2.2.3(B). An approved final plan shall be required for any property which is
intended to be developed. No development shall be allowed to develop or otherwise be approved or
permitted without an approved final plan. Refer to Division 2.5 for specific requirements for final plans.
(E) Site Plan Advisory Review.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and approval of a site
development plan that describes the location, character and extent of improvements to parcels owned
or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public and charter schools, the review also
has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Applicability. A Site Plan Advisory Review shall be applied to any public building or structure. For a
public or charter school, the Planning and Zoning BoardCommission shall review a complete Site Plan
Advisory Review application within thirty (30) days (or such later time as may be agreed to in writing by
the applicant) of receipt of such application under Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. For Site Plan Advisory
Review applications under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., such applications shall be reviewed and approved
or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning BoardCommission within sixty (60) days following receipt of
a complete application.
Enlargements or expansions of public buildings, structures, schools and charter schools are exempt
from the Site Plan Advisory review process if:
(a) The change results in a size increase of less than twenty-five (25) percent of the existing building,
structure or facility being enlarged, whether it be a principal or accessory use; and
(b) The enlargement or expansion does not change the character of the building or facility.
Application for a Site Plan Advisory Review is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning
BoardCommission under the requirements contained in Division 2.16 of this Code.
(F) PUD Overlay.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the PUD Overlay is to provide an avenue for property owners with
larger and more complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design by means of
customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development standards. In
return for such flexibility, significant public benefits not available through traditional development
procedures must be provided by the development. A PUD Master Plan is the written document
associated with a PUD Overlay and the PUD Master Plan sets forth the general development plan and
the customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development standards. An
approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying
zone district requirements.
(2) Applicability. A PUD Overlay is available to properties or collections of contiguous properties fifty (50)
acres or greater in size. Refer to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 for specific requirements and review of PUD
Overlays and PUD Master Plans.
(G) Areas and Activities of State Interest.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The areas and activities of state interest guidelines and regulations set forth in
Article 6 are adopted pursuant to Section 24-65.1-101, et seq., C.R.S., and provide the City with the
ability to review and regulate matters of state interest. A permit issued pursuant to Article 6 is required
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.80
Page 6 of 7
in order for a proposed development plan related to a designated activity or within a designated area
of state interest to be constructed and operate.
(2) Applicability. A permit to conduct a designated activity or to develop within a designated area of state
interest within the City is required for all proposed development plans meeting the criteria set forth in
Article 6 unless an exemption exists pursuant to Section 6.4.1 or a finding of negligible adverse impact
is issued pursuant to Section 6.6.5.
. . .
2.1.6 Optional Pre-Application Review
(A) Optional City Council Pre-Application Review of Complex Development Proposals:
A potential applicant for development other than a PUD Overlay may request that the City Council conduct a
hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the overall
proposal in order to assist the proposed applicant in determining whether to file a development application
or annexation petition. Only one (1) pre-application hearing pursuant to this Subsection (A) may be
requested. The following criteria must be satisfied for such a hearing to be held:
(a) The proposed development cannot have begun any step of the Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2.
(b) The proposed application for approval of a development plan must require City Council approval
of an annexation petition, an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind
of formal action by the City Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use Code
(c) The City Manager must determine in writing that the proposed development will have a
community-wide impact.
(B) Optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review:
This optional review is available to potential PUD applicants that have not begun any step of the Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2. Such
review is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual information to the
Planning and Zoning BoardCommission for PUD Overlays between 50 and 640 acres in size, or to City Council
for PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres in size, regarding the proposed development including how site
constraints will be addressed and issues of controversy or opportunities related to the development.
Applicants participating in such review procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they
intend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and affected property
owners. In order for a pre-application hearing to be held, the Director must determine in writing that the
proposed PUD will have a community-wide impact. Only one (1) pre-application hearing pursuant to this
Subsection (B) may be requested.
(C) Optional Pre-Application Area and Activity Proposal Review:
A potential applicant to conduct a designated activity or develop within a designated area of state interest
may request that the City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from
the City Council regarding the overall proposal in order to assist the proposed applicant. Only one (1) pre-
application hearing pursuant to this Subsection (C) may be requested. The following criteria must be satisfied
for such a hearing to be held:
(a) The proposed development cannot have begun any step of the Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2.
(b) The proposed application for a permit pursuant to Article 6 must require City Council approval of a
permit for areas and activities of state interest.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.81
Page 7 of 7
(c) The City Manager must determine in writing that the proposed development will have a community-
wide impact.
(CD) Notice and Hearing Procedure.
All preapplication hearings under above Subsections (A), or (B), or (C) of this provision will be held in
accordance with the provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common Development Review
Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the
scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of
requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's estimated costs of providing notice of the
hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded to the applicant.
(DE) Input Non-Binding, Record.
The Planning and Zoning BoardCommission or City Council as applicable pursuant to above Subsections (A),
or (B), or (C) may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Planning and Zoning BoardCommission or City Council member with regard to
the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or
decision pertaining to the proposal. All information related to an optional review shall be considered part of
the record of any subsequent development review related to all or part of the property that was the subject
of the optional review.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.82
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 3
2.2.3 Step 3: Development Application Submittal
(A) Development Application Forms. All development applications shall be in a form established by the Director
and made available to the public.
(B) Consolidated Development Applications and Review. Development applications combining an overall
development plan and a project development plan for permitted uses for the same development proposal
may be consolidated for submittal and review, in the discretion of the Director, depending upon the
complexity of the proposal. For these consolidated applications, the applicant shall follow the project
development plan development review procedures. Such consolidated applications shall be reviewed,
considered and decided by the highest level decision maker that would have decided the development
proposal under Section 2.2.7 had it been submitted, processed and considered as separate development
applications. Decision makers, from highest level to lowest level, are the Planning and Zoning Board and the
Director, respectively.
(C) Development Application Contents.
(1) Development Application Submittal Requirements Master List. A master list of development application
submittal requirements shall be established by the Director. The master list shall, at a minimum,
include a list of all information, data, explanations, analysis, testing, reports, tables, graphics, maps,
documents, forms or other items reasonably necessary, desirable or convenient to (1) determine
whether or not the applicant, developer and/or owner have the requisite power, authority, clear title,
good standing, qualifications and ability to submit and carry out the development and/or activities
requested in the development application; and (2) determine whether or not the development
activities and development application address and satisfy each and every applicable general
development standard, district standard or other requirement or provisions of this Land Use Code.
(2) Submittal Requirement. Each development application shall be submitted to the Director and shall
include the items on the master list that are identified as submittal requirements for that development
application. The Director may waive items on the master list that are not applicable due to the
particular conditions and circumstances of that development proposal. At the time of application
submittal, all applicants must agree in writing to pay the costs for third-party consultants the City
retains to adequately review the application as described in Land Use Code Section 2.2.3(D)(3).
(3) Execution of Plats/Deeds; Signature Requirements. All final plats and/or deeds (for conveyances of real
property either off the site described on the plat or at a time or in a manner separate from the plat),
submitted to the City shall:
(a) be signed by all current owners of any recorded fee interest in the surface of the land described
on the plat (or in the deed), whether full or defeasible and whether solely or partially owned.
(b) be signed by all current owners of any equitable interest arising out of a contract to purchase any
fee interest in the surface of the land described on the plat (or in the deed), whether full or
defeasible and whether solely or partially owned.
(c) be signed by all current record owners of any non-freehold interest arising from any recorded
lease of the surface of the land described on the plat (or in the deed) if such lease has a
remaining term of six (6) years following approval of the final development plan by the decision
maker or if such lease contains any right of extension which, if exercised by the tenant, would
create a remaining term of six (6) years following approval of the final development plan by the
decision maker.
(d) be signed by all current owners of any recorded mortgage, deed of trust or other lien, financial
encumbrance upon or security interest in the lands described on the plat (or deed) which, if
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.83
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 2 of 3
foreclosed would take, injure, diminish or weaken the city's interest in any land, easement or
right-of-way which is dedicated to the city or to the public on the plat (or in the deed).
(e) be signed by all current owners of any easement or right-of-way in the lands described on the
plat (or in the deed) whether on, above or below the surface, which includes rights which will
take, injure, diminish or weaken the city's interest in any land, easement or right-of-way which is
dedicated to the city or to the public on the plat (or in the deed).
(f) be signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado certifying to the city
that all signatures as required pursuant to subparagraphs (a) through (e) above have lawfully and
with full authority been placed upon the plat (or in the deed). Said certification may be limited by
the attorney so certifying to only those ownership interests that are of record or, if not of record,
are either actually known to the certifying attorney to exist, or in the exercise of reasonable
diligence, should have been known to the certifying attorney to exist. For purposes of such
certification, the terms "record," "recorded" and "of record" shall mean as shown by documents
recorded in the real estate records in the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Larimer County, Colorado
prior to the date of certification.
(g) contain a maintenance guarantee, a repair guarantee and a certificate of dedication signed by
the developer and the owner (as described in subparagraph (a) above), which provide a two-year
maintenance guarantee and five-year repair guarantee covering all errors or omissions in the
design and/or construction. The specific provisions of the maintenance guarantee, repair
guarantee and certificate of dedication shall be established by the City Engineer.
(h) contain the legal notarization of all signatures as required pursuant to subparagraphs (a) through
(e) above to be placed upon the plat (or deed).
The Director may waive or modify the requirements of subparagraphs (b) through (e), and the
requirements of subparagraph (g) above upon a clear and convincing showing by the applicant that
such waiver or modification will not result in any detriment to the public good, including without
limitation, detriment to the interest of the public in the real property conveyed to it on the plat (or in
the deed); and will not result in any harm to the health, safety or general welfare of the City and its
citizens.
(D) Development Review Fees and Costs for Specialized Consultants.
(1) Recovery of Costs. Development review fees are hereby established for the purpose of recovering the
costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing and recording applications pertaining to
development applications or activity within the municipal boundaries of the City, and issuing permits
related thereto. The development review fees imposed pursuant to this Section shall be paid at the
time of submittal of any development application, or at the time of issuance of the permit, as
determined by the City Manager and established in the development review fee schedule.
(2) Development Review Fee Schedule. The amount of the City's various development review fees shall be
established by the City Manager, and shall be based on the actual expenses incurred by or on behalf of
the City. The schedule of fees shall be reviewed annually and shall be adjusted, if necessary, by the City
Manager on the basis of actual expenses incurred by the City to reflect the effects of inflation and
other changes in costs. At the discretion of the City Manager, the schedule may be referred to the City
Council for adoption by resolution or ordinance.
(3) Specialized Consultants. In the Director’s discretion, the City may retain the services of third-party
consultants with specialized knowledge that the City requires to adequately evaluate an application,
the costs of which must be paid by the applicant with such payment agreed to in writing at the time of
application submittal. Prior to retaining any consultant, the Director must inform the applicant of the
intent to retain such consultant and the estimated costs. The applicant must pay to the City the
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.84
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 3 of 3
estimated costs prior to the City retaining the consultant. Within sixty (60) days of completion of the
consultant’s work, the applicant must pay to the City the actual cost of the consultant’s services in
excess of the estimate or the City must refund any portion of the estimate in excess of the actual cost.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.85
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 1
2.2.4 Step 4: Review Of Applications
(A) Determination of Sufficiency. After receipt of the development application, the Director shall determine
whether the application is complete and ready for review. The determination of sufficiency shall not be
based upon the perceived merits of the development proposal.
(B) Specialized Consultants to Assist With Review. As described in Section 2.2.3(D)(3), the City may retain the
services of third-party consultants with specialized knowledge that the City requires to adequately evaluate
whether an application is complete pursuant to above Subsection (A) or to assist in the review of a complete
application, the costs of which must be paid by the applicant.
(BC) Processing of Incomplete Applications. Except as provided below, if a submittal is found to be insufficient, all
review of the submittal will be held in abeyance until the Director receives the necessary material to
determine that the submittal is sufficient. The development application shall not be reviewed on its merits
by the decision maker until it is determined sufficient by the Director. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an
application has been determined to be incomplete because the information provided to the Director shows
that a portion of the property to be developed under the application is not yet under the ownership and
control of the applicant or developer, the Director may nonetheless authorize the review of such application
and the presentation of the same to the decision maker, as long as:
(1) the applicant, at the time of application, has ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the
majority of the property to be developed under the application;
(2) the Director determines that it would not be detrimental to the public interest to accept the
application for review and consideration by the decision maker; and
(3) the applicant and developer enter into an agreement satisfactory in form and substance to the City
Manager, upon consultation with the City Attorney, which provides that:
(a) until such time as the applicant has acquired full ownership and control of all property to be
developed under the application, neither the applicant nor the developer will record, or cause to
be recorded, in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder any document related to the
City's review and approval of the application; and
(b) the applicant will indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and assigns from
any and all claims that may be asserted against them by any third party, claiming injury or loss of
any kind whatsoever that are in any way related to, or arise from, the City's processing of the
application.
The denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to the decision maker under the
provisions of this Section shall not cause a post denial re-submittal delay under the provisions of Paragraph
2.2.11(D)(9) for property that was not owned by the applicant or within the applicant's legal right to use and
control at the time of denial of the application.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.86
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 2
2.2.6 Step 6: Notice
(A) Mailed Notice. The Director shall mail written notice to the owners of record of all real property within eight
hundred (800) feet (exclusive of public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the
property lines of the parcel of land for which the development is planned. Owners of record shall be
ascertained according to the records of the Larimer County Assessor's Office, unless more current
information is made available in writing to the Director prior to the mailing of the notices. If the
development project is of a type described in the Supplemental Notice Requirements of subsection 2.2.6(D),
then the area of notification shall conform to the expanded notice requirements of that Section. In addition,
the Director may further expand the notification area. Formally designated representatives of bona fide
neighborhood groups and organizations and homeowners' associations within the area of notification shall
also receive written notice. Such written notices shall be mailed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the public
hearing/meeting date. The Director shall provide the applicant with a map delineating the required area of
notification, which area may be extended by the Director to the nearest streets or other distinctive physical
features which would create a practical and rational boundary for the area of notification. The applicant shall
pay postage and handling costs as established in the development review schedule.
(B) Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted with a sign, giving notice to
the general public of the proposed development. For parcels of land exceeding ten (10) acres in size, two (2)
signs shall be posted. The size of the sign(s) required to be posted shall be as established in the Supplemental
Notice Requirements of subsection 2.2.6(D). Such signs shall be provided by the Director and shall be posted
on the subject property in a manner and at a location or locations reasonably calculated by the Director to
afford the best notice to the public, which posting shall occur within fourteen (14) days following submittal
of a development application to the Director.
(C) Published Notice. Notice of the time, date and place of the public hearing/ meeting on the development
application and the subject matter of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City at least seven (7) days prior to such hearing/meeting.
(D) Supplemental Notice Requirements.
Minimum Notice Radius Sign Size
All developments except as described below. 800 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing more than fifty (50)
and less than one hundred (100) single-family
or two-family lots or dwelling units.
800 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing more than twenty-
five (25) and less than one hundred (100)
multi-family dwelling units.
800 feet 12 square feet
Nonresidential developments containing
more than twenty-five thousand (25,000)
and less than fifty thousand (50,000) square
feet of floor area.
800 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing one hundred (100)
or more single-family or two-family lots or
dwelling units.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing one hundred (100)
or more multi-family dwelling units.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.87
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 2 of 2
Nonresidential developments containing fifty
thousand (50,000) or more square feet of
floor area.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
Nonresidential developments which propose
land uses or activities which, in the judgment
of the Director, create community or regional
impacts.
1,000 feet; plus, with
respect to neighborhood
meetings, publication of a
notice not less than seven
(7) days prior to the
meeting in a newspaper of
general circulation in the
City.
12 square feet
Off-site construction staging 500 feet 12 square feet
Zonings and rezonings of forty (40) acres or
less.
800 feet 12 square feet
Zonings and rezonings of more than forty
(40) acres.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
Area or activity of state interest. 1,000 feet in all directions
of the location of a
proposed development
plan as determined by the
Director, this distance
shall apply to mailed
notice for neighborhood
meetings, appeals of
Director FONAI decisions,
Planning and Zoning
Commission permit
recommendations, and
City Council permit
hearings
12 square feet,
however, the
Director may
require an
increased
number of signs
depending upon
the size and
configuration of
the proposed
development
plan
(E) The following shall not affect the validity of any hearing, meeting or determination by the decision maker:
(1) The fact that written notice was not mailed as required under the provision of this Section.
(2) The fact that written notice, mailed as required under the provision of this Section, was not actually
received by one (1) or more of the intended recipients.
(3) The fact that signage, posted in compliance with the provision of this Section, was subsequently
damaged, stolen or removed either by natural causes or by persons other than the person responsible
for posting such signage or his or her agents.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.88
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 4
2.2.12 Step 12: Appeals/Alternate Review
(A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in this Section or Division 2.
(B) Alternate Review. Despite the foregoing, if the City is the applicant for a development project, there shall be
no appeal of any final decision regarding such development project to the City Council. In substitution of an
appeal of a development project for which the City is the applicant, the City Council may, by majority vote, as
an exercise of its legislative power and in its sole discretion, overturn or modify any final decision regarding
such project, by ordinance of the City Council. Any Councilmember may request that the City Council initiate
this exercise of legislative power but only if such request is made in writing to the City Clerk within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. City Council shall conduct a
hearing prior to the adoption of the ordinance in order to hear public testimony and receive and consider
any other public input received by the City Council (whether at or before the hearing) and shall conduct its
hearing in the manner customarily employed by the Council for the consideration of legislative matters.
When evaluating City projects under alternate review, the City Council may, in its legislative discretion,
consider factors in addition to or in substitution of the standards of this Land Use Code.
(C) Appeal of Minor Amendment, Changes of Use, and Basic Development Review Decisions by the Director. The
Director's final decision on a minor amendment or change of use application pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) or
basic development review application pursuant to Division 2.18 may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning
Board as follows:
(1) Parties Eligible to File Appeal. The following parties are eligible to appeal the Director's final decision on
a minor amendment, change of use, or basic development review application:
(a) The applicant that submitted the application subject to the Director's final decision;
(b) Any party holding an ownership or possessory interest in the real or personal property that was
the subject of the final decision;
(c) Any person to whom or organization to which the City mailed notice of the final decision;
(d) Any person or organization that provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for
delivery to the Director prior to the final decision; and
(e) Any person or organization that provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for
delivery to the decision maker prior to the final decision on the project development plan or final
plan being amended or provided spoken comments to the decision maker at the public hearing
where such final decision was made.
(2) Filing Notice of Appeal. An appeal shall be commenced by filing a notice of appeal with the Director
within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date the written final decision is made that is the subject
of the appeal. Such notice of appeal shall be on a form provided by the Director, shall be signed by
each person joining the appeal ("appellant"), and shall include the following:
(a) A copy of the Director's final decision being appealed;
(b) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of each appellant and a description
why each appellant is eligible to appeal the final decision pursuant to Subsection (C)(1) above;
(c) The specific Land Use Code provision(s) the Director failed to properly interpret and apply and
the specific allegation(s) of error and/or the specific Land Use Code procedure(s) not followed
that harmed the appellant(s) and the nature of the harm; and
(d) In the case of an appeal filed by more than one (1) person, the name, address, email address and
telephone number of one (1) such person who shall be authorized to receive, on behalf of all
persons joining the appeal, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellant.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.89
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 2 of 4
(3) Scheduling of Appeal. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Board within
sixty (60) calendar days of a notice of appeal being deemed complete unless the Planning and Zoning
Board adopts a motion granting an extension of such time period.
(4) Notice. Once a hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Board has been determined, the Director
shall mail written notice pursuant to Section 2.2.6(A). Notice requirements set forth in Section 2.2.6(B)-
(D) shall not apply. The mailed notice shall inform recipients of:
(a) The subject of the appeal;
(b) The date, time, and place of the appeal hearing;
(c) The opportunity of the recipient and members of the public to appear at the hearing and address
the Planning and Zoning Board; and
(d) How the notice of appeal can be viewed on the City's website.
(5) Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Decision.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 2.2.7 to decide the
appeal, and City staff shall prepare a staff report for the Planning and Zoning Board. The notice of
appeal, copy of the Director's final decision, and the application and all application materials
submitted to the Director shall be provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for its
consideration at the hearing.
(b) The hearing shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing at which the Planning and Zoning
Board shall not be restricted to reviewing only the allegations of error listed in the notice of
appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board shall not give deference to the Director's final decision
being appealed, and the applicant shall have the burden of establishing that the application
complies with all relevant Land Use Code provisions and should be granted. The applicant,
appellant or appellants, members of the public, and City staff may provide information to the
Planning and Zoning Board for its consideration at the appeal hearing that was not provided to
the Director for his or her consideration in making the final decision being appealed.
(c) The Planning and Zoning Board shall review the application that is the subject of the appeal for
compliance with all applicable Land Use Code standards and may uphold, overturn, or modify the
decision being appealed at the conclusion of the hearing and may impose conditions in the same
manner as the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) and Division 2.18. The Planning and Zoning
Board decision shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section
2.2.12(A).
(D) Appeal of FONAI Determination. The Director's determination pursuant to Section 6.5.5 that a proposed
development plan would have negligible adverse impact and would not require a permit pursuant to Article
6, or that a proposed development plan would cause more than a negligible adverse impact and must obtain
a permit pursuant to Article 6, may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows:
(1) Parties Eligible to File Appeal.
(a) The applicant is the only party eligible to file an appeal of the Director’s determination that a
proposed development plan would cause more than a negligible adverse impact and, therefore, a
permit is required pursuant to Article 6.
(b) Any person is eligible to file an appeal of the Director’s finding that a proposed development plan
would cause only a negligible adverse impact and would not require a permit pursuant to Article 6.
(2) Filing Notice of Appeal. An appeal shall be commenced by filing a notice of appeal with the Director
within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the written final determination on a FONAI
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.90
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 3 of 4
application. Such notice of appeal shall be on a form provided by the Director, shall be signed by each
person joining the appeal ("appellant"), and shall include the following:
(a) A copy of the Director's determination being appealed;
(b) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of each person joining the appeal;
(c) The specific reasons why the appellant believes the Director’s determination is incorrect; and
(d) In the case of an appeal filed by more than one (1) person, the name, address, email address and
telephone number of one (1) such person who shall be authorized to receive, on behalf of all
persons joining the appeal, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellant.
The Director shall reject any notice of appeal that is not timely filed, does not contain the information
set forth in (a) – (d) above, or is not filed by a party with standing to file an appeal. The decision to
reject a notice of appeal is not subject to appeal. Should multiple notices of appeal be filed, a single
hearing shall be held.
(3) Scheduling of Appeal. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission
as soon as practicable but not later than within sixty (60) calendar days of a complete notice of appeal
being filed. In the instance that multiple notices of appeal are filed, the sixty days shall be counted
from the date the first complete notice of appeal is filed.
(4) Notice. Once a hearing date has been determined, the Director shall mail written notice to the
appellant and all parties to whom notice of the decision was mailed pursuant to Section 6.6.5(E)(3).
The mailed notice shall inform recipients of:
(a) The subject of the appeal;
(b) The date, time, and place of the appeal hearing;
(c) The opportunity of the recipient and members of the public to appear at the hearing and address
the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
(d) How the notice of appeal can be viewed on the City's website.
(5) Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing and Decision.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 2.2.7 to
decide the appeal with appellant being substituted for applicant in Section 2.2.7. In any appeal of
a Director finding that a proposed development project would have a negligible adverse impact
and is not required to obtain a permit, the procedure set forth in Section 2.2.7 shall be modified
to provide the FONAI applicant an opportunity equal to that of the appellant to address the
Commission and respond to evidence and arguments raised by the appellant and members of the
public. City staff shall prepare a staff report for the Commission. The notice of appeal, copy of
the Director's final decision, and the application and all application materials submitted to the
Director shall be provided to the Commission for its consideration at the hearing.
(b) The hearing shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing at which the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall not be restricted to reviewing only the allegations of error listed in the notice of
appeal, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not give deference to the Director's decision
being appealed, and the burden shall be on the appellant to establish why the appeal should be
granted. The applicant, appellant, members of the public, and City staff may provide information
to the Planning and Zoning Board for its consideration at the appeal hearing that was not
provided to the Director for their consideration in making the decision being appealed.
(c) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application that is the subject of the appeal
for compliance with all applicable criteria set forth in Section 6.6.5(A) and shall uphold or
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.91
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 4 of 4
overturn the Director’s determination. The Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall
constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A).
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.92
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 1
DIVISION 2.17 CITY PROJECTS
Development projects for which the City is the applicant shall be processed in the manner described in this
Land Use Code, as applicable, but shall be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning BoardCommission in all
instances, except for permits pursuant to Article 6 in which City Council is the decision maker, despite the fact that
certain uses would otherwise have been subject to administrative review.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.93
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 1 of 2
DIVISION 2.20 -- AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST
(A) Purpose. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-65.1-101, et. seq, the City is empowered to
designate certain activities and areas to be matters of state interest and to regulate designated activities and
areas through adopted guidelines and regulations. The Land Use Code areas and activities of state interest
provisions in Article 6 set forth procedures and requirements for the designation of activities and areas as
matters of state interest, procedures for requesting a permit to conduct a designated activity or develop in a
designated area, and criteria that must be met in order for a permit to be issued.
(B) Applicability. These areas and activities of state interest provisions shall apply to all proceedings and decisions
concerning identification, designation, and regulation of any development in any area of state interest or any
activity of state interest that has been or may hereafter be designated by the City Council. To the extent a
proposed development plan could be reviewed under another Land Use Code process, such plan shall be
reviewed under Article 6 unless an exemption exists pursuant to Section 6.4.1 or the Director issues a finding
of negligible adverse impact (“FONAI”) pursuant to Section 6.6.5. Proposed development plans for which the
Planning and Zoning Commission denied a Site Plan Advisory Review application prior to the effective date of
Article 6 shall be subject to such regulations unless an exemption exists or a FONAI is issued.
A permit to conduct a designated activity or develop in an area of state interest may be issued for a proposed
development plan that is to be located in one or more zone districts regardless of whether the zone district
or districts list the use proposed by the proposed development plan as an allowed use or otherwise prohibit
such use.
(C) Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Applicable.
(Pre-Application Area or Activity Review): The Director shall require an additional pre-application areas
and activities review pursuant to Section 6.6.3 for any proposed development plan that the Director
determines may require a permit pursuant to Article 6. The purposes of the pre-application area or
activity review are described in Section 6.6.3(A). The Director may retain the services of third-party
consultants pursuant to the terms of Land Use Code Section 2.2.3(D)(3) to assist the Director during the
pre-application areas and activities review.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): Applicable. The simultaneous processing of development
applications submitted in association with an application for a permit to conduct a designated activity
or develop in an area of state interest is addressed in Section 6.6.9, and combined applications for a
permit to conduct multiple activities or develop in multiple areas of state interest is addressed in
Section 6.6.10.
(4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable except that Section 6.6.7 shall substitute for Land Use Code
Section 2.2.4(A).
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable with particular timing for published and mailed notice as set forth in Section
6.6.11.
(7) Step 7 (Public Hearing):
(a) 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable and in substitution therefor, City Council is the decision
maker on permits pursuant to Article 6 after receiving a Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.94
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Page 2 of 2
(b) Steps 7(B) (Conduct of Public Hearing), 7(C) (Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing):
1. Applicable to Planning and Zoning Commission hearings where a recommendation on a permit
application will be made.
2. Not applicable to City Council hearings where a decision on a permit application will be made.
City Council shall adopt into its rules of procedure a procedure for conducting such hearings.
3. Applicable to appeals of Director FONAI determinations to the Planning and Zoning
Commission as modified pursuant to Section 2.2.12(D)(5).
4. Not applicable to appeals to City Council of Planning and Zoning Commission decisions on
appeals of Director FONAI decisions. The procedures set forth in the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 shall apply.
(c) 7(D) (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution therefor, see Section 6.6.5
regarding Director FONAI determinations, Section 2.2.12(D) regarding appeals of Director FONAI
decisions, and Section 6.6.11 regarding Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations on
permits and City Council permit decisions.
(d) 7(E) (Notification to Applicant), 7(F) (Record of Proceedings), 7(G) (Recording of Decisions and Plat):
Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable except that the applicable standards that must be met are set forth in
Article 6.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable to Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations on
permit applications and City Council decisions on permit applications as modified pursuant to Section
6.6.14.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, the requirements of Sections 6.12.3
and 6.12.4 shall apply
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Only 2.2.11(A) is applicable and approved permits for areas and activities of state
interest are not eligible for vested rights pursuant to the Land Use Code. Sections 6.6.14 and 6.11.1
require that the permittee make substantial steps toward initiating and completing the proposed
development plan or the permit may be subject to revocation.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable pursuant to Section 2.2.12(D).
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.95
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Proposed Amendments to Land Use Code Article 5 Definitions
. . .
Development shall mean the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation, the
making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or, except
as is authorized in Section 1.4.7, the dividing of land into two (2) or more parcels.
(1) Development shall also include:
(a) Any construction, placement, reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material
change in the external appearance of a structure on land;
(b) Any change in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of
dwelling units in a structure or on a tract of land or a material increase in the intensity
and impacts of the development;
(c) Any change in use of land or a structure;
(d) Any alteration of a shore or bank of a river, stream, lake, pond, reservoir or
wetland;
(e) The commencement of drilling (except to obtain soil samples), mining, stockpiling
of fill materials, filling or excavation on a parcel of land;
(f) The demolition of a structure;
(g) The clearing of land as an adjunct of construction;
(h) The deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land;
(i) The installation of landscaping within the public right-of-way, when installed in
connection with the development of adjacent property;
(j) The construction of a roadway through or adjoining an area that qualifies for
protection by the establishment of limits of development.
(2) Development shall not include:
(a) Work by the City, or by the Downtown Development Authority (if within the
jurisdictional boundary of the Downtown Development Authority and if such work has
been agreed upon in writing by the City and the Authority), or work by a highway or
road agency or railroad company for the maintenance or improvement of a road or
railroad track, if the work is carried out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-
way, or on land adjacent to the right-of-way if such work is incidental to a project
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.96
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
within the right-of-way. Notwithstanding, such work shall be considered development if
it is determined to require a permit pursuant to Land Use Code Article 6 Guidelines and
Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest;
(b) Work by the City or any public utility for the purpose of restoring or stabilizing the
ecology of a site, or for the purpose of inspecting, repairing, renewing or constructing,
on public easements or rights-of-way, any mains, pipes, cables, utility tunnels, power
lines, towers, poles, tracks or the like; provided, however, that this exemption shall not
include work by the City or a public utility in constructing or enlarging mass transit or
railroad depots or terminals or any similar traffic-generating activity. Notwithstanding,
such work shall be considered development if it is determined to require a permit
pursuant to Land Use Code Article 6, Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities
of State Interest;
(c) Work by any person to restore or enhance the ecological function of natural
habitats and features, provided that such work does not result in adverse impacts to
rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands other natural habitats or features, or adjacent
properties as determined by the Director; and provided that all applicable State,
Federal, and local permits or approvals have been obtained;
(d) The maintenance, renewal, improvement, or alteration of any structure, if the work
affects only the interior or the color of the structure or the decoration of the exterior
of the structure;
(e) The use of any land for the purpose of growing plants, crops, trees and other
agricultural or forestry products; for raising or feeding livestock (other than in
feedlots); for other agricultural uses or purposes; or for the delivery of water by ditch
or canal to agricultural uses or purposes, provided none of the above creates a
nuisance, and except that an urban agriculture license is required in accordance
with Section 3.8.31 of this Code;
(f) A change in the ownership or form of ownership of any parcel or structure;
(g) The creation or termination of rights of access, easements, covenants concerning
development of land, or other rights in land;
(h) The installation, operation, maintenance, or upgrade of a small cell or broadband
facility by a telecommunications provider principally located within a public highway
as the terms small cell facility, telecommunications provider, and public highway are
defined in Section 38-5.5-102, C.R.S. The regulation of such activities is addressed in
Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
(3) When appropriate in context, development shall also mean the act of developing or the
result of development.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.97
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Development application shall mean any application or request submitted in the form required
by the Land Use Code and shall include only applications for an overall development plan, a
PUD Overlay, a project development plan, a final plan, a basic development review, a Building
Permit, a modification of standards, amendments to the text of this Code or the Zoning Map,
a hardship variance, or an appeal from administrative decisions prescribed in Article 2, a
minor or major plan amendment, or a permit application pursuant to the Article 6 areas and
activities of state interest provisions.
. . .
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the City for approval of a permitted
use which depicts the details of a proposed development. Development plan includes an
overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan, a basic development
review, and/or an amendment of any such plan. A PUD Overlay is also considered to be
a development plan even though the PUD Overlay may request uses that are not permitted in
the applicable underlying zone district. Additionally, an application for a permit pursuant to
the Article 6 areas and activities of state interest provisions is considered a development plan
even though the application may propose uses that are not permitted in the applicable zone
district or districts.
. . .
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet pg.98
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 19, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation
Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager
FROM: Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner
RE: 1041 Regulations – Project Update
Bottom Line:
This memo provides an update on community engagement as directed by City Council during
the November 7 work session discussion of 1041 Regulations. Since receiving feedback from
various stakeholder groups, staff is preparing a version-three of the 1041 regulations to address
stakeholder feedback received since version-two was released. Version-three will be presented
at the Planning and Zoning Commission January 25 hearing and for Council’s consideration at
the February 7 regular meeting.
Background
During the November 7 City Council work session, several Councilmembers recognized staff’s
progress towards a balanced approach focusing on the most sensitive natural and historic
resource impacts. Council expressed general support for the version-two draft , which included
geographic thresholds, and sought additional options for consideration. Based on Council’s
direction, staff sought additional feedback from stakeholders and received input on how to
improve version-two of the proposed 1041 regulations; including a restructuring of the code to
focus on both geographic thresholds and size-based thresholds, including pipe diameter and
easement size.
Staff recommendations for updates to the 1041 regulations:
During the November 7 Council work session, staff introduced two separate copies of the draft
1041 regulations for Council’s discussion. The scope of these regulations included definitions of
designated activities which included geographic-based thresholds and a version without
geographic-based thresholds. This created confusion for community members seeking to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.99
2
provide public comments, so staff has consolidated the code into a single version-three for
Council consideration on first reading.
Version-three of the draft regulations brings forward the intent of geographic-based thresholds
while also increasing predictability by clarifying the definitions of covered projects. Revisions
within version-three follow feedback themes provided by working groups convened December
2022 and January 2023 (see attachment). As proposed within the version-two draft, a 1041
permit would be required for projects that are included in one of the geographic-based
thresholds proposed and have adverse impacts. Based on Council and community feedback,
version-three of the draft regulations defines project-size thresholds and provides more
prescriptive language related to submittal documents and pre-application procedures. Version-
three relocates geographic based thresholds from the “definitions” section to the applicability of
standards criteria for the Director’s Decision of a Finding of Negligible Adverse Impacts (FONAI)
determination (see image below). By comparison, the version-three draft of the regulations limits
the scope of the regulations by project size thresholds (e.g., pipe diameter, pipe length, and
easement size), which is similar to Larimer County regulations. The 30-foot easement size in
combination with 1,320 linear feet roughly equates to just under one (1) acre of impact area,
which is used as a threshold for state agency and neighboring jurisdictions. One acre of impact
area is roughly equivalent to four (4) lots within the old town neighborhoods.
Version-two includes activities as previously designated but is limited to a narrower geographic
scope, slightly modified from the scope of the moratorium, as follows:
1. Projects otherwise within the scope of the regulations that either:
a. Are located on (or cross through) an existing or planned future City natural area
or park, whether developed or undeveloped; or
b. Are located on (or cross through) City building sites or other non-right-of-way
property owned by the City, whether developed or undeveloped.
c. Are located within an existing or potential future buffer zone of a natural habitat
or feature, as defined in the Land Use Code; or
d. Have potential to adversely impact historic resources.
Version-three includes activities as previously designated and defines project-size thresholds
for domestic water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Version-three continues to provide
more detail for staff review and provides greater predictability by removing ambiguous
interpretation and defining submittal requirements. As proposed, version-three keeps the high
priority geographic areas, but shifts that analysis into the pre-submittal review and FONAI
determination. Domestic water and wastewater projects covered by version-three include
projects that:
(1) Distribution and transmission lines with pipes greater than 12” (15” for sewage) in
diameter and 1,320 linear feet in the aggregate for the proposed development plan; or
(2) Will require a new permanent easement of 30-feet or greater in width and 1,320 linear
feet in length in the aggregate for the proposed development plan.
Version-three excludes major extensions of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment with
the following definitions:
(3) Any maintenance, repair, adjustment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.100
3
(4) Existing pipeline or the relocation, or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the
same easement or Right-of-Way;
(5) Expanding any existing easement to a total width of 30-feet or less and for a distance
of 1,320 linear feet or less; or
(6) Any facility or pump station (or lift station for sewage treatment) that does not increase
the rated capacity from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Version-Three 1041 Regulations - Permitting Process
Additional options for Council’s consideration
Since the November 7 work session, engaged stakeholders from both the environmental
community and potential permit applicants continue to provide redline edits and suggested
policy direction for Council’s consideration. The following options have not been included in the
version-three staff recommendation, but may warrant additional Council consideration during
first reading:
Environmental stakeholders have suggested that the regulations do not account for
construction activities outside the jurisdiction that have an adverse impact on resources
within the jurisdiction?
Staff has not included a common review standard within version-three of the 1041
regulations to review portions of a project outside the city limits. When reviewing a
potential 1041 permit, and as a part of the common review standards, staff may identify
natural features that are being adversely impacted within the city limits (not outside the
•Project size thresholds (Definitions)
•Conceptual Review
•Pre-submittal meeting
•Neighborhood meeting
•Director Decision (FONAI -evaluation
critera inlcuding geograhic based
thresholds)
Applicability of
Standards
•Application checklist
•Completness Check
•Third-Pary analysis
•Common Review Standards
Full Permit
Review
•Planning and Zoning Commissions
(Hearing)
•City Council (Hearing)
•Issuance of a permit; conditions
Permit Decision
Making
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.101
4
city) and seek to understand portions of the project (outside the city) that are causing
such adverse impacts. However, there is not a clear understanding how mitigation plans
could account for such impacts.
Recommendations from type 1 and 2 advisory boards and commissions are not a
required step in the process.
Council-appointed type 1 and type 2 advisory boards may provide comments at the
discretion of the Director. These boards make recommendations to City Council and
City staff on areas of particular knowledge or expertise. Recommendations made by
advisory boards are formal opinions on items and subjects that are within the boards'
purview. These recommendations are limited to advisement and are not decisive
actions. Stakeholders have suggested a 1041 specific advisory board.
Next Steps:
January 20, 2023 - Public Release of the version-three 1041 regulations
January 25, 2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing
February 7, 2023 – City Council First Reading of 1041 regulations
February 21, 2023 – City Council Second Reading of 1041 regulations
March 31, 2023 – Expiration of the extended Moratorium
ATTACHMENT:
Phase III (December 2022 – January 2023) Public Engagement Summary
CC:
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
Brad Yatabe, Senior Assistant City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.102
5
ATTACHMENT - Phase III (December 2022 – January 2023) Public Engagement Summary
Since the November 7, 2022 City Council work session, staff sought input from engaged
community partners; including utility providers and environmental advocacy groups on 1041
regulations for water and highway projects that continue to meet the following regulatory goals
(1) contextually appropriate to Fort Collins, (2) provide predictability for developers and decision
makers, and (3) provide adequate guidance for staff review and implementation of permits. Staff
has provided the notes and written comments from working group members as an attachment to
this memo.
Stakeholder Outreach Activities:
Staff convened four 90-minute working groups representing regional economic, and
environmental interest, as well as representation from City Boards and Commissions,
local water provider, and regional CDOT representatives. Notes from these group
conversations are provided as an attachment to the memo.
Staff meet 1:1 with interested groups to discuss redline edits to version-two of the draft
regulations and provide general feedback on policy direction. 1:1 meeting in November
through January 2023 include:
o Save the Poudre
o Sierra Club
o Fort Collins Sustainability Group
o American Whitewater
o League of Women Voter
o Boxelder Sanitation
o Northern Water
o East Larimer County Water District
o City Board and Commission members
o Fort Collins Utilities
o Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
o Trout Raley
Staff met with the following City Boards and Commissions
o Air Quality Advisory Board
o Transportation Board
o Natural Resources Advisory Board
o Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
o Water Commission
o Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff plan a public open house at Fort Fun along Mulberry Ave. January 19 at 4pm
o Spanish materials were presented, and a survey provided. A summary of the
feedback themes received from Disproportionately impacted community
members will be provided in Council’s February 7 packet.
During phase III outreach activities, the engaged stakeholders were invited to participate
through working groups and one-on-one meetings with City staff. Throughout the engagement
process key questions included:
1. Do you have feedback on the proposed scope to focus on the greatest areas of impacts
rather than major projects?
Geographic Thresholds:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.103
6
• Parks, natural areas, and other city-owned properties
• Natural habitat buffer zones
• Historic and cultural resources
2. Councilmembers asked Staff to explore adding the definition of “Natural Resources”.
1. After Geographic thresholds are applied, what additional areas are not covered?
2. What review standards should staff consider adding related to “Natural
Resources”?
3. General feedback and areas of concern within version-two of the draft 1041 regulations
The following table summarizes general feedback from public comments, and working group
meetings since the November 7, 2022 City Council work session:
Version-Two Regulations Feedback Themes
Timeline to
review before
adoption of the
regulations
Concern about amount of time to review version-three of the draft regulations
Question about the urgency and the problem that the city is trying to solve
Support for 1041 regulations as a long overdue policy discussion
Geographic
Based
Thresholds
Geographic Based Thresholds do not account for disproportionately
impacted communities (DIC).
Without project size thresholds applicability, for projects casts too wide a net
and will capture too many projects.
General support to move geographic based thresholds into review standards
as opposed to definitions.
FONAI
Determination
General support for FONAI review by Director
Neighborhood meeting should be required prior to FONAI determination
More prescriptive language related to pre-application submittal requirements
Bar to achieve a FONAI is too high
Definitions of
Development
Concern for projects within existing rights-of-way and easements. Especially
when Stormwater is not covered by regulations and has a similar impact.
Concerns that any maintenance, repair, adjustment are covered
City Projects should be exempt if they have already been approved through
the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process.
Staff has further detailed comments from working group members related to the version-two
draft regulations in the table below and how staff has addressed stakeholder comments in
version-three of the regulations ahead of Council first reading. Detailed notes from working
groups are provided as an attachment to this memo.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.104
7
Version-Two Feedback How has Staff Addressed Feedback within Version-three
of the 1041 regulations?
Suggest looking at specific scope and
size thresholds instead of geographic
limitations (i.e. pipe sizes and whether
it’s new or a replacement).
Staff has updated the definitions to include project size
thresholds similar to Larimer County regulations. Previously
proposed geographic based thresholds have been
incorporated into the common review standards.
The bar is too high for achieving a
FONAI and its likely that all projects will
be reviewed through a full permit
The Director’s decision includes a consideration for mitigation
which incentivized the applicant to avoid natural features or
mitigate for the potential disturbance.
Concerns that regardless of the analysis
by staff, public comments and
recommendations by third-parties,
Council may make their decision without
weighing all the facts.
Staff has provided a development plan review process that
incentives applicants to work with staff to reach a
recommendation for approval. There is also an optional
preapplication hearing with Council to seek specific direction
early in the review.
Not enough time to review version-three
regulations
Staff has provided version-three of the draft regulations within
the Planning and Zoning Commission material ahead of the
Council materials
Review pass-through fees, permit fees,
inspection fees so that there isn’t “triple
dipping” or overlap between fees for
topic experts.
Staff is proposing to administer the full 1041 permit review
process through a third-party contract until we can have better
data to propose a new permit fee. With the information
available to staff through a recent request for information (RFI),
staff plan to issue a request for proposal (RFP) shortly after the
adoption of the code for an on-call contractor servicing third
party permit review of all phases of the 1041 permit review;
including conceptual, FONAI, and full permit review.
Remove subjectivity from the application
review process by providing more
details to the submittal requirements and
processing procedures.
Staff has added additional definition to the submittal
documents required at pre-application and FONAI review;
including details for an initial cumulative impacts review.
Concerns about the definition of
development including work within ROW
Staff has updated definitions to exclude any maintenance,
repair, adjustment; and excludes existing pipeline or the
relocation, replacement, or enlargement of an existing pipeline
within the same easement or right-of-way.
The consultant’s responsibilities should
be clearly defined when reviewing a full
permit.
As a part of the FONAI determination, Staff will provide details
related to additional study needed. Scope of work and
submittal documents will be provided through an application
checklist.
Staff should consider adding the
definition of Natural Resources.
C.R.S 24-65.1-104. includes a definition for “natural resources”
and so staff do not recommend adding a new definition that
might create confusion. In this way, staff recommend using
the existing definition for “natural feature” already being used
within the LUC. also, staff suggest adding geographic areas
identified by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and City Natural Area
for its high priority habitat.
Financial Security Language is too weak In addition to the financial security language, City Council may
approve a permit with conditions of approval.
Regulations do not account for
construction activities outside the
jurisdiction that have an adverse impact
on City-owned assets within the
jurisdiction.
Staff recommend common review standards that review
adverse impacts and mitigation within the City’s jurisdiction.
Staff do not recommend prescribing mitigation measures
outside of city limits.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 288988F3-21AD-43DA-8F13-C20B60E51D54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.105
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 7, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director
Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager
FROM: Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: November 7, 2022 Work Session Summary – version-two draft 1041 regulations
The purpose of the work session was to (1) seek feedback on Staff’s recommendation to extend
the moratorium ordinance by 90 days, and (2) update Council of the version-two draft 1041
regulation scope changes.
Questions asked during the work session; included:
1.Do Councilmembers support extending the length of the moratorium to allow for final
refinements to the code and additional outreach?
2.Do Councilmembers have feedback on the proposed scope to focus on the greatest areas
of impacts rather than major projects?
3.Do Councilmembers support exempting projects previously approved through Site Plan
Advisory Review (SPAR), while still requiring 1041 permitting for projects not approved
through SPAR?
Attendees:
Paul Sizemore, Kirk Longstein and Rebecca Everette presented a project update and summary of
the version-two draft 1041 regulations. All City Councilmembers were present.
Feedback:
Overall: Several Councilmembers recognized Staff progress towards a balanced approach
focusing on the most sensitive natural and historic resource impacts. Councilmembers expressed
general support for the version-two draft 1041 regulations with geographic thresholds and sought
additional options to consider the final decision-making framework.
Specific Feedback:
•Councilmembers shared support for the added definition of disproportionately impacted
communities and supported a general standard that is not just applicable to highway
projects.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.106
2
• Councilmembers shared general support for the inclusion of historical and cultural
resources and asked staff to consider options that provide the greatest predictability.
• Councilmembers discussed adding a definition for “Natural Resources” as a threshold
prompting a 1041 permit review.
• Councilmembers questioned if City Council should be the sole decision maker for projects
requiring specialized technical knowledge, and asked staff for additional options to consider
at first reading.
• Councilmembers discussed whether the definition of “adverse impact” continues to be too
subjective.
• Councilmembers shared general support to exempt projects previously approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission through the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process
and asked for additional information about the NEWT3 pipeline project that was previously
approved (SEE ATTACHED).
Next Steps:
• Introduce an ordinance on the November 15 consent agenda to extend the moratorium by
90 days.
• Continue to seek public input on version-two of the draft 1041 regulations. By extending
the moratorium allows staff to continue public engagement and seek feedback on version 2
of the Draft 1041 regulations
• First reading of the 1041 regulations during the February 7, 2023 regular Council meeting.
Attachment:
• ELCO NEWT3 pipeline - SPAR applicant’s report.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.107
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
DATE: October 13, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager
Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation
Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
FROM: Kirk Longstein, Environmental Planner
Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager
RE: 1041 Regulations – Project Updates
Bottom Line:
This memo provides an update on community engagement and the approach for Council’s first
reading of the proposed 1041 regulations. Based on Council feedback at the June 28, 2022
Work Session and public engagement, staff has revised the draft regulations to refine the
scope, applicability, definitions and review standards for activities of interest.
Given the extensive nature of the revisions from the June 2022 Draft, staff has proposed a
Council Work Session to review the updated draft and option, and to seek further feedback and
guidance in preparation for First Reading.
Proposed Scope of Regulations:
As currently proposed, a 1041 permit would be required for projects that are included in one of
the categories below and have adverse impacts. Staff has prepared two versions of the draft
regulations in light of comments received:
Version One includes the types of projects described in the designation ordinance, and would
apply to projects throughout the City (edge to edge and not in specific geographic locations):
1. New arterial highways, interchanges, and collector highways.
2. Expanded arterial highways, or collector highways that would result in either:
a. An increase in road capacity by at least one vehicle lane; or
b. Expansion or modification of an existing interchange or bridge.
3. New wastewater treatment plants.
4. New or extensions to major domestic water and sewage treatment systems.
Version Two includes these projects (as designated previously and noted above) but is limited
to a narrower geographic scope, slightly modified from the scope of the moratorium, as follows:
1. Projects otherwise within the scope of the regulations that either:
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,(Ā&& - &,#Ȁ*$!!Ȁ#-#&Ȁ)!,"Ȁ&-" +.%!#,,'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.108
2
a. Are located on (or cross through) an existing or planned future City natural area
or park, whether developed or undeveloped; or
b. Are located on (or cross through) City building sites or other non-right-of-way
property owned by the City, whether developed or undeveloped.
For Council discussion, this version also includes within its scope projects that:
c. Are located within an existing or potential future buffer zone of a natural habitat
or feature, as defined in the Land Use Code; or
d. Have potential to adversely impact historic resources.
Recent Work and Next Steps:
• Based on Council’s discussion at the June 28 Work Session and with continued public
engagement (see public engagement summary below) staff has updated the 1041
regulations to incorporate additional feedback since the draft regulations were first
released in June 2022.
• Staff recognizes that Councilmembers still have questions or concerns about the current
scope of the regulations and the options presented, and the project would benefit from
an additional work session prior to first reading. A work session has been scheduled for
November 8. Depending on Council direction, staff could bring an Ordinance to Council
as soon as December 6. The following options represent two timeline scenarios that may
be appropriate based on Council direction:
Timing Options for Council Consideration
Option 1
(compressed
timeline)
• Work Session – November 8
• First Reading – December 6
• Second Reading – December 20
• Moratorium expires December 31
Option 2
(extended
timeline)
• Work Session – November 8
• Ordinance extending length of moratorium for 2-3 months – November 15
• First Reading – December 20
• Second Reading – January 17 or February 7
• Following first reading, staff is prepared to make modifications to the Ordinance based
on Council’s direction on first reading, for as needed. If first reading of the Ordinance is
delayed as recommended, or if, on first reading, significant changes to the draft
regulations warrant additional public engagement or legal review, staff is prepared to
present to Council an Ordinance to extend the length of the moratorium by 2-3 months.
• Due to the time and effort required to revise the draft code, recommendations from the
Planning & Zoning Commission, Land Conservation Stewardship Board, Natural
Resources Advisory Board, Water Commission, and Transportation Board will not be
available until late November. If Council desires additional time for board and
commission recommendations prior to first reading, then the date of that hearing should
be delayed, and the moratorium should be extended. In addition, Council may wish to
provide more time for stakeholders to review and comment on the new drafts of the
regulations, given that the prior public draft was presented much earlier in June as only a
preliminary draft for discussion.
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,(Ā&& - &,#Ȁ*$!!Ȁ#-#&Ȁ)!,"Ȁ&-" +.%!#,,'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.109
3
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Over the last ten months, staff sought input from community partners on 1041 regulations for
water and highway projects that are (1) contextually appropriate to Fort Collins, (2) provide
predictability for developers and decision makers, and (3) provide adequate guidance for staff
review and implementation of permits.
Throughout the time since the release of the initial draft code in June to the present, in addition
to organized outreach events, staff has met or spoken by phone at length with individual
stakeholders, both in support of and opposed to the regulations, to discuss questions and
feedback in great detail. Staff has listened deeply and worked to find balance among the
perspectives and concerns expressed by various individuals, organizations, utility providers,
agencies, developers, Boards and Commissions, and Northern Colorado communities.
Significant revisions in the current draft regulations are in direct response to the insights and
information gathered through these conversations.
The following table summarizes feedback from public comments, an anonymized survey, 1:1
discussions and focus group meetings as they relate to various community priorities:
Community Feedback Themes
Housing
Resilience
• Value for natural habitat features that increase community wellbeing through
benefits like clean air, landscape aesthetics, and flood control.
• Concerns that environmental regulation can impact the supply of housing if they
increase the amount of time necessary to build housing units.
High
Performing
Government
• Value for transparency, access to more information and opportunities to address
inequities.
• Concerns that additional permitting requirements are redundant, create
uncertainty, project delays, require additional time, and investment in City-
specific mitigation requirements.
Economic
Resilience
• Preference for local control of large projects to ensure community-wide benefits
are realized.
• Importance of balancing the burdens of bureaucracy and the demands of a fast-
growing community.
City Council:
The current draft of the regulations was structured around the feedback received from City
Council at the June 28 Work Session and subsequent input. The following feedback themes
were shared by Council during the Work Session and addressed by staff.
City Council Feedback How has Staff Addressed Feedback?
Create right guardrails for 1041
applicability.
Staff have clarified ordinance text to align more closely with
the thresholds from the moratorium ordinance, while still
protecting natural habitats and features from adverse
impacts.
Review exemptions to ensure they
don’t result in loopholes.
Concern over the term
“significant” as being arbitrary and
too high of bar.
Staff have removed the term significant and are relying on
the definition of “adverse impact” and full mitigation for permit
issuance.
Support tiered review process as
long as it works.
Staff have removed the administrative review and is keeping
the” Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact” concept so that a
relief valve is provided for smaller projects and City Council is
the sole decision maker on larger projects requiring permits.
Establish time period for pre-
application process.
Maximum time periods have been incorporated into the pre-
application process.
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,(Ā&& - &,#Ȁ*$!!Ȁ#-#&Ȁ)!,"Ȁ&-" +.%!#,,'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.110
4
Focus Groups:
Focus groups played a key role in reviewing Code language and providing specific feedback
that staff have addressed in an updated draft regulations. The focus groups included:
• Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) staff
• Environmental advocacy group representatives
• Economic and Regional representatives (homebuilders, elected officials, Chamber of
Commerce, CSU)
• Water and Sanitation Providers
• Boards and Commissions representatives
Stakeholder Feedback How has Staff Addressed Feedback?
How does 1041 lead to a better
project outcome and enhance overall
community benefits?
Review criteria include the City's Natural Habitats and
Features Inventory Map, which aligns with the
community’s values to preserve natural resources.
The permit program introduces an
administrative burden that adds time
and cost.
Updated review criteria, articulating the role of
mitigation, and aligning with existing City maps of
natural habitat features intend to provide additional
certainty for agencies planning a multiyear infrastructure
project.
Ambiguous approval process adds
project uncertainty.
Staff have removed “tiered review” so that City Council
is the sole decision maker.
1041 is redundant with
multijurisdictional requirements and
is out of sync with federal funding
opportunities.
The focus of the scope and review criteria seeks to
address gaps in other jurisdictional procedures. For
example, the city can ensure protection and mitigation of
resources that may not be protected by County, State or
Federal regulations.
Regs should allow more flexibility
and exemptions
Updates to the City’s definition of development intend to
create certainty and narrow the scope of projects
covered under the 1041 regulations.
1041 regs should be applied to
private development and not public
agencies.
Fort Collins Utilities is a public agency leading by
example and partnering with City Planning staff to
ensure regulations align with the service delivery
commitments of Utilities and the values of the
community.
Uncertainty around the use of
Intergovernmental Agreements in
lieu of permitting.
The current draft removes this provision.
Requirements for water conservation
and other programs in the system of
an applicant water provider go
beyond the City’s appropriate reach.
The current draft removes requirements related to the
applicant’s system that are not physically within the
scope of the regulations.
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,(Ā&& - &,#Ȁ*$!!Ȁ#-#&Ȁ)!,"Ȁ&-" +.%!#,,'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.111
5
Public Participation Activities:
Throughout 2022, the general public was invited to participate and engage through online
activities, public events and one-on-one meetings with City staff. Throughout the engagement
process key questions included:
• Parameters, Exemptions, and Thresholds
o How do staff determine what project categories are regulated?
o How does the program provide a clear review process?
• Review Criteria
o What are the parameters of an adverse impact?
• Application requirements
o What is needed to determine an application complete?
• Application review process
o Who is the decision maker
o What is the appeals process?
Boards and
Commissions Dates
Water Board 9/16/2021 8/18/2022 11/17/2022
Transportation Board 11/16/2022
Planning and Zoning
Commission 8/13/2021 2/11/2022 6/10/2022 10/14/2022 11/17/2022
Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board 9/8/2021 2/9/2022 6/8/2022 10/12/2022
Chamber of Commerce 9/17/2021 6/24/2022 10/28/2022
Natural Resources
Advisory Board 9/16/2021 2/16/2022 6/15/2022 10/19/2022
Economic Advisory
Board 10/19/2022
Focus Group meetings Dates
Water and Sanitation providers 2/3/2022 8/1/2022 8/18/2022
Environmental 2/4/2022 8/2/2022 8/4/2022
Economic/Municipal 2/3/2022 8/2/2022
Colorado Department of
Transportation 1/28/2022 8/5/2022
Boards and Commission liaisons 2/8/2022 8/1/2022 8/4/2022
Larimer County 1/23/2022 2/8/2022
Public Participation Dates
Open House/Public Forum 2/23/2022
(AM & PM) 8/30/2022 9/1/2022
Online Survey 2/1/2022 8/30/2022
Online engagement –
OurCity; fcgov.com Ongoing
Press Release 9/2021 2/2022 8/2022
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,(Ā&& - &,#Ȁ*$!!Ȁ#-#&Ȁ)!,"Ȁ&-" +.%!#,,'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.112
6
Stakeholder List
The following list details the interested parties that have been directly engaged by staff at
several times during the process. Outreach and engagement has included the activities
described above, as well as frequent email updates, newsletter communications, and individual
meetings.
Air Quality Advisory Board Larimer County Planning Staff
American Whitewater League of Woman Voters
Boxelder Sanitation Natural Resources Advisory Board
Chamber of Commerce North Front Range Water Quality
City of Greeley North Weld County Water District
City of Windsor Northern Engineering
Colorado State University Northern Water
Colorado State University Research
Foundation (CSURF) Planning and Zoning Commission
CSU Graduate Student Save the Poudre
Ditesco Sierra Club
East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) South Fort Collins Sanitation District
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) SpacePreservation.org
Fort Collins Sustainability Group TB Development Group
Fort Collins Utilities Transportation Board
Hartford Homes Trout Raley Law
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board White Bear Ankele Law
Larimer Alliance
cc: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney
,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,(Ā&& - &,#Ȁ*$!!Ȁ#-#&Ȁ)!,"Ȁ&-" +.%!#,,'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.113
Date: 12/7/2022
Topic: Water Provider Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 90 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Luke O’Brian (Northern Water),
Brian Zick (Boxelder Sanitation), Sandra Bratie (FCLWD/SFCSD), Linsey Chalfant (FCLWD/SFCSD), Eric
Rickentine (NWCWD), Mike Scheid (ELCO Water District)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Luke O’Brian, Northern Water
• Brian Zick, Boxelder Sanitation
• Sandra Bratie, FCLWD/SFCSD
• Linsey Chalfant, FCLWD/SFCSD
• Eric Rickentine, NWCWD
• Mike Scheid, ELCO Water District
• Zachary White, North Weld County Water District
Summary:
1. Applicability for projects castes too wide a net and will capture too many projects. Particular
concern was for projects within existing rights-of-way and easements. Recommendation to look
at exemptions for ROW projects.
2. Generally on the fence whether the geographic limits are better option. The right of way and
easement applicability seems like the larger issue here.
3. Process should be clear that completeness review resets the 60-day clock if Fort Collins requests
additional information.
Actions:
1. Provide the definition of “Development” and then will be able to provide number of projects
that are coming.
2. If Geographic Limits are used, include a map with the buffers will be easier to apply.
3. Set up another meeting in early January to walk through draft regulations more specifically.
Miriam to distribute Doodle Poll. Participants to indicate which sections they want to focus on.
4. Suggestion to include CoFC Utilities in this group discussion
Notes:
Kirk offered an overview of what’s changed in the new draft, particularly with
• Procedural Changes
o Extension to the Moratorium until March 31. First Reading on Feb. 7
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.114
o Updated Permit Review Process. Shifted to heavy pre-application timeline. Removed
staff discretion and made Council final decision maker.
o FONAI (Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact) determined in Pre-Application Process
Moved from FONSI. “Significant” was too high to trigger permit review.
Can be appealed to PC and City Council, but staff determination up front
o Alternatives are reviewed through Pre-Application process, not as a Review Criteria
• Moves away from Project-based thresholds to Geographic Thresholds
• Added CDPHE definition of Disproportionately Impacted Communities
Process Discussion
• Eric: How is “Adverse Impact” determined?
o Kirk: Intended to be a lower bar than “significant”
• Sandra: Pipe projects that are in the public corridor/ROW, does this capture all projects?
o Applicability: New projects, material change and upgrades, and if there is an adverse
impact to one of the natural resources. Otherwise, it wouldn’t trigger a full 1041 permit.
o FONAI is initial determination of applicability for the 1041 permit process.
o Sandra: This feels like it will capture a lot of projects and thus it will be a huge workload.
• Sandra: This seems to caste a very wide net for number of projects. And the 28th day pre-app
process may be too long.
• Mike: Still confused on process and who determines whether they have to go to the city or not.
o The intent isn’t to bring everything into the 1041 review process. City wanted to narrow
the scope using the geographic resource.
o Mike: How does this square with our statutory allowance to build in the right-of-way?
• Kirk: the Pre-application process was intended to be a release valve, but it sounds like this may
complicate your process. How can we update the review process to be more efficient?
o Sandra: Leave the exemption for dedicated Right of Way and Easements
Kirk: This was a directive from council, so encourage communication with
decision makers on this point.
• Eric: My understanding is that the City will sub out the work load for review of applications. And
then the applicant needs to pay the consultant fee. Not a burden to City staff.
o Kirk: yes, however, city staff will be closely involved in the customer service aspect of
the application to make sure it’s going well.
• Brian: Should make it clear that the 60-day process could be circular as the city asks for more
and more for the completeness review.
• Sandra: What are the costs on this?
o Kirk: FONAI is covered, no cost. Issued an RFI to third party consultants to propose a
program to review and inspect the application projects which is still TBD to know what
the costs look like. Will share more information on costs with Council in February.
Council Question #1: Do you have feedback on the proposal scope to focus on the greatest areas of
impacts rather than major projects?
• Eric: How are temporary impacts vs. permanent impacts reviewed?
o Kirk: if the impact has any adverse impact to a natural habit or any one of the general
review standards.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.115
• Sandra: Does this map include the buffer?
o Kirk: No, these are only the natural features, and then we would adopt the Buffer Table
o Kirk would suggest engaging with staff in the pre-application to make sure if a project is
applicable.
o Still need to ground truth the natural features on the map, as part of the FONAI/pre-
application review.
• Mike: Is there political support for the geographic thresholds?
o Kirk: yes, there is general support for this direction. However, the environmental
stakeholders adamantly do not support this.
o Mike: Not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Still feels onerous.
• Sandra (asked in Chat): Will the geographic thresholds always be updated in context of 1041 or
is there risk that they can be added by an auxiliary process such as land use code, Nature in the
City, etc.?
• Brian: As a sewer utility, we have facilities within natural areas and have had a good working
relationship with the City to do maintenance and upgrades. Request that the new regulations
acknowledge existing facilities – maybe as an exemption. If we have to dig up and replace a
pipe, there aren’t alternatives to that project.
o Our customers are the public and the costs associated with these permits go back on
the community. Council needs to be aware that all this impacts rate payers, even
disadvantaged community members.
o We don’t do development, we respond to demand and current needs.
o Kirk: if your project is in a direct relationship with a development, this wouldn’t apply.
Council Question #2: Definition of “Natural Resources”
• Kirk: the inventory may be outdated and may require additional review. What’s missing here?
We’ve shrunk the scope, so what other features or databases could/should we include? CPW
High Priority Area, or City Natural Areas Wildlife connectivity areas.
o Eric: clarify if these areas are already part of this definition?
Kirk: yes, these would help inform.
• Eric: There are already processes in place to mitigate natural areas, though it’s administrative.
There are mitigation standards as part of that.
o Kirk: This was intended to use this process to create a more binding process to replace
SPAR.
• Sandra (from Chat): I also echo the earlier comment that it doesn't align that this is only for
water/sewer and surface highway. Specifically when the intent is to minimize impacts to these
geographic locations or promote the nature in the city and connectivity corridors.
o Miriam: The geographic/natural area thresholds is a hybrid approach to applying 1041
powers. The City did not designate an Area of State Interest to include areas of
historical, natural, or archaeological resources of statewide importance, which could’ve
applied to all types of activities/projects within those areas. Instead, City Council
designated only these Activities of State Interest (highway and water/wastewater
projects) and are putting guardrails on where the regulations are most appropriate.
• Brian: State process already requires a permit process for pipes 25” or larger and any treatment
facility improvement. How does this overlap with those State requirements.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.116
• Sandra: the state process currently has size thresholds for new easements. This feels like an
easier/simpler threshold.
How to comment and be involved:
• Mike: Are you interested in written/red line comments on this version in the form of additional
feedback?
• Kirk: Timing doesn’t allow for another draft to be release for another round of review before
First Reading. Suggest comments to be viewed as a general policy direction in a memo format.
• Can provide comments directly to Kirk, will be submitted as public record and included in the
City Council Packet. Also can send to cityleaders@fcgov.com to communicate directly to City
Council and City Manager about what you like and don’t like.
• Eric: There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions and had serious impacts on how projects
will happen in the future. Seems to be moving too fast. There should be a chance to comment
on the next draft with thorough review before goes to the First Reading.
• Mike: What’s the deadline for comments?
o We can meet again as a group in January.
o January 20 as deadline for comments to get into packet for First Reading, but if there
are comments ahead of time, we can try to integrate earlier into legal review and draft
changes.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.117
Date: 12/19/2022
Topic: Economic/Municipal Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 90 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Joe Rowan (consultant with
Chamber of Commerce), Keith Meyer (Ditesco), Kevin Jones (FC Chamber), Mike Scheid (ELCO), Peggy
Montano (Trout Raley Law), Randy Siddens (ELCO), Kim Emil (Town of Windsor), Eric Rickentine
(NWCWD)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Joe Rowan – FC Chamber of Commerce
• Keith Meyer – Ditesco
• Kevin Jones – FC Chamber of Commerce
• Mike Scheid - ELCO
• Peggy Montano – Trout Raley, general counsel for Northern Water
• Randy Siddens – ELCO
• Kim Emil – Town of Windsor
• Eric Rickentine – NWCWD
Summary:
1. Exemptions: Projects within existing easements and rights-of-way should be exempt. Including
them is overly punitive and burdens small projects. Project previously approved by PZ (and SPAR
process) should be exempt.
2. Emergency repair or maintenance on facilities is not adequately addressed and should not be
applicable to 1041 regulations.
3. These regulations are too far removed from what the 1041 House Bill intended – the scope of
these regulations is overreach from regulating “Activities of State-wide Interest.”
4. Look at definitions – project size, types of projects (i.e. ditches), “development”, and other state
definitions
5. Update application process to allow the applicant to revise before final City Council decision.
6. Define role of 3rd party consultant in application review process.
7. Review pass-through fees, permit fees, inspection fees so that there isn’t “triple dipping” or
overlap between fees for topic experts.
8. FONAI screening process is supported.
Actions:
1. Send comments to Kirk the week of January 9th in order to get changes into the draft.
2. Kirk to add Kim Emil (Windsor) to email communication (kemil@windsorgov.com)
3. Kirk to prepare summary of proposed changes to policy direction and share with group.
4. Miriam to send Doodle Poll to schedule second meeting in early January.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.118
Notes:
Kirk offered an overview of what’s changed in the new draft, particularly with procedural changes, and
geographic threshold approach.
• Extension to the Moratorium until March 31. First Reading on Feb. 7
• Joe: Asked if Water Commission has been involved
o Kirk: Yes, gave updated to Water Commission and they will provide written comments.
Water providers and representatives from boards and commissions are also engaged as
part of these working group meetings.
o Formal memos from other boards/commissions will likely not be available ahead of time
but included in council packets.
• Procedural Changes
o Updated Permit Review Process. Shifted to heavy pre-application timeline. Removed
staff discretion (tiered approach) and made Council final decision maker.
o FONAI (Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact) determined in Pre-Application Process
Moved from FONSI. “Significant” was too high to trigger permit review.
Can be appealed to PC and City Council, but staff determination up front
We’ve heard support for this approach from other groups
o Alternatives are reviewed through Pre-Application process, not as a Review Criteria
• Moves away from Project-based thresholds to Geographic Thresholds.
o Larimer County has project-based thresholds (pipe, easement sizes) and we may want to
reconsider our approach.
o City may have shrunk the scope too much. Getting feedback from other groups that we
didn’t quite hit the mark.
• Review process/timeline
o 28-day initial screening for FONAI and whether permit is required. Conceptual review.
Similar to development review process, with Director as decision maker. Can appeal to
Planning & Zoning.
o Application Completeness Review Process with 60-day limit. Timeline provides
predictability for applicant. Alternative considerations at this phase, with mitigation.
Have heard from others that we need more specificity on when those 60 days
starts/ends if staff asks for additional components of the application.
o Outsourcing review of applications to 3rd party. Cost of that review is passed on to
applicant. Likely between $25k-$35k.
City is paying for both city and consultant experts. Permit fee plus 3rd party
application review plus city staffing – sounds like “triple dipping” and significant
expense to applicant.
Not unreasonable for huge projects, but the applicability thresholds capture
smaller projects. Feels too much of a burden for smaller projects.
City would look to other example city 1041 regs. for a benchmark size/threshold
standards.
• Question of applicability – are projects within existing easements included? Yes.
o Joe: easements should be exempted
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.119
o Kirk: Should there be an additional trigger for projects within an existing easement. Such
as, if the easement is increasing or if the size of the project creates additional impacts.
o Mike: Are maintenance or emergency repairs included?
This is a gap in the current draft and needs to be addressed.
This is crippling to service provers and their customers, not just timing being on
hold during application review but also costs.
o Change in definition of “Development” was addressed in the June Council discussion
Group consensus: this new definition greats too much of a burden.
Kirk: what bookends can we put on this?
Eric: It’s only a “loophole” to close if it gets around a city goal. What is the goal
that the city is trying to achieve?
o Joe: there may have been miscommunications with staff and city council this year.
• Keith: Nexus for 1041 regs is within major infrastructure projects of state-wide interest. Current
draft misses that nexus by capturing too many small projects.
o “Major” means trunk mains, transmission lines. Collection and distribution facilities are
not major. Not necessary to specify size.
o Easement projects should only be included here if the easement needs to be augmented
or amended.
o This draft would include all projects that are within alleys and urban streets, which
misses the mark on what the 1041 regs are intended to regulate.
o Kevin: The community desires aren’t clearly represented in this draft. The benchmark is
“state-wide interest” and this gets way too much in the weeds with the types of projects
that this captures.
• Mike: The draft and the activities designated in this draft are not equitable with other utilities
(energy and gas) that use the same easements.
• Peggy: during emergencies (pipe breaking), it’s not an appropriate time to go through
permitting process. Bring common-sense approaches.
• Peggy: Consultant role could either be an advocate for one side or another. Slippery slope and
needs more bookends to narrow their scope.
• Peggy: Cumulative permitting process – how does an applicant resolve the issues coming out of
all the other permitting applications (county, state, local permits)?
• Peggy: FONAI uses “negligible”, but you can be denied a permit for “any adverse impact” – draft
language and process is inconsistent.
o Kirk: FONAI is intended to screen out projects that are
o Peggy: FONAI is a good idea.
o Joe: could only be denied for a “material impact” maybe? May complicate everything by
adding another term.
• Peggy: Should build in something after City Council Hearing to give the applicant a way to
modify the proposal to address their concerns. Give City Council opportunity review draft
proposal before it’s final.
o Kirk: PZ process is fully transparent in terms of their conditional recommendation to
Council. Maybe some of that can be worked out in that process.
o Elected officials may not align with PZ recommendation, so there should be a way to
adapt the application after the draft has been reviewed by Council.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.120
• Keith: Ditches were added to the definition of a domestic water system, which they are not.
• Keith: exempt prior SPAR-approved projects.
o Kirk: There is support for that and that will be reflected in the next draft.
• Kirk: Revised draft language won’t be released early. Council will review same time as public.
o Eric: if Council understood the tight timeline, they may want to push out.
o Moratorium deadline is the urgency, but some people would like to get the regulations
right, even if that extends the moratorium.
o Could have more time between first and second reading.
• Peggy: Geographic language – something future planned city facilities/parks? As an applicant,
that’s not clear. “Developed or underdeveloped” is the text. How to make it more predictable?
How does this group feel about moving the geographic applicability trigger into the general review
standards?
• There is already a definition of Natural Features and National Resources in the land
development code.
• Peggy: Already so much unpredictability for applicant. Subjective standards are hard to work
with.
• Kirk: We’re hearing that we need to provide more clarity/parameters on mitigation and
alternatives process.
• Peggy: There is state attorney definitions on mitigation. Need to tie mitigation to solve current
problems/impacts but not to mitigate what’s happened in the past.
o Kirk: There is literature to provide framework for evaluating mitigation in CDOT projects
in wetlands. CSU professor put this together for CDOT.
Summary Thoughts:
• Bonding and security: what does that look like for water/wastewater projects?
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.121
Date: 12/7/2022
Topic: CDOT Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 60 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Heather Paddock (CDOT), James
Eusen (CDOT), Vanessa Santistevan (CDOT), James Usher (CDOT)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner with Fort Collins
• Miriam McGilvray, Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Heather Paddock, CDOT
• James (Jim) Eusen, CDOT
• Vanessa Santistevan, CDOT
• James Usher, CDOT
Summary:
1. Generally support a narrower scope, using geographic limits, as long as there is explicit areas
and criteria to take out subjectivity in application process.
2. Clarify process if Fort Collins doesn’t meet the shotclock deadlines. Does the application move
forward?
Actions:
1. Send mapping resources and presentation to CDOT Working Group
2. Send a schedule and timeframe for how and when to provide comments.
3. Create a checklist
Notes:
Kirk offered an overview of what’s changed in the new draft.
• Procedural Changes
o Extension to the Moratorium until March 31. First Reading on Feb. 7
o Updated Permit Review Process. Shifted to heavy pre-application timeline. Removed
staff discretion and made Council final decision maker.
o FONAI (Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact) determined in Pre-Application Process
Moved from FONSI. “Significant” was too high to trigger permit review.
Can be appealed to PC and City Council, but staff determination up front
o Alternatives are reviewed through Pre-Application process, not as a Review Criteria
• Moves away from Project-based thresholds to Geographic Thresholds
• Added CDPHE definition of Disproportionately Impacted Communities
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.122
Council Question #1: Do you have feedback on the proposal scope to focus on the greatest areas of
impacts rather than major projects?
• Heather: like where this version is headed.
o Like the more focused lens – less bureaucracy for the same results.
o Like the FONAI process. Feels more common-sense approach and have suggested this to
Boulder County.
• Vanessa: appreciate the geographic threshold approach.
• Kirk: Can we leverage the pre-application 28day review process to cast a wider net and then
move the geographic thresholds to a review standard. Brings up additional element that these
geographic limits (natural areas) don’t recognize: Disproportionately Impacted Communities,
and social component
• Vanessa: CDOT already has to look at DEI into their projects anyway. How is it defined?
o Might be better to map the social resource areas too.
• Heather: the more we can close in and follow a defined checklist for the applicant, the better.
Want to avoid subjectivity.
o Include whatever is important, but be sure to define those areas or criteria explicitly
• Vanessa: How is mitigation defined?
o Kirk: Would be a one-to-one compensatory mitigation. Mitigation would only be needed
that go through the natural features.
o Inspections and bonding was added to this version. Would want on-site mitigation, not
fee-in-lieu or banking.
• Heather: What level of design is required for that pre-application process?
o Kirk: would need to know where the road goes, but not engineering plans
o The intent of the 1041 Regs is to make a better project, not to kill a project.
• Heather: If Fort Collins didn’t make the deadlines, would the projects just keep moving forward
in the process?
Council Question #2: Definition of “Natural Resources”
• Kirk showed the Geographic Threshold maps with the CPW High Priority Habitat features too.
o Archaeological resources are missing
o Habitat corridors and linkages to potentially add
• Vanessa: The CDOT definitions are more specific to each type of resources.
How do you want to stay involved?
• Heather: provide a schedule and timeframe for how and when to provide comments.
o The First Reading is February 7
o Preference to consolidate comments ahead of time so staff can show where and how
those comments were addressed.
o January 20 – packet to Council.
o cityleaders@fcgov.com to send comments directly to City Council and City Manager.
• Jim: will get with the team to see if there are any other comments. Appreciate the effort to
engage and listen to us.
• Heather: feels like a good approach, especially compared to Boulder.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.123
Date: 12/13/2022
Topic: Boards and Commissions Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 90 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Ted Shepard (PZ), Karen Artell
(AQAB), Dawson Metcalf (NRAB), Ross Cunniff (LCSB), Barry Noon (NRAB), Michelle Haefele (PZ)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Ted Shepard, Planning Commission
• Karen Artell, AQAB
• Dawson Metcalf, NRAB
• Ross Cunniff, LCSB
• Barry Noon, NRAB
• Michelle Haefele, Planning Commission
Summary:
1. Recommend that application process explicitly allow for time extensions.
2. Recommend that neighborhood/public is notified or engaged through the FONAI process too.
3. Generally, this group does not support the geographic limits.
4. Suggest looking at specific scope and size thresholds instead of geographic limitations (i.e. pipe
sizes and whether it’s new or a replacement).
5. Would like Council to designate other Activities of State Interest in the future.
6. Use and build on the existing “Natural Features” definition already in the code and maybe build
in subsurface hydrologic resources too.
Actions:
1. Reconvene after New Year. Miriam to send out Doodle Poll with additional meeting times.
2. Working Group members are encouraged to send additional written comments directly to City
Council.
Notes:
Kirk offered an overview of what’s changed in the new draft, particularly with
• Procedural Changes
o Extension to the Moratorium until March 31. First Reading on Feb. 7
o Updated Permit Review Process. Shifted to heavy pre-application timeline. Removed
staff discretion and made Council final decision maker.
o FONAI (Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact) determined in Pre-Application Process
Moved from FONSI. “Significant” was too high to trigger permit review.
Can be appealed to PC and City Council, but staff determination up front
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.124
o Alternatives are reviewed through Pre-Application process, not as a Review Criteria
• Moves away from Project-based thresholds to Geographic Thresholds
• Added CDPHE definition of Disproportionately Impacted Communities
Process Discussion
• Ted: “shot-clock” was sometimes negotiated with SPAR applicants for complex projects. Is there
anything in the draft that outlines that flexibility?
o Kirk: the 60 days for the application submission and completeness review helps staff
stay on track. Perhaps during that time, we could
o Ted: recommend that we include language that explicitly allows for time extensions.
• Michelle: Would like to have staff more hands-on with the applications. Perception that paid
consultants could be biased toward applicant (who pays for them).
o Kirk: Option to have contract work managed through the city, not directly hired from
applicant
• Ross: No neighborhood meeting for FONAI, but meeting notice?
o Kirk: no, but we plan on making that revision
• Barry: “Adverse” vs. “Significant” aside, there should be a numerical threshold to determine
impact. What are the decision thresholds? Should be numeric, not qualitative.
o Kirk: That termination uses the city’s general review standards. The benchmark is not
prescribed in the code, but the city already has some EPA limits to ozone or hazard
materials etc. But the benchmark data is not codified.
• Barry: If we did have numeric benchmarks, but isolated impacts may not reach that threshold.
o Kirk: We do not include cumulative impacts within the general review standards.
o Barry: example of timber sales at a landscape scale not a single unit scale. Oil and gas is
another great example.
o Kirk: If we did put some bookends on that cumulative analysis? Impact on 3 generations
in the future? Or reduce the scope of how that is approach?
o Barry: The way we’ve made decisions in the past, shows that we should do it differently
in the future.
o Kirk: Please share any examples of methodology.
o Michelle: NEPA process is very similar to this. Not sure if FONAI is better or not. FONSAI
has been used in the NEPA process since the 70s.
o Ted: could you address cumulative issue, add a scoping study and conversation with
staff?
o Kirk: If we add cumulative impact as part of the general review standards, would need
some massaging to understand that scope (geographic scale, timing/generational scale
etc.)? Could likely address at staff level or during the pre-application review process.
o Michelle: Look at EPA standards. Will send.
• Ted: 90 day continuance. Is that the maximum? Should it be “up to 90 day continuance”?
o Kirk: will double check with the statutory guidance.
• Kirk: Updates to the definition of “Development” include City projects and projects within
existing right of ways and easements. Some people think that that is unnecessary overreach and
are asking for an easement size threshold or exception for projects in the right of way.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.125
o Kirk: Public utility projects as part of another development review process would be
exempt. 1041 would be redundant and are therefore exempted.
o Ted: College and Trilby widening example: joint funding for a public utility project.
Kirk: that would go through the general development review process and not a
1041 application. But if there are blind spots on that example, let him know.
Council Question #1: Geographic Limitations
• Michelle: Geographic limits were the result of a special interest going directly to Council.
• Karen: Why are the water providers supportive of the geographic limits?
o Kirk: familiarity with other city standards.
• Ross: Other utility, energy, and natural gas providers are not included in these regulations?
o Kirk: Correct, City Council decided not to designate those as part of our regulations. But
they could be designated in the future.
• Barry: “Geographic limitations/thresholds” doesn’t make sense to me.
• Kirk: There are several maps that show natural and historic features. What are we missing and is
this a good way to apply the geographic limits?
o Process:
1) if it is a designated activity and definition of those types of projects
2) if it intersects with one of these geographic thresholds (likely that no 1041
permit would be required if it doesn’t intersect with a geographic feature)
3) analysis for FONAI
o Looking for additional resources to ground truth the extent of these features
• Dawson: All of these different maps, what are we trying to include here? What are natural
resources?
o Kirk: That is one of our questions today. What do we want to include
o Dawson: want to emphasize connectivity as part of the Natural Resource definition.
• Karen: Concern that if the geographic standards are more restrictive, it may push the projects
outside of natural areas and burden private landowners. Some of these providers/applicants
have eminent domain.
o Kirk: the intent is to add protections for landowners.
o Karen: using geographic limits doesn’t recognize or protect residents. Social component
is lacking here.
• Barry: the two drafts (with or without geographic limitations). Doesn’t support geographic
limits. Projects outside of the city that still have impacts on city do not trigger this permitting
process?
o Kirk: Correct, that is the current interpretation of the statute.
o Barry: Ecological systems are open systems that don’t respond to political boundaries.
• Kirk: The moratorium language includes a project AND geographic approach, which is confusing.
• Ted: The City will be asked by utility providers to look at the project scale and scoping. Ex: pipe
replacement is a gray area. There is too much open to interpretation. Suggest looking at pipe
sizes and whether it’s new or a replacement to help limit the scope instead of a geographic
threshold for all projects.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.126
• Michelle: did not support the tiered approach at any point. There was pushback on the previous
tiered approach which she supported when the applicability was still across the whole city.
o Kirk: There are still a lot of projects that would be applicable within this geographic
proposal.
o Michelle: There are also a lot of projects that will affect people and underserved
communities that aren’t reflected in this approach.
• Ted: If a project doesn’t meet a geographic threshold, would it still have to go through a SPAR?
o Kirk: need to check on this, but that is the assumption.
o Karen: And if it was a project that went through SPAR, they can ignore the SPAR
recommendation. This leaves FC residents without protections.
• Ross: We want the whole city to be applicable, because we don’t know what we don’t know.
• Ted: Use and build on the existing “Natural Features” definition already in the code to define
“Natural Resources.”
o Ross: should include more sub-surface hydrologic features too. And work on mapping.
How to comment and be involved:
• If comments are sent to Kirk, he can distribute. If you want to advocate for a particular position,
Kirk recommends sending comments directly to Council.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.127
Date: 12/6/2022
Topic: Environmental Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 90 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Vicky McLane, Ray Watts, Hattie
Johnson, Mark Houdashelt, Scott Benton, Gary Wockner
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Scott Benton – Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Senior Planner with Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Ray Watts – previously on Land Conservation Stewardship Board. Kicked off full 1041 process.
• Vicky McLane – LCS Board too, League of Women Voters
• Hattie Johnson – American Whitewater
• Mark Houdashelt – Fort Collins Sustainability Group; Airport Advisory Board
• Gary Wockner – Save the Poudre
Summary:
1. Geographic limits aren’t supported. Should be city-wide.
2. Adverse vs. Significant doesn’t change the problem. Recommendation: No Impact.
3. Impact to city property and city residents needs to be reflected in the regulations even though
the activity is built outside city limits.
4. Buffer Areas don’t recognize that there may be other impacts outside of those areas (i.e.
migratory birds).
Actions:
1. Review language to clarify timing and what happens if we don’t meet the deadlines.
2. Set up another meeting with this Focus Group in early January.
3. Kirk will look into public comment opportunity to City Council before First Reading.
Notes:
Kirk offered an overview of what’s changed in the new draft.
• Procedural Changes
o Extension to the Moratorium until March 31. First Reading on Feb. 7
o Updated Permit Review Process. Shifted to heavy pre-application timeline. Removed
staff discretion and made Council final decision maker.
o FONAI (Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact) determined in Pre-Application Process
Moved from FONSI. “Significant” was too high to trigger permit review.
Can be appealed to PC and City Council, but staff determination up front
o Alternatives are reviewed through Pre-Application process, not as a Review Criteria
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.128
o Mark asked: if an application is deemed incomplete, does the 60-day clock start again?
Yes
If the City doesn’t make completeness review action in those 60 days, does it
automatically move forward?
ACTION: Review language to clarify timing and what happens if we don’t meet
the deadlines?
o Gary asked: What version are we looking at to review?
Only difference between two versions is the geographic limitations
Council Question #1: Do you have feedback on the proposal scope to focus on the greatest areas of
impacts rather than major projects?
• Vicky: the City limits should be the full scope, not with the geographic limitations.
o Gary agrees. Feels like the geographic limitations didn’t come out of the process.
Concerned that the recommendations really don’t reflect our input.
• Kirk responds: the geographic limitations were introduced as a compromise. There was
confusion about the moratorium language. Staff was given direction to introduce Natural Buffer
thresholds as a compromise for those folks.
o This is a standard that’s already in place. This would apply the same standards that we
use in the Land Use Code.
o Does this provide more predictability for applicants?
o Where are the other areas that we want to protect?
• Ray: The geographic threshold language could be interpreted two ways: that it limits the scope
or that it clarifies the criteria and standards to apply.
o Recommendation: Use as standards, not as geographic limits
• Kirk: these are already included in the FONAI review standards.
• Mark: The areas on this map include natural habitat areas outside of City Limits. What’s our
jurisdiction for this permit?
o Kirk: Federal Nexus areas would be NEPA process. These activities would only be in the
City’s 1041 jurisdiction within the City Limits.
o “Purpose and Findings” says “public safety and welfare” but this is written to only
protect the natural areas. If you’re only trying to protect natural areas, then the purpose
language should be revised.
• Gary: Significant changed to adverse, but there isn’t much difference between the two. Our
recommendations were No Impacts. Does not support the geographic limitation.
o Massive projects can be built surrounding Fort Collins, but we can’t regulate those
because the project isn’t in the City Limits.
o Very concerned that this is going to be greenwashing without any meaningful impact.
o Kirk: NISP pipeline would apply but not the reservoir.
o Gary: There is a recent court case between Larimer County and Thornton Water. Gray
area and hasn’t been thoroughly tested.
• Gary: There are activities that would have impacts to the whole watershed
• Miriam: The powers that have been given by the state don’t extend to activities that are built
outside of the city limits. That would need to go through the Larimer County 1041 permitting
process.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.129
• Ray: Agree with Miriam’s interpretation of the 1041 Bill, but there are activities that will impact
whole watershed. This really should be tested to expand to a “Buffer area” surrounding the city.
• Ray: The “Buffer” word needs to be used judiciously, how broad is the area that creates the
impacts on our natural features. Need fresh environmental analysis for each project, don’t just
try to use the buffer standards. Buffers shouldn’t be pre-ordained (where are the animals going
or where does the water come from).
Council Question #2: Definition of “Natural Resources”
• Vicky: air quality isn’t adequately included. Transportation projects will have air quality impacts.
o Kirk: air quality is included in general standards
o Air, Water, and Soil are natural resources, so the whole city needs to be included.
Kirk: brings up additional element that these geographic limits (natural areas) don’t recognize:
1. Disproportionately Impacted Communities, and social component
2. Add CPW State Wildlife High Priority Areas
• Ray: thinks these are similar to the other buffer areas in that they don’t cover the lateral
impacts. These could be triggers for additional analysis, but don’t use these for the initial FONAI.
• Vicky: migratory birds don’t fit into these buffer areas
Gary: Natural Area buffer standards for easements are decided by the Natural Areas Director. City
Council should be decision maker in approving easements. Administrative adoption of those standards is
weaker than a full City Council adoption in some form into City Code. Concern that those standards
could be changed/weakened too easily.
Hattie: will review and send comments either by email or at next meeting.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.130
Date: 1/9/2023
Topic: Boards and Commissions Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 60 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Vicky McLane, Ray Watts, Hattie
Johnson, Mark Houdashelt, Gary Wockner, Dawson Metcalf, Elena Lopez
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Vicky McLane
• Ray Watts
• Hattie Johnson
• Mark Houdashelt
• Gary Wockner
• Dawson Metcalf
• Elena Lopez
Summary:
1. Important to cross-reference the definitions and share the relevant maps and information.
2. Tighten up definition of “impact area,” perhaps by naming it “construction area” instead.
3. Need to make sure that there are still protections for impacts on private property too, and not
just environmental impacts to city-owned natural areas.
4. Gratified to see the inclusion of Disproportionally Impacted Community criteria.
Meeting Notes:
• PC Public Hearing will be on January 25, 2023. Staff is committed to having the draft ready for
that meeting. First reading with the City Council will be February 7, 2023. Would need
comments by January 23.
• Based on recent feedback, there was not wholesale support for the geographic limitations. This
new draft recommends updating the definitions to include project size thresholds similar to
Larimer County regulations. Previously proposed geographic based thresholds should be
applied as review criteria to the FONAI determination.
o Ray: What does the City Attorney say about this approach?
What we’re proposing here is legally defensible. With City Council as the sole
decisionmaker, there is concern that capturing too many projects would bog
down the docket.
Intent is to exclude smaller projects and focus on projects that would be
captured by SPAR.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.131
• Vicky: very concerned about the definition of Natural Resources. Limiting ourselves if we use the
state definition.
o Kirk: staff recommendation is to use LUC definition of Natural Features which is an
expanded definition. Also would include critical habitat and corridors which is identified
by Nature in the City.
• Mark: Important to cross-reference the definitions in the LUC and share where the
maps/geographic areas area and how/who updates them.
o Kirk: Staff intends to include a checklist and handbook/program guide to help applicants
find all the relevant information.
• Pre-application Submittal Requirements:
o Ray: “impact area” is hugely ambiguous. Should tighten up that definition.
Kirk: regulating surface activities with these regulations. Defined as 1mile
outside of area that construction area.
Ray: recommend calling it “construction area” instead, if it really means where
there is surface disturbance.
o Kirk: Intent to provide more transparency and more public input before the FONAI
determination. The Pre-Application Activity Review and Neighborhood Meeting brought
in earlier in the process.
o Mark: are these requirements intended to be submitted for each of the design
alternatives?
Kirk: The cumulative impacts and conceptual mitigation plans would be for the
preferred alternative. The neighborhood meeting is intended for the client to
make their case for their preferred alternative.
• FONAI Determination – Includes the geographic areas
o If FONAI is determined, there will still be other construction permits that the project will
need. City will still be involved in the project, but it won’t need to go through the rest of
the 1041 permitting process.
o FONAI determination criteria is unique to this 1041 permitting process (decided not to
use common review standards set forth in Section 2-401 of the LUC).
o Ray: Gratified to see the inclusion of Disproportionally Impacted Community criteria
o Ray: These minimum criteria for FONAI determination, which provides clarity and
predictability for the applicant too.
o Mark: are the last three criteria applicable to just the “impact area” or further out?
Kirk: All the analysis in the pre-application would inform how the criteria is
applied.
o Mark: Feels like the geographic thresholds have just been moved to a different place in
the regulations. Need to make sure that there are still protections for impacts on private
property too.
Common Review Standards would still apply. Mitigation Plans have
performance criteria, too.
o Elena: Could consideration of public input be added as a FONAI criteria? Also, wish this
was still a FONSAI and not a FONAI.
Kirk: hopefully we’re addressing this concern by having a neighborhood meeting
ahead of the FONAI determination.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.132
o Ray: First few bullets have emphasis on city-owned property. Degradation of
environmental quality or degradation of access to natural areas for private
property/neighborhood should be on this list.
Kirk: Natural features on private property is covered in the buffer area
• Kirk: Eminent Domain was brought up at another meeting and staff is looking into what
protections we can build into these 1041 regs.
• Nina: When will the next full version of the draft regulations be available?
o Kirk: the full draft will be included in the packet for the Planning Commission packet:
January 25th.
o P&Z puts forth a recommendation prior to a city Council hearing. So providing
comments ahead of the P&Z meeting are beneficial.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.133
Date: 1/11/2023
Topic: Water Provider Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 60 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Kathryne Marko (Fort Collins),
Brian Zick (Box Elder), Jason Graham (Fort Collins), Randy Siddens (ELCO), Sandra Bratlie (FCLWE/SFCSD),
Tim G, Zachary White (NWCWD), Jesse Schlam (Fort Collins), Eric Reckentine (NWCV), Mike Scheid
(ELCO), Sean Chambers (City of Greeley)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Kathryne Marko
• Brian Zick
• Jason Graham
• Randy Siddens
• Sandra Bratlie
• Tim G
• Zachary White
• Jesse Schlam
• Eric Reckentine
• Mike Scheid
• Sean Chambers
Summary:
1. The new 2,000 average daily flow definition is arbitrary and too low of a metric for these
regulations. The metric should be applied differently for domestic water and wastewater, too.
2. Regulations should clarify process for when routine maintenance/repair becomes a
replacement, which is often not known until they open it up. Consider a linear foot threshold for
what a replacement is versus a repair, and clarification that replacement of aging infrastructure
is a type of maintenance.
3. Water/sewer plant capacity should maybe be considered as part of the definitions.
4. The process is rushed and doesn’t adequately allow for review and revisions before Council
hearings.
Action:
1. Request to share the website for the DIC mapping and CPW critical habitat maps: https://teeo-
cdphe.shinyapps.io/COEnviroScreen_English/
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.134
Meeting Notes:
• PC Public Hearing will be on January 25, 2023. Staff is committed to having the draft ready for
that meeting. The packet will likely be available the Friday before. PC will hear public comment
before they deliberate and provide a recommendation to City Council.
o The next draft will also be presented to the Water Commission on Jan. 19.
• First reading with the City Council will be February 7, 2023. Would need comments by January
23 if sent ahead of time.
• Based on recent feedback, there was not wholesale support for the geographic limitations. This
new draft recommends updating the definitions to include project size thresholds similar to
Larimer County regulations. Previously proposed geographic based thresholds should be
applied as review criteria to the FONAI determination.
o Brian: Who determines the adverse impact to a natural feature, historical resource or
DIC in the first bullet of exclusions?
o Kirk: This would be discussed in the preliminary review.
o Brian: Currently we don’t ask the City for a permit for maintenance or repair as long as
they are in an existing easement.
• Mike: Who makes the determination of how many gallons of day is the average flow in the
definition? Do we submit every project for the City to make the determination, or can we make
that determination?
o Kirk: Yes, assuming the other permitting is correct.
o Sandra: Did the 2,000 gallons come from another community? It doesn’t make sense
and is arbitrary. May not know at the beginning of the project.
o Kirk: Yes, it came from another community.
o Sandra: Thanked the City for narrowing down the scope and bringing in exclusions.
o Sean: The 2,000 gallon metric will be different between sewer and domestic water.
o Randy: This could be a 20 home subdivision. This catches even 6” waterlines. Seems too
low and maybe shouldn’t even be in there.
• Sean: Sometimes a repair becomes a replacement. Is there a linear foot threshold for what a
replacement is versus a repair?
o Kirk: If it is like for like, that seems pretty straightforward. When it becomes an
enlargement, bigger pipe diameter, or larger easement/disturbance area, then it would
need to be assessed.
o Sean: sometimes we don’t know until we have already ripped up. Do we have to shut
down the transmission line until we get a 1041 permit or just replace the 50’ of pipe?
o Sandra: The new lead and copper regulations where we need to go into a project
unknown for replacement is a good example.
o Kathryne: Routine replacement of aging infrastructure is a type of maintenance. Need to
clarify this in the regulations.
o Sandra: A lot of this process is duplicative of what is already in place already with
Natural Areas and Parks.
o Randy: If easement is considered permanent property right acquisition, what is the
threshold of how large that easement is or what is considered an expansion?
• Randy: “Adjustment” needs better definition. Is nebulous.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.135
• Sandra: Will new water/sewer as part of an approved Development Review project by City of
Fort Collins still be excluded from 1041?
o Kirk: Yes, if your project is already part of another development proposal (like a
subdivision), then a 1041 permit is not required. It is another exclusion.
• Kathryne: Water/sewer plant capacity should maybe be considered as part of the definitions.
• Kirk: Project must be within or partially within city limits. Jurisdiction ends at city limits.
o Sandra: Foothills tank (FCLWD) it’s a parcel they own but surrounded by natural areas. If
it needs to go through SPAR, would we be released from that process?
o Kirk: If the fork is between SPAR or 1041, then the 1041 permit process is required. If it
gets a FONAI, then it may go through SPAR.
• Sean: "Adverse impacts" presumably has a definition, does the analysis of adverse impacts for a
project like a treatment plant or potable tank include a review of environmental impacts?
• Pre-Application Submittal Process:
o How long would it take to go through the Conceptual/Preliminary Design Review, Pre-
application activity and neighborhood meeting?
Kirk: This would largely depend on the client.
o Mike: Are there going to be clear expectations for this?
Kirk: yes, there will be.
• FONAI Criteria:
o Randy: clarify where to find a map of these geographic areas
o Sandra: Can you expand on the "natural habitat corridor" - item 6? Is this the last map
provided from last meeting?
Kirk: Adverse Impact is a nebulous term, but yes, it would be the Nature in the
City Plan. If there is enough detail in the mitigation plan, then we can take that
into consideration and potentially determine a FONAI.
o Sandra: Can a whole program be brought in?
Kirk: we can work with you to get one approval/1041 permits, could be brought
forward as a package. Outlined in the decision procedures.
o Sandra: Does Council know how many projects are expected? There are a lot.
• Brian: How do we plan for the fees?
o Kirk: Not recommending a new permit fee. FONAI review will be staff and a contractor.
Not sure how that will be billed yet. The full permit now doesn’t include both a permit
fee and a contractor fee. A third-party review cost will be defined in through the
process. $15,000-$35,000 is an estimate for the full permit process fees.
o Brian: Intuitively thought about $50,000 for that consultant costs and then internal
hiring to complete the analysis or develop the mitigation plans.
• Mike: We feel this is still a rushed process.
o Sandra: Agree - the rush doesn't give time to present to either agency boards.
o Eric: Agree that it doesn’t feel like a fair time to review.
o Mike: Would like city staff to deliver this comment to leadership.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.136
Date: 1/6/2023
Topic: Boards and Commissions Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 80 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Ted Shepard (PZ), Karen Artell
(AQAB), Stephanie Blochowiak (Transportation Board), Ross Cunniff (LCSB), Barry Noon (NRAB)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Ted Shepard, Planning Commission
• Karen Artell, AQAB
• Stephanie Blochowiak (Transportation Board)
• Ross Cunniff, LCSB
• Barry Noon, NRAB
Summary:
1. Show the justification of how the new project definitions were reached.
2. Like addition of cumulative impact analysis, especially as it relates to impacts on DIC.
3. “Adverse impacts” must be contemplated beyond city-owned property and beyond just the
footprint of the project.
4. There was confusion about if modifications or variances are allowed through this process.
5. Would be helpful to have a 1041 handbook.
Actions:
1. Kirk to follow up on how eminent domain powers could be used by water/sewer providers.
2. Kirk will look into whether the PC hearing is quasi-judicial or not.
3. Kirk to clarify new names of the relevant boards and commissions (is the Land Use Review
Commission the old ZBA?)
Meeting Notes:
• PC Public Hearing will be on January 25, 2023. Staff is committed to having the draft ready for
that meeting.
• Based on recent feedback, there was not wholesale support for the geographic limitations. This
new draft recommends updating the definitions to include project size thresholds similar to
Larimer County regulations. Previously proposed geographic based thresholds should be
applied as review criteria to the FONAI determination.
o Karen sent follow-up email articulating why she doesn’t support the geographic
thresholds (see attached)
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.137
o New definitions are generally from Larimer County 1041 regs, but there’s confusion
about where the numbers come from (how they were initially identified).
o Barry: Consider using percentage of flow vs. what’s available instead of absolute
amounts.
o Kirk: some jurisdictions have used equivalent household usage for water instead, but
city decided not to go that route.
o Ted: Requested graphic that shows the comparison with other jurisdictions on these
project-based definitions.
o Karen: could the water providers share what types of projects would fall within these
new definitions?
o Stephanie: limits of construction (easement width) are really important.
o Ross: Pipe size makes a lot of sense because there’s a nexus with the impact if there
were a breakage.
• Process Updates – brought back in the Conceptual/Preliminary Design Review in the Pre-
Application Submittal Process. There’s also a neighborhood meeting earlier in the process
before staff make a determination of a FONAI. And the FONAI can be appealable.
o Barry: Likes the cumulative impact analysis addition, but mitigation assumes that those
cumulative impacts can be mitigated. Need to be clear that something could be
fundamentally reversable.
o Kirk: Mitigation will be focused on restoration of land disturbance resulting from the
project.
o Kirk: Clarified that the permit review process does not include cumulative impacts or
temporal impacts.
o Stephanie: CDOT projects may have more long-term impacts than the water projects,
especially with regard to air quality and DIC.
o Kirk: please submit more information about what the guardrails should be for the
cumulative impacts.
o Stephanie: Economic analysis over time with development along the river – we would
find the full economic strata living along the river, not just DIC. And are we hearing from
these disproportionately impacted communities.
• In last draft, the FONAI was evaluated against the common review standards. This new draft
uses criteria that is separate from the common review standards.
o Karen would like geographic thresholds removed completely, not just pulled into the
FONAI criteria.
o Ted requested a process diagram.
o Ross: Main concern is that “adverse impacts” are contemplated beyond city-owned
property and beyond just the footprint of the project.
Kirk: the analysis will look within 1 mile of the project area
o Karen: if this incentivizes projects to go through private property, worry that this could
result in eminent domain.
Ted: Even with eminent domain, there is still monetary compensation.
Stephanie: Doesn’t think this would necessarily incentivize projects to avoid city
property.
Kirk: some of this may be built in as approval conditions with the city council.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.138
• Kirk plans on including the CPW High Importance wildlife areas in the overall review criteria.
• Ted: recognized Karen’s question about modifications/variances would not apply in a 1041
permit. Should build in a release valve or flexibility.
• Ted: These regulations are long overdue.
• Ross: Good progress but cautious.
Karen’s Email (submitted 1/5/2023)
I felt like I wasn’t explaining my thoughts clearly at our December 2022 meeting. Here are my thoughts
regarding the City’s 1041 draft regulations. I’ll send the comments to City Council too.
First, eminent domain is the right of the government to take property, including private property for
public use.
Examples of entities that have eminent domain powers:
Northern Water, like other water providers, stores and delivers water for irrigation, municipal, domestic
and industrial purposes. Northern Water is a public agency that contracts with the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation to build and maintain the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.
https://www.northernwater.org/about-us
The East Larimer County Water District is a pollical subdivision of the State of Colorado. ELCO has the
authority to condemn property. https://www.elcowater.org/about-us
CDOT is a Colorado state government agency. https://www.codot.gov/about
All Fort Collins residents and property should be protected under the City’s 1041 regulations. I would
like to see the City adopt 1041 regulations without geographic limitations.
Using regulations with geographic limitations that only protect City interests such as existing or planned
future City natural areas or parks, City owned right of ways, existing or potential future buffer zones for
natural habitat or feature and historic resources puts City residents and their property at risk for the
following reasons:
• Property owners are left to their own resources to deal with monied, powerful entities that have
eminent domain powers.
• Because 1041 regulations must be followed in addition to all other City development codes,
applicants may be incentivized to develop their project outside of geographic areas protected by
1041 regulations, in other words outside of City owned property and on private property
owners’ land.
• The specific purposes listed in the draft regulations, and below, are almost wholly gutted by
limiting the regulations to geographic locations of City owned land, natural area or park,
anticipated City building sites, buffer zones of natural habitats and historic resources. 1-102 (A)
• (1) protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment and historic and wildlife
resources;
• (2) Implement the vision and polices of the City’s Comprehensive Plan;
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.139
• (3) Ensure that infrastructure growth and development in the City occur in a planned and
coordinated manner;
• (4) Protect natural, historic, and cultural resources; protect and enhance natural habitats
and features of significant ecological value as defined in Section 5.6.1; protect air and water
quality; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance adaptation to climate change;
• (5) Promote safe, efficient, and economic use of public resources in developing and
providing community and regional infrastructure, facilities, and services;
• (6) Regulate land use on the basis of environmental, social and financial, impacts of
proposed development on the community and surrounding areas; and
• (7) Ensure City participation in the review and approval of development plans that pass
through and impact City residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners, resources
and other assets.
• Geographic limitations creates confusion and uncertainty for applicants and residents and
property owners. There are two different sets of regulations for land within and without
proposed geographic limitations.
The draft regulations attempt to address disproportionately impacted (DI) communities. According to
the draft regulations, DI community shall mean a community that is in a census block group where the
proportion of households that are low income, that identify as minority, or that are housing cost-
burdened is greater than 40% as such terms are defined in CRS § 24-4-109(2)(b)(II) and as amended.
(Bold added by me).
I recommend using Colorado’s EnviroScreen https://teeo-cdphe.shinyapps.io/COEnviroScreen_English/
to better characterize the Fort Collins community as to low income, minority or housing cost burdened
greater than 40%. I think how DI communities will be addressed needs to be expanded in the
regulations.
I appreciate that air quality, emissions and leak prevention are addressed in the regulations. I’m hoping
air quality measures, including limiting GHG emissions, are in place and enforced for both the
construction phase and operational phase of any development.
I agree the modification of standards, variances and appeal form administrative decisions to the land
use review commission of the land development code should not be applicable to the 1041 regulations.
Karen Artell
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.140
Date: 1/12/2023
Topic: Economic/Municipal Group 1041 Regulations Discussion
Duration: 90 minutes
Participants: Kirk Longstein (City), Miriam McGilvray (Logan Simpson), Joe Rowan (Chamber), Keith
Meyer (Diesco), Keith Martin (Northern Water), Randy Siddens (ELCO), Zachary White (NWCWD), Kim
Emil (Windsor), Sean Chambers (Greeley)
Introductions:
• Kirk Longstein – Senior Environmental Planner
• Miriam McGilvray – Logan Simpson (Consultant)
• Joe Rowan
• Keith Meyer
• Keith Martin
• Randy Siddens
• Zachary White
• Kim Emil
• Sean Chambers
Summary:
1. Participants aren’t convinced that there is a problem that having 1041 regulations would fix.
Current regulations and permitting processes cover the projects adequately. SPAR is not broken.
2. Using an average daily flow of 2,000 gallons in the definition is not an appropriate metric. It
encompasses projects too small to be considered of statewide interest.
3. New 12” pipe size in the definition is not appropriate because transmission lines are at a
minimum of 24”.
4. New definition of 1,320 linear feet is not appropriate; to capture large projects the metric
should be closer to 5 miles.
5. FONAI is seen as a lower bar than a FONSAI and doesn’t feel like a legitimate off-ramp for good
projects.
6. This is fundamentally flawed, and it would be worth rolling out as a pilot process to really
understand how this works in practice.
7. Hope staff considers taking a pause and if you want to get it done right there’s no need to rush.
8. If there IS a problem, and it’s because of growth, then the City needs to look internally in the
planning and zoning process.
Actions:
• In staff memo, it might be helpful to highlight any deficiencies to the current regulatory process.
• Asking water providers to send Kirk example projects that would fit or should fit under 1041
regulations.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.141
Meeting Notes:
• PC Public Hearing will be on January 25, 2023. Staff is committed to having the draft ready for
that meeting. The packet will likely be available the Friday before. PC will hear public comment
before they deliberate and provide a recommendation to City Council.
o Joe: Do you feel that staff will have all the feedback by the PC meeting?
o Kirk: Yes, we’re working hard to get these regulations ready
• First reading with the City Council will be February 7, 2023. Would need comments by January
23 if sent ahead of time.
• Based on recent feedback, there was not wholesale support for the geographic limitations. This
new draft recommends updating the definitions to include project size thresholds similar to
Larimer County regulations. Previously proposed geographic based thresholds should be
applied as review criteria to the FONAI determination.
• Keith Meyer: What is staff trying to solve with these regulations?
o Kirk: This is a council directive, not led by staff. Want to make a regulatory framework
for projects that would normally go through SPAR – so that the staff has more control
over the decision.
o Joe: Some council members wanted to halt NISP.
o Kirk: It’s not staff’s role to stop projects. This is a program to make better projects.
o Keith Martin: Is the intent of the regulations to identify environmental issues and
mitigation strategies?
o Keith Meyer: We’ve taken half a dozen projects through the SPAR process. It’s not a
broken process in practice. Even with these new definitions, we’re regulating much
more than what would go through the SPAR process.
o Joe: In staff memo, it might be helpful to highlight any deficiencies to the current
regulatory process.
• New Definitions:
o Randy: if 2,000 gallons is in the final regulations, this will include small lines too that
would serve a group of new homes or a single commercial establishment.
o Keith Meyer: This has gotten worse, not better. A regular garden hose flows between 8-
10 gallons per minute. So we’re regulating to a garden-hose size pipeline. Not
appropriate for this scale and intent of 1041 regulations.
o Kirk: the definitions are intended to filter out smaller projects. Three of these come
from Larimer County’s regulations. The 2,000 gallons a day flow comes from Adams
County to help determine how water/wastewater treatment plants would fit into this.
o Joe: Is the gallon threshold even necessary with the pipe size?
o Keith Meyer: 94 gallons per capita per day – 35 gallons per day per house. So this is less
than 10 homes.
12” pipe isn’t a transmission lines. Distribution serve neighborhoods.
Transmission lines serve cities and is usually 24” or larger.
Randy: We grid system on mile or half mile dimensions depending on density
with a minimum 12” pipes. Anything under 24” is a distribution line.
o Keith Martin: every single water utility is associated by new development. We do not
drive new development and feel like we are penalized by zoning actions by the city.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.142
o Keith Martin: there is a gray area of whether the City has the legal authority to manage
growth in other municipalities through these regulations.
o Kirk: We should define what a transmission line actually is. The intent is to combine #2
and #3 to have the pipe size and length linked.
o Joe: where did 1,320 linear feet come from?
Kirk: from Larimer County. Intent is to be consistent with neighboring
jurisdictions.
Randy: That’s a quarter mile and isn’t anything to what we need to do for new
development.
Keith Meyer: this would trigger a small permit with the state and may be
appropriate for Larimer County but not Fort Collins.
o Kirk: do you support the project-based threshold approach, and if so, what changes
would you suggest for the definitions?
Randy: We don’t support these at all. We don’t believe that there is a problem
that we need to solve. It will just create more problems and more headaches.
• Eliminate #1 (gallon flow)
• Larger than 24” pipe
• Length needs to be 5 miles
• Size of easement is irrelevant. Eliminate.
Kirk: Would ELCO be able to provide any example projects of what that might be
look like?
• Randy: 2nd Phase of the NEWT project. 42” new pipeline (10 years ago)
hit 5 miles. Nobody heard any complaints from property owners.
• Joe: None of these are statewide interest thresholds, but maybe we
shoot for regional interest thresholds. {*Joe is not suggesting that the
draft policy should lower the threshold to regional impact, rather he is
pointing to the fact that the draft policy is lowering the threshold}.
• Keith Martin: will ask Peggy what Northern Water projects would fall
within these.
o Exemptions
Kirk: any eminent domain or permanent property acquisition is not intended to
go through this. The first two sub-bullets would be removed.
• Pre-Application Process
o Kirk: This process is intended to provide clearer requirements for applicants.
o Joe: A mile diameter is too far and just opens it up to more people to rally against a
project. Needs to be clear that it’s a half mile above the project and half mile below.
• FONAI determination and criteria
o Joe: New adverse impact on DIC – needs definition. Is it a static geographic area or will it
change over time?
Kirk: CDPHE has a program (Enviroscreen) at the Census Block level.
Joe: Accepts this if it’s at the Census Block level
o Keith Martin: Does this look at the secondary impacts or impacts off the construction
site?
Kirk: No, this is just looking at the disturbance area of the surface activity.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.143
o Keith Martin: FONAI decision is an administrative process, but giving it an appealable
decisions. Should check legality.
o Keith Martin: What’s the rational between the FONAI and FONSAI.
Kirk: “significant” was too hard to define.
Joe: This just moves from one subjective impact to another.
Keith: This used to be similar to a NEPA standard and that felt like a better high
standard.
Sean: Greeley shares that concern. Seems to increase the threshold to adverse
impact. “Significant” is a higher threshold. Is described as an off-ramp that you
really can’t get off of.
Kirk: The FONAI is the go/no for a full permit but once a project goes through
full permit process the common review standards would be the bar.
o Sean: a water project path that didn’t have any nexus to these geographic areas is very
rare. Would like to better understand how the mitigation would be reviewed.
Kirk: Mitigation requirements are prescriptive and established based on best
practices and industry standards.
Sean: If it’s just a matter of identifying issues, a mitigation plan to resolve those
issues, then why is a 1041 process necessary.
Kirk: the decision-maker can approve or deny with conditions.
o Sean: could the process include a way work through Council’s issues without having to
go back through a full process again or appeal.
Kirk: 2.1.6 Land Use Code, there is an optional pre-application hearing. No
determination but really just a worksession with Council before the hearing.
After P&Z and before Council hearing.
Kirk: If the applicant makes changes to the application without the public
feedback loop, doesn’t give due process.
Keith Martin: there should be a process to avoid a legal battle, and there should
be a process to allow the permit to be approved later with City Council’s
conditions identified during the hearing even if the applicant didn’t agree to
those conditions at the time of the hearing.
o Joe: Where does this include a project that benefits the public interest?
Kirk: FONAI level and neighborhood meeting should give that opportunity.
• Closing Thoughts
o Don’t think this is going to get done in time
o This is fundamentally flawed and it’s worth rolling this out as a pilot process to really
understand how this works in practice.
o Hope staff considers taking a pause and if you want to get it done right there’s no need
to rush.
o If there IS a problem, and it’s because of growth, then the City needs to look internally
in the planning and zoning process.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.144
1
Kirk Longstein
From:Ray Watts <wattsray@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, January 9, 2023 2:22 PM
To:Kirk Longstein; mmcgilvray@logansimpson.com
Cc:Gary Wockner; Vicky McLane; lopez.apclass@gmail.com
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Comments for 1041 regulations
Hi Kirk,
I think that the movement of the list of geographic areas of concern to a different point in the process (FONAI
determination, Section 2‐304) is helpful. I have two suggestions:
Specifically state that this is a minimum set of places where impacts will be evaluated
Specifically state the inclusion of areas where citizens have expressed concerns about potential
adverse impacts on private property (and this might include degraded environmental quality,
enhanced risk exposure, or reduced access to nature), in the neighborhood meeting or other avenues
of public comment
My thinking goes to this: the awkwardness of telling a citizen that their concerns could not be addressed
because they did not fit into one of the currently listed geographic areas. It places a burden on the citizen to
express their concerns, and it places a burden on staff to evaluate whether those concerns are well founded
and to document the City's reasoning if it finds the concerns not to be well founded, and therefore excluded.
Is risk exposure well covered? Projects that would change hydrology, not only in rivers and streams but also
across hillslopes can raise flood risks. Here I am remembering the July flash flood of 1997—which was a huge
sheet‐flow event, and not a rising‐river event. This is an example similar to the Eagle River case, where the
City would be wise to regulate projects on CSU (State) and Horsetooth (Federal) land along the western
margin of the City.
You mentioned the question of Fort Collins' right to regulate projects where construction would not occur
within City Limits. My understanding of court decisions is that local governments' efforts to protect local
natural resources with 1041 regulations have generally prevailed when challenged by lawsuits. The case of
Colorado Springs v Eagle County is the most relevant case that I am aware of (but many years have passed
since then). Colorado courts found that Eagle County had the right to protect wetlands on federal lands by
regulating construction projects on federal lands, when the applicant/sponsor of those projects was another
Colorado local government. The only structural difference between that case and NISP is that the Eagle river
construction activity and anticipated environmental impacts were both within Eagle County boundaries. In
the case of NISP, most (not all) construction would be outside the City, but impacts would happen within the
City. I believe that the City should be fully willing to claim 1041 regulatory authority and, if necessary, defend
that authority in court. I alluded today to the City Attorney's aversion to litigation, and I suspect that the City
Attorney will recommend that the City not claim the authority to apply 1041 to projects constructed primarily
outside City limits, as a way to avoid litigation. That is not in the best interests of the City or its citizens. I will
lend support to all efforts to include such authorities in our regulations.
We have not yet seen the Record of Decision (ROD) for NISP from the Corps of Engineers. If the ROD says that
the Mulberry diversion is a necessary part of NISP, then the City clearly has regulatory authority over that
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.145
2
component of NISP, and that handle gives the City full rights to consider all adverse impacts of NISP, not just
the surface impacts associated with the Mulberry diversion component. Northern Water would disagree, and
the City must be willing to take the matter to court. Our regulations must be written to strongly support these
actions.
You can see that I look at the 1041 regulatory effort largely through the lens of its application to NISP.
That raises another issue: cumulative impacts. There is no rational justification for considering only
developments of the last decade. I illustrate with a well‐known principle: covering more than about 15% of a
watershed's surface with impervious surfaces will initiate significant hydrologic changes. So, permitting the
first, second, or third project that paves and roofs 5% of the watershed is defensible. But the application for
paving and roofing the next 5% should be rejected (or accepted only with extensive mitigations)—and it does
not matter how long this comes after the first three projects. Cumulative impacts are forever. They do not go
away after ten years. Ten years is a criterion that I will vociferously object to.
I look forward to seeing the next draft regulations.
Ray
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.146
1
Kirk Longstein
From:Ray Watts <wattsray@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, December 7, 2022 5:27 PM
To:Kirk Longstein
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
As I promised, here are some specific points that I noted on the draft regs.
Perhaps I missed it (searching the forest for one tree): who is Director?
I noted during the Zoom call that Natural Area easement regulations are adopted
administratively. There is nothing wrong with their content; rather, it is the possibility of their abrupt
change (under pressure, perhaps) that gives me pause. There could also be question about this from
an applicant, if they made plans working with one version and then the City changed them.
The previous bullet suggests that the process of changing 1041 regulations and documents referenced
therein should be codified.
Buffer zone is a risky term because it can be drawn from historical documents rather than from fresh
and thorough analysis. I suggest a longer, admittedly more cumbersome, construction, such as "areas
of foreseeable impacts." This places a foresight burden on the applicant and on the City for qualified
review of the analysis.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has quasi‐judicial authorities that are not held by other City
Advisory Boards. Nevertheless, other Boards have expertise relevant to 1041 matters of state
interest. For example, what does the PZC know about river flows, which can be seriously affected by
water projects, such as NISP, and flow changes in turn can (will) have detrimental effects in Natural
Areas. So, I think that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB)and the Natural Resources
Advisory Board (NRAB), and possibly others, be given specific authority to recommend to City Council
matters of state interest. The initial two activities being designated probably cover the majority of
concerns, but natural resource and hazard areas are clearly in the wheelhouse of these Boards. The
charters of these boards include responsibility to make policy recommendations to City Council, so
recommendations with respect to 1041 designations are within their scope.
One aspect of the drafts that was not much discussed, which I fully support, is the interim step of
determining completeness of an application. This gives staff and advisory boards opportunity to
request (demand) analyses that are missing or incomplete, while not shutting the process off with a
permit denial. Is the 60‐day period sufficient to engage contractors to assist with the determination?
Every reference to wetland should be changed to "wetland and riparian area." Both depend on water
levels which, for wetlands, sometimes are above ground; equally important, though, are the water
levels below ground that support riparian communities. Most people in Fort Collins do not think about
it, but our riparian forests (primarily along the Poudre River) are the only native forests in the City. All
other trees live because they are irrigated. In our environment, clarity of protection of riparian areas is
essential.
Neighborhood meetings are mentioned without definition of the geographic extent of the relevant
neighborhood. This affects the City requirements for notification of the meeting. What would be the
neighborhood for a project that affects a Natural Area, in which no one lives but which is visited by
thousands from across the City? This question suggests to me that "neighborhood" should not be used
in this context. Perhaps simply "public meeting."
Review standard J refers to groundwater quality. Groundwater levels are equally, perhaps more,
important. Standard K mentions riparian areas with wetlands and later drops riparian areas. Lower
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.147
2
water levels will shrink riparian areas (trees near outer limits of these will die first). There is a lot of
good stuff in the review standards, and if some of the criteria currently in geographic limitations are
incorporated into review standards, they will be even stronger. As my specific comments indicate,
they will need detailed review and editing so that they do not inadvertently leave out important
factors.
That's all I have for now.
Ray
From: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Miriam McGilvray <MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Dawson Metcalf‐Contact
<dawson.metcalf@colostate.edu>; Doug Henderson <dhender@gmail.com>; Gary Wokner <gary@garywockner.com>;
Hattie Johnson <hattie@americanwhitewater.org>; lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Mark Houdashelt‐Contact
<mark.houdashelt@gmail.com>; Ray Watts <wattsray@comcast.net>; Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>; K A
Wagner <kaswagner@me.com>; John McDonagh <johnamcdonagh@mac.com>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Hi everyone!
Thank you again for joining our meeting yesterday and providing such thoughtful feedback. As a follow up, please take a
look at the attached meeting notes and let me know if we heard you correctly! I also want to acknowledge my mistake
by not including Save the Poudre comments within the City Council packet ahead of the November 7 work session. I
recognize the limited opportunities that groups have to provide public comment related to 1041 regulations and would
like to offer a few additional opportunities to provide direct feedback to decision makers: 1.) reach out to their
Councilmember(s) directly to request a meeting. 2.) draft a formal letter of your comments to send to Council, in
addition to the summary that staff will produce as a part of the February 7 public record. Cityleaders@fcgov.com 3.)
send comments ahead of first reaching, and speak publicly https://www.fcgov.com/council/councilcomments
if you feel like it would be a good use of your time, I’d like to offer another time to meet after the first of the year to dive
deeper into a particular area of interest. Due to the capacity of the City Attorney’s office, it’s unlikely that a third version
of the 1041 regulations will be released before the February 7 council packet. However, and if its helpful, I can create
another cross walk that highlights the changes and areas where we made changes based on stakeholder feedback.
Thank you again for meeting and continued to stay engaged with this important work
Kirk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
From: Miriam McGilvray <MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>; Dawson Metcalf‐Contact <dawson.metcalf@colostate.edu>; Doug
Henderson <dhender@gmail.com>; Gary Wokner <gary@garywockner.com>; Hattie Johnson
<hattie@americanwhitewater.org>; lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Mark Houdashelt‐Contact
<mark.houdashelt@gmail.com>; Ray Watts <wattsray@comcast.net>; Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>; K A
Wagner <kaswagner@me.com>; John McDonagh <johnamcdonagh@mac.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.148
3
Hello everyone,
Please follow the Doodle Poll link below to share your availability for a meeting in early‐mid December (12/6 – 12/22).
We are hoping to meet at least once before the end of the year. There may be some flexibility to meet a second time in
early January, if needed.
https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/ejZPzYRe
Thanks and have a great Thanksgiving,
Miriam McGilvray, AICP
Associate Planner
Logan Simpson
C: 720-224-6762
mmcgilvray@ logansimpson.com
http://www.logansimpson.com
From: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 3:35 PM
To: Dawson Metcalf‐Contact <dawson.metcalf@colostate.edu>; Doug Henderson <dhender@gmail.com>; Gary Wokner
<gary@garywockner.com>; Hattie Johnson <hattie@americanwhitewater.org>; lopez <lopez.apclass@gmail.com>; Mark
Houdashelt‐Contact <mark.houdashelt@gmail.com>; Ray Watts <wattsray@comcast.net>; Vicky McLane
<vmhmclane@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray <MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Hello everyone,
As we move into the holiday season, I wanted to provide a brief update on version‐two of the draft 1041 regulations and
the intention to reconvene stakeholder groups before the end of the year. Supporting me with outreach is the team at
Logan‐Simpson (cc’d). In the coming days look for a doodle poll with potential times to meet and discuss the outcomes
of the City Council Work Session, November 7; and, specific feedback related to geographic‐based thresholds, adding a
“Natural Resources” definition, and the 1041 permit application approval process with City Council as the sole decision
maker.
If you did not have a chance to review version‐two of the draft regulations I’m including a few links that may be helpful:
November 7 Work Session Summary
Work Session Recording ‐ Video
Version‐two draft regulations ‐ https://www.fcgov.com/planning/1041‐regulations
I will be out of office November 24 & 25, but if you have a light week and would like to connect, please do not hesitate
to reach out.
Warm regards,
Kirk
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.149
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.150
1
Kirk Longstein
From:Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 4:56 PM
To:Kirk Longstein; Brad Yatabe
Cc:Keith Martin
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 1041 regulations follow up
Attachments:PEM comments to 2022-11-02 1041 Draft With Geoitations for mitigation review 32-38.pdf;
Boulder_County_Land_Use_-_Conditional_Approval_of_the_SWSP_II_1041_Permit_Application__-_July_
16,_2012[1].pdf
Kirk and Brad,
Attached please find two items pertinent to your work on the proposed 1041 regulations. The
second is the permit issued by Boulder County for a Northern Water pipeline crossing Boulder
County open space lands. I mentioned this to Brad and he requested that I send it to him.
The second is a series of comment bubbles on the 11-02-2023 draft that are on the Common
Review Standards. Rather than try and rewrite what the author intended, or to try and clarify
where they are vague or appear to be reaching beyond the footprint of the construction or
facility, I opted to send in these comments knowing that a version 3 will be out soon and some
may be superseded by a new draft.
It seems to me there are two key legal basis that raise my concern as I read this extensive list of
common standards. Those are, that the regulations can’t prevent the exercise of the water rights
per the statute and, the impacts must be on the land on which the development occurs.
Some of these may be affected by adoption of the CDOT approach to wetlands as well.
Please take these into consideration as you move forward.
Kind Regards,
Peggy
Peggy E. Montaño
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80203
tel: 303.339.5833
mobile phone: 303.868.7628
fax: 303.832.4465
email: pmontano@troutlaw.com
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.151
2
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This e‐mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is
confidential and privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any unauthorized review, use, copying, disclosure, or
distribution of this information by you or other persons is prohibited. If you believe you have received this e‐mail message in error, please contact the sender
immediately and permanently delete and destroy all electronic and hard copies of this message. Thank you.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.152
From:Peggy Montano
To:Kirk Longstein; Ian Mccargar; Joe Rowan; Keith Martin; Keith Meyer; Kevin Jones; Sean Chambers; Keith Meyer;
Mike Scheid ; Randy Siddens; Kim Emil
Cc:Jeremy Call; Miriam McGilvray
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations-suggestions attached
Date:Thursday, December 22, 2022 12:00:42 PM
Attachments:image001.png
revision suggestions.pdf
Hello All,
Following our call Monday I gave some thought to some of the discussion and
have attached suggestions in three areas. One is the idea of adding to the
process an opportunity for the applicant to hear the city council concerns and
respond to them if there is a denial that is pending. Kirk is correct that the
applicant will have the benefit of the other review and recommendations, but at
times that may not translate into the city councilors concerns completely- for
that reason see the italics which are added to section 2-313 on the attached.
Second, we discussed the concern that a consultant may be more of an advocate
for the city and go outside the responsibility to facilitate the pre application
review so I added a measure of transparency in the process. That is being
notified that a consultant will be used, who is the consultant and a line of open
communication with the applicant and the Director. See the italics which are
my suggested additions.
Lastly, there have been many discussions about the “development” definition.
While this third suggestion may implicate more of a legal question, I suggest
that the definition of what is a “development” is given in the law creating 1041
and that definition should be reflected in the regulations. I have included that
in the attachment as well. The italics in this definition are in the law but I
italicized the words here to emphasize them.
I would welcome feedback from any of you on my comments attached.
Kind regards,
Peggy
Peggy E. Montaño
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.153
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80203
tel: 303.339.5833
mobile phone: 303.868.7628
fax: 303.832.4465
email: pmontano@troutlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain information that is confidential and privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any unauthorized review, use, copying, disclosure, or distribution of this information by you or other persons is prohibited. If
you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete and destroy
all electronic and hard copies of this message. Thank you.
From: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith
Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyer <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones
<kjones@fcchamber.org>; Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>; Keith Meyer <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Mike Scheid
<mikes@elcowater.org>; Randy Siddens <randys@elcowater.org>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Hello: following up from our meeting last week and providing the notes to be included in the Feb 7
Council materials. Please take a closer look and let us know if we capture your feedback accurately.
Also, one of our members has notified me that the December 5 slides provided includes a
discrepancy.
Slide 11 indicates “Exempt projects previously approved through the SPAR process by
Planning and Zoning” Under this NEWT3 would be exempt from 1041.
Slide 28 indicates NEWT3 is subject to 1041.
Slide 28 is intended to provide example projects being discussed under “activities of State wide
interest” this slide was created ahead of the November work session. As discussed during the
November work session and included within the Council summary notes (November 7 Work Session
Summary ) there is general support for the exemption.
I truly hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season and I look forward to picking up our
conversation after the new year.
Best,
Kirk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.154
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
From: Kirk Longstein
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:45 PM
To: Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith
Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyers <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones
<kjones@fcchamber.org>; Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Colleagues:
looking forward to our continued dialog about version-two of the draft 1041 regulations. The intent
of our time together is to capture feedback on the questions outlined below. During these meetings
your feedback will be noted, consolidated into themes, and presented to city council during first
reading of the ordinance, February 7.
Please come prepared to our meeting by reviewing the resources bulleted below. Also, I’m including
a copy of the slides I intend to share (Attached), so if you think that I am missing something or have
specific questions that you’d like answered, feel free to send me a note ahead of time.
Thank you in advance for your time commitment to discuss these regulations and for your continued
engagement throughout this process.
Kirk
1041 working group meeting:
Key questions:
1. Do you have feedback on the proposed scope to focus on the greatest areas of impacts rather
than major projects?
Geographic Thresholds:
Parks, natural areas, and other city-owned properties
Natural habitat buffer zones
Historic and cultural resources
2. Councilmembers asked Staff to explore adding the definition of “Natural Resources”.
1. After Geographic thresholds are applied, what additional areas are not covered?
2. What review standards should staff consider adding related to “Natural Resources”?
3. General feedback and areas of concern within version-two of the draft 1041 regulations
Read-Before Homework
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.155
Nature in the City Strategic Plan, Vision and Goals
Nature in the City Wildlife Connectivity Map (Attached)
Colorado Parks and Wildlife High Priority Habitat maps
Colorado Environmental Justice Mapping Tool
3.4.1 Land Use Standards – Natural Habitat Features
Natural Habitat and Features inventory
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
From: Kirk Longstein
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 3:35 PM
To: Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith
Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyers <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones
<kjones@fcchamber.org>; Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Hello everyone,
As we move into the holiday season, I wanted to provide a brief update on version-two of the draft
1041 regulations and the intention to reconvene stakeholder groups before the end of the year.
Supporting me with outreach is the team at Logan-Simpson (cc’d). In the coming days look for a
doodle poll with potential times to meet and discuss the outcomes of the City Council Work Session,
November 7; and, specific feedback related to geographic-based thresholds, adding a “Natural
Resources” definition, and the 1041 permit application approval process with City Council as the sole
decision maker.
If you did not have a chance to review version-two of the draft regulations I’m including a few links
that may be helpful:
November 7 Work Session Summary
Work Session Recording - Video
Version-two draft regulations - https://www.fcgov.com/planning/1041-regulations
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.156
I will be out of office November 24 & 25, but if you have a light week and would like to connect,
please do not hesitate to reach out.
Warm regards,
Kirk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.157
From:Peggy Montano
To:Kirk Longstein
Cc:Keith Martin; Brad Yatabe
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations-suggestions attached
Date:Sunday, January 8, 2023 2:57:15 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Thank you Kirk for your response below to suggested edits. Keith Martin is
added to this email as he will participate in your workshop this week but I will
be away at a long-delayed family wedding. I also added Brad Yatabe to this
email.
First, some time ago you sent me a link to the CDOT wetlands regulation
framework at https://www.codot.gov/programs/research/pdfs/2009/facwet.
Our team has reviewed the CDOT regulation and the team is fine with Fort
Collins adopting that wetlands approach in the 1041 regulations.
Now to answer your question below.
2-314 as I understand it, allows the City Council to add conditions to a Permit.
Those conditions, in theory, should allow a permit to go forward and be
approved. In 2-313,however, the language says a permit shall be denied unless
the Council decides that conditions can allow the permit to be approved.
In practice, there may be reasons that the council denies a permit for reasons
neither the staff nor the applicant can foresee. The language I suggested says
the council in a denial would give detail about what criteria was not met and
what an applicant would have to do to receive an approval. For the councilors
voting no, it may be that each councilor has separate reasons. Until a denial
vote by Council happens, with explanations of what an applicant may need to
do to get an approval, neither staff nor an applicant may know the outcome was
going to be denial. The timing of this would be at the end of a linear process
where both the city staff and applicant would have worked over the months
before the council vote to meet the code requirements. The language I
suggested is in effect, a reconsideration of the council denial without an
applicant having to go back and begin the process anew. I agree that an
applicant can make changes and resubmit again. However, it may well be that
the applicant may be willing to make the changes councilors describe to garner
a positive vote. I hope this explanation is helpful.
Keith and I also had a discussion with Brad last week in which we suggested
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.158
that a stand-alone section in the regulations for a major extension of existing a
domestic water system or site selection and construction of a major new
domestic water system would provide a great deal of clarity to the draft
regulations. The Common Review standards create confusion rather than
clarity as applied to the water issues. As a side note, I believe on page 36 in
Common review Standards (M) which applies to plant life, the word “animal”
should be “plant” in the second line.
I am hopeful to also provide limited additional detailed edits to you on the
language of the regulations early in the week.
Kind Regards,
Peggy
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80203
tel: 303.339.5833
mobile phone: 303.868.7628
fax: 303.832.4465
email: pmontano@troutlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain information that is confidential and privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any unauthorized review, use, copying, disclosure, or distribution of this information by you or other persons is prohibited. If
you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete and destroy
all electronic and hard copies of this message. Thank you.
From: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2023 3:47 PM
To: Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations-suggestions attached
Hi Peggy,
I think your comments related to third party consultant are reasonable and I am proposing the
revision within version three of the draft regs.
I’m reviewing your comments related to 2-313 Approval or Denial of Permit Application. Can you
help me understand how your suggested revision would be different from 2-314 Issuance of Permit;
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.159
Conditions?
If an applicant’s permit is denied by City Council and the entity wants to resubmit, the applicant can
always make changes and resubmit through a pre-application submittal procedure Sec 2-303.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments.
Kirk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
From: Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>; Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe
Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyer
<keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones <kjones@fcchamber.org>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>; Keith Meyer <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Mike Scheid
<mikes@elcowater.org>; Randy Siddens <randys@elcowater.org>; Kim Emil
<kemil@windsorgov.com>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations-suggestions attached
Hello All,
Following our call Monday I gave some thought to some of the discussion and
have attached suggestions in three areas. One is the idea of adding to the
process an opportunity for the applicant to hear the city council concerns and
respond to them if there is a denial that is pending. Kirk is correct that the
applicant will have the benefit of the other review and recommendations, but at
times that may not translate into the city councilors concerns completely- for
that reason see the italics which are added to section 2-313 on the attached.
Second, we discussed the concern that a consultant may be more of an advocate
for the city and go outside the responsibility to facilitate the pre application
review so I added a measure of transparency in the process. That is being
notified that a consultant will be used, who is the consultant and a line of open
communication with the applicant and the Director. See the italics which are
my suggested additions.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.160
Lastly, there have been many discussions about the “development” definition.
While this third suggestion may implicate more of a legal question, I suggest
that the definition of what is a “development” is given in the law creating 1041
and that definition should be reflected in the regulations. I have included that
in the attachment as well. The italics in this definition are in the law but I
italicized the words here to emphasize them.
I would welcome feedback from any of you on my comments attached.
Kind regards,
Peggy
Peggy E. Montaño
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80203
tel: 303.339.5833
mobile phone: 303.868.7628
fax: 303.832.4465
email: pmontano@troutlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain information that is confidential and privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any unauthorized review, use, copying, disclosure, or distribution of this information by you or other persons is prohibited. If
you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete and destroy
all electronic and hard copies of this message. Thank you.
From: Kirk Longstein <klongstein@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith
Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyer <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones
<kjones@fcchamber.org>; Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>; Keith Meyer <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Mike Scheid
<mikes@elcowater.org>; Randy Siddens <randys@elcowater.org>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Hello: following up from our meeting last week and providing the notes to be included in the Feb 7
Council materials. Please take a closer look and let us know if we capture your feedback accurately.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.161
Also, one of our members has notified me that the December 5 slides provided includes a
discrepancy.
Slide 11 indicates “Exempt projects previously approved through the SPAR process by
Planning and Zoning” Under this NEWT3 would be exempt from 1041.
Slide 28 indicates NEWT3 is subject to 1041.
Slide 28 is intended to provide example projects being discussed under “activities of State wide
interest” this slide was created ahead of the November work session. As discussed during the
November work session and included within the Council summary notes (November 7 Work Session
Summary ) there is general support for the exemption.
I truly hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season and I look forward to picking up our
conversation after the new year.
Best,
Kirk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
From: Kirk Longstein
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 2:45 PM
To: Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith
Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyers <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones
<kjones@fcchamber.org>; Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: RE: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Colleagues:
looking forward to our continued dialog about version-two of the draft 1041 regulations. The intent
of our time together is to capture feedback on the questions outlined below. During these meetings
your feedback will be noted, consolidated into themes, and presented to city council during first
reading of the ordinance, February 7.
Please come prepared to our meeting by reviewing the resources bulleted below. Also, I’m including
a copy of the slides I intend to share (Attached), so if you think that I am missing something or have
specific questions that you’d like answered, feel free to send me a note ahead of time.
Thank you in advance for your time commitment to discuss these regulations and for your continued
engagement throughout this process.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.162
Kirk
1041 working group meeting:
Key questions:
1. Do you have feedback on the proposed scope to focus on the greatest areas of impacts rather
than major projects?
Geographic Thresholds:
Parks, natural areas, and other city-owned properties
Natural habitat buffer zones
Historic and cultural resources
2. Councilmembers asked Staff to explore adding the definition of “Natural Resources”.
1. After Geographic thresholds are applied, what additional areas are not covered?
2. What review standards should staff consider adding related to “Natural Resources”?
3. General feedback and areas of concern within version-two of the draft 1041 regulations
Read-Before Homework
Nature in the City Strategic Plan, Vision and Goals
Nature in the City Wildlife Connectivity Map (Attached)
Colorado Parks and Wildlife High Priority Habitat maps
Colorado Environmental Justice Mapping Tool
3.4.1 Land Use Standards – Natural Habitat Features
Natural Habitat and Features inventory
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
From: Kirk Longstein
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 3:35 PM
To: Ian Mccargar <imccargar@windsorgov.com>; Joe Rowan <joerowan63@gmail.com>; Keith
Martin <kmartin@h-mlaw.net>; Keith Meyers <keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com>; Kevin Jones
<kjones@fcchamber.org>; Peggy Montano <pmontano@troutlaw.com>; Sean Chambers
<Sean.Chambers@Greeleygov.com>
Cc: Jeremy Call <JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>; Miriam McGilvray
<MMcGilvray@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.163
Subject: UPDATE: 1041 regulations
Hello everyone,
As we move into the holiday season, I wanted to provide a brief update on version-two of the draft
1041 regulations and the intention to reconvene stakeholder groups before the end of the year.
Supporting me with outreach is the team at Logan-Simpson (cc’d). In the coming days look for a
doodle poll with potential times to meet and discuss the outcomes of the City Council Work Session,
November 7; and, specific feedback related to geographic-based thresholds, adding a “Natural
Resources” definition, and the 1041 permit application approval process with City Council as the sole
decision maker.
If you did not have a chance to review version-two of the draft regulations I’m including a few links
that may be helpful:
November 7 Work Session Summary
Work Session Recording - Video
Version-two draft regulations - https://www.fcgov.com/planning/1041-regulations
I will be out of office November 24 & 25, but if you have a light week and would like to connect,
please do not hesitate to reach out.
Warm regards,
Kirk
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kirk Longstein, AICP
(he/him/his)
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
Direct: 970-416-2865
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.164
Fort Collins Regulations Suggestions
This suggestion will facilitate review and understanding between the applicant and the city
council and make for a more efficient process.
________________________________________________________________________
Division 2- 313
Approval or Denial of Permit Application
(A) The burden of proof shall be upon the applicant to show compliance with all applicable
standards of the Regulations. To the extent a permit application may not comply with a
particular standard, the applicant may demonstrate compliance with such standard by
proposing mitigation measures that sufficiently offset the extent of noncompliance.
(B) A permit application to conduct a designated activity of state interest or develop in a
designated area of state interest may not be approved unless the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrated that the proposal, in consideration of all proposed mitigation measures,
complies with all the applicable criteria. The permit shall be denied unless City Council
determines that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the permit which will enable the
permit to comply with the applicable criteria. Whenever City Council determines that a
permit will be denied, the denial must specify the criteria used in evaluating the proposal,
the criteria the proposal fails to satisfy, the reasons for denial, and the action the
applicant would have to take to satisfy the permit requirements. The denial document will
be served upon the applicant and the applicant may, within sixty (60) days of such
service, be allowed to modify the proposal. The City Council will then re- consider the
proposal with such modifications.
(C) If City Council finds that there is insufficient information concerning any of the
applicable standards, City Council may deny the permit, may approve the permit with
conditions which if fulfilled, would bring the development plan into compliance with
applicable standards, or may continue the public hearing or reopen a previously closed
public hearing for additional information to be received. However, no such continuance
to receive additional evidence may exceed sixty (60) days unless agreed to by City
Council and the applicant.
(D) City Council shall approve the permit application if the proposed development plan
satisfies all applicable review standards in consideration of proposed mitigation
measures, of these Regulations. City Council may also impose additional considerations
pursuant to Section 2-314 on any permit.
(E) City Council may close the public hearing and make a decision, or it may continue the
matter for a decision only. However, City Council shall make a decision by majority vote
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.165
(F) City Council shall adopt by resolution findings of fact in support of its decision and if
approved, the written permit shall be attached to such resolution. To the extent a permit
is deemed approved because City Council has not made a decision, adoption of such
resolution is not required.
____________________________________________________________________________
Third Party Consultant
Section 2-302 provides for a third-party consultant review at the applicant’s cost. The consultant
may favor the City as they were hired by the City and seek to substitute their judgement for that
of the applicant. Section 2-302 can and should outline the consultant’s responsibilities and
provide transparency. For example, a consultant is not to generate siting and design alternatives
nor to seek to generate conditions to impose on the proposal. To guard against that outcome, I
suggest the following:
Section 2-302 Application fee; financial security waiver.
(A) Each pre-application area of activity review application and development application for
a permit submitted must be accompanied by the fees established pursuant Section
2.2.3(D). The Director may determine any time during the pre-application review and
development application review process that it is necessary to retain a third-party
consultant to assist in reviewing the application Pursuant to Section 6.3.3(D). The
consultant shall not act as an advocate for either the City or the applicant.
1. If the Director determines that a third party consultant will be used, the applicant shall
be notified within 3 working days of such decision including the name and contact
information for the consultant.
2. The Director shall schedule an initial meeting with the applicant and the consultant to
facilitate the pre-application review including scope of review and anticipated time line.
3. All communications of the consultant shall be simultaneously sent to both the Director
and the applicant, including any analysis or evaluation of the application by the
consultant.
(B) A referral agency may impose a reasonable fee for the review of a development
application and the applicant shall pay such fee which shall detail the basis for the fee
imposed. No hearings by the Permit Authority will be held if any such referral agency’s
reasonable fee has not been paid.
______________________________________________________________________________
Definition of Development
During the course of stakeholder meetings there have been numerous discussions about the
definition of development. The following is the definition is the 1041 statute. I suggest this be
the definition used in the regulations.
“Development” means any construction or activity which changes the basic character or the use
of the land on which the construction or activity occurs. CRS 24-65.1-102
I suggest this be the definition used in the regulations.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.166
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.167
Land Use
Courthouse Annex • 2045 13th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 • Tel: 303.441.3930 • Fax: 303.441.4856
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 471 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 • www.bouiderc.ounty.org
July 16,2012
Southem Water Supply Enterprise
Attn: Carl Brouwer
220 Water Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
Dear Applicant:
This letter certifies that a hearing of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Boulder, State of
Colorado, was duly called and held on January 10. 2012 continued to April 17. 2012 and June 21. 2012.
in consideration of the following request;
Docket SI-11-0001; SOUTHERN WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE n
Request: Areas and Activities of State Interest (1041) for the construction of a water pipeline
which would deliver Windy Gap and Colorado-Big Thompson water from Carter Lake to
the project participants which include the City of Boulder, Left Hand Water District,
Longs Peak Water District, and the Town of Frederick. The project consists of a north-
south pipeline which will serve the City of Boulder and Left Hand Water District and an
east-west pipeline that will branch from the north-south alignment to serve the Longs
Peak Water District and the Town of Frederick.
Location: Northeastern Boulder County, the proposed pipeline enters the County at the north
approximately 1.0 mile west of N 83rd St. and runs south past the City of Longmont to
Boulder Reservoir; the eastern branch of the pipeline is proposed along Vermillion Road
beginning approximately O.S mile west of N 87th St mnning east to County Line Road, in
Sections 1,12,13,25,36, of Range 3N, Township 70W, and Sections
1,12,13,24,23,26,34,35 of Range 2N, Township 70W, and Section 3 of Range IN,
Township 70W, Sections 7,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31 of Range 3N,
Township'69W, and Section 6 of Range 2N, Township 69W.
Zoning: Estate Residential (ER), Rural Residential (RR) and Agricultural (A) Zoning Districts
The Board of County Commissioners has determined that the request is CONDITIONALLY
APPROVED, subject to the terms in the attached resolution.
Your approval may have included certain conditions that must be met. Please contact the planner who
processed your docket for more information on any requirements that will need to be met. If you have
any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at (303) 441-3930 or via email at
hhippely@,bouldercounty.org
Sincerely,
Hannah Hippely, AICP, Senior Planner
Planning Division
c.c. Rosi Dennett, Strategic Planning, Inc.
Cindy Oomenico County Commissioner Deb Gardner County Commissioner Will Toor County Commissioner
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.168
RESOLUTION 2012-70
A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING BOULDER COUNTY LAND USE DOCKET
#81-11-0001 (^SOUTHERN WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE II"): A REQUEST FOR AN
ACTIVITIES OP STATE INTEREST ("SI" OR V1041") REVIEW FOR THE
BOULDER COUNTY PORTION OF A NEW PIPELINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO
DELIVER WINDY GAP AMD COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON WATER FROM CARTER LAKE
TO THE PROJECT PARTICIPANTS (CITY OF BOULDER, LEFT HAND WATER
DISTRICT, LONGS PEAK WATER DISTRICT, AND TOWN OF FREDERICK),
CONSISTING OF A NORTH-SOUTH ALIGNMENT TO SERVE THE LEFT HAND WATER
DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF BOULDER, AND AN EAST-WEST ALIGNMENT
BRANCHING FROM THE NORTH-SOUTH PIPELINE TO SERVE THE LONGS PEAK
WATER DISTRICT AND TOWN OF FREDERICK, ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN
NORTHEASTERN BOULDER COUNTY (ENTERING BOULDER COUNTY FROM THE NORTH
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST. OF N. 83*^ STREET AND RUNNING SOUTH PAST
THE CITY OF LONGMONT TO THE BOULDER RESERVOIR, WITH THE EASTERN
PIPELINE BRANCHING TO EXTEND ALONG VERMILLION ROAD BEGINNING
APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILE WEST OF N. 87™ STREET AND EXTENDING EAST TO
COITNTY LINE ROAD), IN SECTIONS 1, 12, 13, 25, AND 36 OF RANGE 3N,
TOWNSHIP VOW; SECTIONS 1, 12, 13, 23, 24, 26, 34, AND 35 OF RANGE
2N, TOWNSHIP 70W; SECTION 3 0F| RANGE IN, TOWNSHIP 70W; SECTIONS 7,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, AND 31 OF RANGE
3N, TOWNSHIP 69W; AND SECTION 6 OF RANGE 2N, TpWNSHIP 69W,
UNINCORPORATED BOULDER COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Boulder ("the Board") has duly approved and adopted regulations to
designate areas and activities of state interest and to govern the
administration of any designated activities and areas of state
interest in unincorporated Boulder County pursuant to Article 65.1
of Title 24, as amended, commonly referred to as House Bill 1041
("the 1041 Regulations"), which are codified as Article 8 of the
Boulder County Land.Use Code ("the Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, the 1041 Regulations designate the following
activities of state interest which require application for and
approval of a County permit, all as further set forth in the
Regulations:
(1) Site selection and construction of major
new domestic water and sewage treatment
systems, and major extension of existing
domestic water and sewage treatment systems,
as defined in Sections 25-9-102(5)
("wastewater treatment plant"), 25-9-102(6)
("water supply system"), and 25-9-102(7)
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.169
("water )treatment plant"), C.R.S. (see
Sections 24-65.1-104(5) and 24-65.1-203
(1) (a)); and
(2) Efficient utilization of municipal and
industrial water projects (see Section 24-
65.1-203(1)(h)); and
WHEREAS, the 1041 Regulations also designate areas of state
interest constituting flood hazard and geologic hazard areas,
which portions of the subject project/activity of state interest
involved here will cross; and
WHEREAS, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
acting by and through the Southern Water Supply Project Water
Activity Enterprise ("Applicant"), has applied to the County for a
1041 ("state interest") permit to construct a buried raw water
pipeline ("Southern Water Supply Pipeline II"), to transport Windy
Gap/Colorado-Big Thompson supplies from Carter Lake in Larimer
County, into and through unincorporated Boulder County, to serve
the project/enterprise participants (City of Boulder, Left Hand
Water District, Longs Peak Water District, and Town of Frederick)
for the purposes of improving water quality, providing year-round
supply, and meeting increased demand; and
WHEREAS, the Boulder County portion of the new pipeline is
proposed to run along the Applicant's preferred alternative route
which is generally described in the caption to this Resolution,
above, and affects unincorporated lands located in the Estate
Residential, Rural Residential, and Agricultural Zoning Districts;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is the second such pipeline to
be constructed in Boulder County by the Applicant, with the
original Southern Water Supply Pipeline having been built in 1995,
though the original pipeline was not reviewed under the County's
1041 Regulations since the Board of County Commissioners ("the
Board") determined that the project was substantially initiated
before the 1041 Regulations' effective date in January, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of a main north-south
pipeline route, along with the so-called "Eastern Turnout" which is
a smaller pipeline branching off from the main route to head east
to the Boulder County-Weld County line; and
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.170
WHEREAS, the City of Boulder would own 25 of the total 45
cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity of the new pipeline, with the
Left Hand Water District to own 11 cfs, the Longs Peak Water
District'to own 3 cfs, and the Town of Frederick to own 6 cfs; and
WHEREAS, in order to convey the 45 cfs capacity required by
the project participants, a' 45-inch-diameter pipe will generally be
necessary, though as water is diverted from the main pipe the size
of the pipe required would' diminish; and
WHEREAS, where the proposed pipeline enters Boulder Coiinty at
the northern County line a 45-inch-diameter pipe would be
installed, and" extended south to the point where the Eastern
Turnout diverts water from the main pipeline, with a 36-inch-
diameter pipe then being run south from the Eastern Turnout to the
Left Hand Water District's Dodd Water Treatment Plant, from which
the point south to the City of Boulder's water treatment plant the
pipeline would be 30 inches in diameter; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Turnout is proposed to be constructed
using 24-inch to 26-inch-diameter pipe; and
WHEREAS, construction of the project requires not only that
the Applicant secure a permanent easement for the pipeline and its
appurtenances, but also that enough of a construction corridor be
obtained to provide adequate space for the various components- of
the construction, with the total construction corridor to be made
up of a combination of permanent easements, temporary construction
easements, and use of existing rights of way; and
WHEREAS, the alternatives analysis provided by the Applicant
for the southern portion"of the main pipeline route (which, unlike
the northern portion, does not use the existing easement of the
original Southern Water Supply Pipeline), considers three potential
alternative alignments, in addition to the Applicant's proposed
(preferred) alignment for this pipeline portion; and
WHEREAS, construction of the pipeline is. anticipated to begin
between 2014 and 2015, with construction generally proceeding from
north to south, though seasonal constraints may, require some
construction to be done out- of sequence; and
WHEREAS, the pace for pipeline construction likely will range
between 200 to 400 feet per day, with the rate significantly
slowing in areas where the corridor is constrained by features such
as stream crossings (where construction is expected to take 7-14
days), or at other locations (such as highway or road crossings)
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.171
where'boring methods rather than trenching methods may be required;
and
WHEREAS, the success of long-term surface restoration
following construction depends in large part on the care taken
during the excavation process, to separate topsoil from subsoil cind
stockpile the layers so that they may be replaced in their proper
order during the backfill portion of the project, so that the
mixing of less productive soils with productive soils can be
avoided; and
WHEREU^S, the above-described water pipeline project was
processed and reviewed as Boulder County Land Use Docket #SI-11-
0001 ("the Docket" )v, all as further set forth in the written
memoranda and recommendations of the County Land Use Department
Planning Staff to the Board dated January 10, May 24, and June 21,
2012, with their attachments (collectively, "the Staff
Recommendation"); and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2012, as continued to April 17 and
June 21, 2012, the Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on the
Docket ("the Public Hearing"), at which time the Board considered
the Staff Recommendation as well as the documents and testimony
presented by the County Land Use Department Planning Staff,
representatives of the Applicant and the project participants, a
representative of the City of Longmont, and several members of the
public, all as reflected on the official record of the Public
Hearing; and
WHEREAS, based upon the Public Hearing, the Board finds that
the Docket (specifically, as proposed by the Applicant, including
its preferred alternative ("Alternative 1") for the southern
portion of the main pipeline route) , meets the applicable criteria
for a peimit pursuant to the 1041 Regulations, and can be approved,
subject to the conditions imposed' below which the Board finds are
reasonable conditions capable of effectively mitigating the impacts
of the proposed water pipeline project as identified on the record
of the Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, in reaching this conclusion, the Board finds, based
on the entire record of the Public Hearing, that given the
conditions of approval proposed in the May 24 and June 21 Staff
Recommendation, as reviewed and revised by the Board at the June
21, 2012 Public Hearing, the project can satisfy the applicable
1041 criteria regarding preservation of productive agricultural
land and compliance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, and
finds further that the project participants possess the requisite
financial capability to undertake the project; and
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.172
WHEREAS, the proposed project thus meets the above-referenced
1041 requirements, which the initial January 10 Staff
Recommendation had found were not fulfilled, and the Docket is
authorized to proceed in accordance with the conditions of this
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the findings made in this
Resolution, above, as supported by. the record of the Public
Hearing, BE IT RESOLVED that the Docket is hereby approved, subject
to the following conditions:
General Approval Conditions:
1'. The Applicant shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and
commitments . of record and in the file for' the Docket,
including but not limited to the prevention of degradation to
environmental resources, the restoration of.the surface to
preconstruction conditions, the minimization of impacts to
recreation facilities, and the preservation of cultural
resources.
2. The Applicant shall provide the public with means to find
information about the project and have questions answered by
the Applicant, The .Applicant shall create a website related
to the project and shall notice that website to impacted
property owners. County agencies; and Fire Districts. An
updated schedule and construction phasing plan shall be
maintained on this website,. In addition, the Applicant shall
create a hotline where the public may raise concerns or ask
questions and expected a response within 24 hours.
3. Engineering and construction plans for 50% and 95% project
completion must be submitted for review and approval by the
County Land Use, Parks and Open Space, and Transportation
Departments prior to permit issuances. Final plans shall
include, but not be limited to, a staging plan, temporary and
permanent erosion control plans, stormwater management plan,
and fugitive dust control plan.
4. All phases of construction shall be done in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations,
including fulfilling all legal obligations to identify,
protect, and re-establishi public and private survey markers
and monuments that exist within proximity to the construction
area, and these conditions of approval. Prior to any
construction-related activity associated with^ any individual
phase of pipeline construction, the Applicant shall meet with
County Land Use,- Transportation and Parks and Open Space
personnel to ensure all the necessary conditions related to
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.173
each phase of construction have been completed and all permits
have been obtained.
Easements, Permissions, emd Other Permits:
5. Prior to any construction activities or issuance of any
permits, the Applicant shall obtain all easements or other
property rights and approvals necessary for the proposal,
including crossing agreements or otherwise satisfying the
requirements of all ditch companies impacted by the pipeline
construction. The Applicant shall provide the County Land
Use, Parks and Open Space, and Transportation Departjnents with
GIS shapefiles showing the finalized full length of the
pipeline route. The Applicant shall provide detailed
information (on a parcel/property specific basis or pipeline
segment basis) regarding the associated easement widths and
types (permanent versus construction) and shall identify the
linear footage of pipeline construction that will parallel
Boulder County road.rights-of-way, as .well as identify any
areas where the construction will encroach into the rights-of-
way.
6. Any activity involving existing Public Service Company right-
of-way will require Public Service Company approval.
Encroachments across Public Service Company's easements must
be reviewed for safety standards, operational and maintenance
clearances, and liability issues, and be acknowledged with a
Public Service Company License Agreement to be executed with
the property owner.
7. Development within mapped floodplains will rec[uire a separate
floodplain development permit, when the Applicant proposes an
open cut to place the pipeline across the stream channel, or
install permanent structures that extend above the current
ground surface within the floodplain boundaries.
8. Prior to any construction" activities, the Applicant must
obtain federal Endangered Species Act clearances for
threatened and endangered species, including Preble's meadow
jumping mouse, Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies' tresses
orchid) and Gaura neomexicana coloradensis (Colorado butterfly
plant), through the entire length of the pipeline. Any
necessary Spiranthes field su2rveys should follow USFWS
protocols as to timing windows.
r
9. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted to ensure
that construction of the project is in compliance with
applicable federal regulations. Wetland delineations, defined
and required by the US Army Corps of Engineers, may be needed
on some properties; such delineations shall be completed in
the proper season. Additionally the Applicant shall review
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.174
Colorado SB 40 (regarding wildlife certification from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) when an agency of the
state plans construction in any stream or its bank or
tributaries) and ensure that certification requirements are
being met as applicable.
10. All practicable methods (including watering, re-vegetation,
synthetic cover, and/or chemical stabilization) shall be used
to minimize fugitive particulates. The contractor will be
responsible for developing and implementing a fugitive dust
control plan. The plan shall be submitted and approved by
Boulder County Health and/br the Colorado Division of Public
Health and Environment prior to construction-related
activities.
11. The Applicant shall obtain a storm water discharge and
construction dewatering permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment for construction at drainage
crossings. These permits will include the preparation of a
•Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to prevent storm water runoff and sediment in
disturbed areas from reaching nearby waterways or otherwise
leaving the site. BMPs will be consistent with the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District's Urban Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual, Volume 3. Typical measures employed may
include detention basins, silt fences, hay bales, wattles, and
hydro mulch. These measures will deflect runoff, collect
sediment, and allow infiltration. Storm.water and erosion
control measures will be carefully monitored during
construction and examined after each storm event to ensure
their effectiveness. All project access points shall
incorporate vehicle-tracking devices to prevent tracking onto
adjacent roads.
12. Prior to construction-related activities and through project
completion, the Applicant shall comply with all adopted fire
codes, and in addition shall provide the final route alignment
and schedule to the Fire Districts. The Applicant shall
communicate with the Fire Districts regarding potential
impacts to emergency response routes, including but not
limited to road or lane closures.. The Applicant shall ensure
that - a contact person is desicfnated with whom the
representatives of the Fire District may communicate during
the construction of the project.
County Rights-of-way:
13. When construction activity is taking place within Boulder
County rights-of-way, a Utility Construction Permit, is
required. The Applicant shall abide by the Utility
Construction Standards and comply with the conditions of the
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.175
utility Construction Permit, including but not limited to
restrictions on hours of operation. The Applicant should also
note that when construction activity is parallel to Boulder
County rights-of-way, the rights-of-way shall not be utilized
for any construction-related activity including, but not
limited to, stockpiling of material, staging construction
materials, and parking for workers or construction vehicles,
unless the use of the right-of-way has been approved under a
Utility Construction Permit,
14, A preconstruction meeting is required prior to the
commencement of construction activities. At this meeting, the
hours of work, access points, snow removal in the construction
zone, traffic management and traffic control and construction
and inspection schedules will be finalized.
15. The Applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan and Traffic
Management Plan for review and approval by the County Engineer
prior to the initiation of any construction-related activity.
The items addressed in these plans should include, but are
not limited to, traffic control devices/personnel, i.e.
warning signs, flaggers, traffic control supervisors, etc.,
any specific delay times, adjacent neighboring property owner
notifications, use and placement of any message boards, and
s imilar i tems.
16. As part of any Traffic Control Plan, the Applicant shall
identify all proposed access points for ingress/egress to the
project from County rights-of-way. Where possible, the
Applicant should utilize existing roads, driveways and other
access points. The Applicant will be required to submit a
schedule of construction traffic detailing information that
should include, but not be limited to, the amount of traffic
trips generated during construction of the proposed
facilities, type of equipment/vehicles accessing the County
Road, anticipated haul routes, period of time (i,e, "x" number
of days, weeks) it will take to bring in any and all equipment
for construction of the proposed facilities, placement of
excess haul material, and the like,
17, Heavy equipment traffic will be subject to any and all weight
limit restrictions along adjacent roadways, and the Applicant
will be responsible for repair of the adjacent roads should
there be any damage as identified by the County Engineer, If
necessary, the Applicant will need to obtain
Oversize/Overweight Pearmits from the appropriate
jurisdictions,
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.176
18. The Applicant should note that any construction within the
rights-of-way or damage to the right's-of-way resulting from
construction activities related to this project will recjuire
restoration to the pre-construction conditions. The pre-
construction conditions shall be documented by photograph or
video and submitted to the County Transportation Department,
If photographic documentation of pre-existing conditions is
not provided, restoration will be to the level specified by
the County Engineer. Furthermore, any disturbance of the
actual paved portion of the roadway, including the shoulders,
will require a full-width overlay. Road closures should be
avoided where possible and the Applicant will be required to
provide emergency vehicle and residential access to adjacent
properties at all times,
19. All crossings of paved roadways shall be bored beneath the
roadway surface. Any proposed road crossings by open cut
shall flow fill to a depth of 2-feet of the surface.
20. When crossing or encroaching into Boulder County rights-of-
way, all existing utilities shall be Identified, which will
include the depth of each utility, type of utility, and
proximity of proposed cori^struction to all existing utilities.
The Applicant will be required to locate, identify and show
all existing utilities in the Boulder County rights-of-way.
Project Coordination and Oversight:
21. The Applicant will be required to fund a project overseer,
retained by the County, to monitor and inspect the project and
ensure compliance with permit conditions and county
requirements. This overseer must be both independent of the
primary construction contractor and project engineer and have
the authority to alter, direct and/or stop any activity that
will result in adverse environmental or safety conditions or
violates the conditions of the permit. County approval, or
accepted construction standards. The project overseer shall
not exercise its authority arbitrarily, and, prior'to ordering
any work stoppage, shall consult with the Applicant's
construction manager in an attempt to obtain corrective
action. The Applicarit may request that the Land Use Director,
in consultation with applicable Coimty departments, review any
work stoppage ordered by the project overseer.
The project overseer/inspector shall provide reports to the
Land Use and Transportation Department on a weekly basis
during construction activity. Weekly reports shall consist of
a diary of observations throughout the construction process"
and progress.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.177
22. In Addition, the Applicant shall fund an individual retained
by the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department (POS),
to represent the County as landowner during construction and
reclamation on County open space lands (including fee-owned,
conservation easement-encumbered, trail easement areas, etc.)
to ensure that the Applicant addresses any construction and
reclamation issues promptly and adequately to the County's
satisfaction.
Natural Resource, Leuid, Wildlife, and Agricultural Protection:
23, The Applicant shall route the pipeline within or along road
rights-of-way in areas where the County open space lands have
critical wildlife habitat, agricultural lands of high
productivity, or other important characteristics identified by
the County that may be compromised by pipeline construction.
The Applicant shall work cooperatively with the Parks and Open
Space and Transportation Departments to route the pipeline
through any affected County open space properties in such a
way as to minimize impacts to those properties.
24. The Applicant shall use cutoff trenches and cutoff walls
wherever the pipeline will cross under or near any water, such
as any irrigation ditch, stream, river, wetland, pond or other
water body.
25. The Applicant shall design construction windows and plan
construction schedules around sensitive times for agricultural
and open space lands. For example:
a. Work on County agricultural,open space lands should only
occur from September to the following mid-late March to
minimize impacts on crops and the growing season. The
Applicant shall notify POS each year before August
regarding which properties the Applicant will be working
on during that year's September-to-March window. This
will enable POS to alert agricultural lessees before they
make fall and winter investments in those properties.
(For example, POS will need to notify dry land farmers
not to plant winter wheat in August and September in
areas that will be affected by the Applicant's
activities.) This will also give POS the opportunity to
provide the Applicant with any necessary, specific
requirements to protect and restore the affected
properties,
b. Work on ecologically important lands should likewise only
occur between September and the following mid-late March.
This will give POS the opportunity to provide the
Applicant with specific requirements to protect and
restore the affected properties.
c. Work should also only occur outside of nesting and
migratory bird seasons, e.g., the osprey platform on the
10
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.178
south side of Lagerman Reservoir (if that route is
approved) should only occur during the window from
September 1st to March 14th, and work at the Lohr and
Bragg-Spangler properties should only occur during the
window from July 16th to May 14th,
26, The Applicant shall meet these general requirements from POS
on County lands:
a. The Applicant'shall follow specific POS 'requirements for
restoring agricultural lands and ecologically valuable
lands, which have separate protocols. General guidelines
are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. POS staff
will provide specific requirements for specific
properties when the Applicant's site-specific planning is
imderway. Specific requirements may include, but may not
necessarily be limited to, seed mix requirements
appropriate for restoring the affected properties, if POS
deems that necessary.
b. The Applicant shall obtain POS approval for reclamation
and restoration procedures for all affected County open
space properties. The Applicant shall also allow for POS
oversight of the Applicant's maintenance and weed control
activities following reclamation and restoration,
c. The Applicant shall pay POS for damages if restoration
work does not restore the affected properties to their
original conditions (or better) within a period of time
acceptable to POS, in its sole discretion,
d. The foregoing requirements (a-c) shall be incorporated
into any new easements the Applicant" may need across any
County open space lands to be affected by the pipeline,
and the Applicant shall compensate the County for those
easements,
27, The Applicant: shall provide POS with up-to-date GIS shapefiles
showing the proposed full length of t:he pipeline route from
the north Boulder County line to the terminus of the pipeline
and along the eastern portion of the pipeline before beginning
negotiations with, POS' about easements across County open space
properties, and at regular intervals during negotiations to
keep POS informed of the intended specific pipeline route
through County open space properties,- The data shall show
existing easement lengths and widths, as well as new temporary
and permanent easements needed and their respective widths,
The County's granting'of new easements over County open space,
including through private properties covered by County-held
conservation easements, shall be contingen't upon compensation
to POS and shall be subject to property-specific conditions to
minimize damages and produce prompt restoration.
11
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.179
28, The Applicant shall work with the Boulder County Parks and
Open Space Department on the timing, location, and phasing of
construction of sections of the pipeline that coincide with
the trail corridors shown in the approved Lagerman-Imel-.AHI
Open Space Complex Management Plan, In general, these
sections are located between Nelson Road and Oxford Road.
Since the timing of pipeline construction is unknown, if the
trail is constructed prior to installation of the pipeline,
the Applicant shall replace the trail to the same or better
pre-installation conditions following pipeline installation.
If the pipeline is constructed before the trail is
constructed, the Applicant shall make every effort possible to
construct the pipeline within these corridors and then shall
build the trail on top of the pipeline. The Applicant shall
construct or reconstruct these trail sections to the Parks and
Open Space Department's specifications and satisfaction,
29, In order to ensure existing and new active raptor nests are
not disturbed, raptor surveys shall be conducted prior to
construction and recommended seasonal and spatial buffer zones
shall be established and maintained,
30, Black tailed prairie dog colonies exist throughout Boulder
County, If the route requires construction through prairie
dog colonies, the prairie dogs should either be: (1) passively
relocated or dispersed (i.e., temporarily removed from the
construction zone by fencing, barriers, or other appropriate
measures, so that the prairie dogs may return to their
original habitat when construction/reclamation is concluded),
with this option being acceptable so long as prairie dogs are
not temporarily dispersed into new territory/habitat; (2)
permanently moved to another location alive; or (3) humanely
euthanized before onset of construction. A permit must be
obtained from the Colorado "Division of Wildlife prior to
implementation of any trap/transplant effort. Burrowing owl
surveys are required if destruction or poisoning of prairie
dog burrows will occur between March 15 and October 31 of any
year,
31, The removal of large mature trees shall be avoided, and other
trees removed in construction shall be replaced at a 3 to 1
level, A tree removal and replacement plan shall be provided
with the 90% construction drawings: this plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Land Use Department prior to any
construction activities,
32, A reclamation plan shall be developed on a site- specific
basis so that lands disturbed by the construction of the
pipeline ' shall be fully restored to pre-construction
12
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.180
conditions. The reclamation plan shall include a description
of the current condition of the -lands to be disturbed
sufficient to enable an assessment of adequate post-project
restoration. Documentation of pre-disturbance conditions for
agricultural lands shall include a detailed description of the
agricultural operations/practices, irrigation and drainage
systems, soil composition and profiles, and any other features
pertinent to agricultural productivity. The Specifications
for Soil Handling and Reclamation provided by Parks and Open
Space for Coiinty properties (see Exhibit A to this Resolution)
may be used for guidance on private properties, in addition to
the Sample Reclamation Plan in the application materials;
however, the final plan should reflect the unique nature of
the individual property and the goals of the property owner.
Invasive Species:
33, If heavy equipment to be used for the project has previously
been used in another stream, river, lake, reservoir, pond, or
wetland, appropriate disinfection practices are necessary
prior to construction to prevent the spread of New Zealand mud
snails, zebra mussels, quagga mussels, whirling disease, and
any other aquatic invasive species into the drainage. These
practices are also necessary after project completion, prior
to this equipment being used in another stream, river, lake,
reservoir, pond, or wetland,
34, The application materials describe the plan for preventing the
spread of noxious weed species. The Applicant shall work with
Boulder County's weed specialist when developing and
implementing any containment or revegetation work to ensure
that noxious weeds do not spread from the project site, or
become established in areas disturbed by construction,
A motion to' approve the Docket (#SI-11-0001), subject to the
conditions stated above, was made by Commissioner Toor, seconded by
Commissioner Gardner, and passed by a 3-0 vote of the Board,
13
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.181
Adopted as a final decision of the Board on this Iday
of July, 2012,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE
COUNTY OF BOULDER
Cindy Domonico, Chair
Will Toor, Vice Chair
DebGardner, Commissioner
ATTEST:
Clerk to theBoard
14
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.182
Parks and Open Space
5201 St. Vrain Road ' Longmont, Colorado 80503
303.678.6200 • Fax: 303.678 6177 • www.bouldercounty.org
Reclamation
Of primary concern to the Parks & Open Space Department is the long-term impact of the
project on the composition and productivity of the plant communily within die chosen
pipeline alignment Parks & Open Space has reviewed the Reclamation section of the 1041
permit application (pages 11-14 of Attachment 2-1041 Application Addendum, dated August
2011) and appreciates NCWCD's recognition of these impacts and willingness to reclaim and
revegetate tiie site to its pre-existing condition. In particular. Parks & Open Space supports
the following terms as committed to by NCWCD and outiined in the application:
1, Hiring an independent revegetation contractor that will be Involved in project
planning, construction meetings, revegetation efforts, and remedial actions.
2, Preparing and following a site specific revegetation/reclamation plan that is prepared
with the help of and receives final approval of the relevant property owner.
f
3, Commitment to taking necessary remedial actions following construction and
reclamation to the satisfaction of the landowner
Parks & Open Space also generally supports the "Sample Reclamation Plan", which is
provided in the 1041 application. Tliis plan would need to be completed for each County-
owned property managed by the department and approved by the Parks & Open Space
Department. Each site will have its own unique pre-existing conditions including plant
species composition, soil types and conditions, water management and infrastructure, and
land uses, and eadi will have its own unique reclamation needs and desired post-reclamation
conditions. At the appropriate time following project approval. Parks & Open Space is
willing to work with NCWCD and their revegetation contractor on preparation of these site-
specific reclamation plans.
Attached we provide some general specifications for reclamation/revegetation that will be
required on all County-owned land. These specifications may also be applicable to other
lands within the pipeline corridor. Please note site-specific reclamation details will be
worked out in the above mentioned site-specific reclamation plans.
Cindy Oomenico County Commissioner Ben Pearlman County Commissioner Will Toor County Commissioner
Page 8 of 16
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.183
• t ^- '.J-.'• Specifications for Soil Handling and Reclamation
On Boulder County Parks & Open Space Properties
Including Irrigated Cropland, Dryland Cropland, and Rangeland
For the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's
Southern Water Supply Project II
October 2011
This document addresses procedures for soil handling and reclamation following any impacts of
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Southem Water Supply Project II. The
specifications are requirements for work on Boulder County Parks & Open Space properties, but
may also be adopted for private properties within the project alignment.
The following procedures are general and provide the minimum requirements for reclamation.
Specific reclamation procedures shall be developed in site-specific Reclamation Plans completed
for each property within the approved alignment The Reclamation Plans will be prepared in
conjunction with and approved by Parks & Open Space.
The following procedures can be summarized into the following categories:
1. Topsoil Removal and Storage
2. Backfilling, Grading, and Ripping
3. Relieving Compaction
4. Topsoil Redistribution
5. Seedbed Preparation
6. Seeding
7. Mulch
8. Post- Reclamation Weed Control
9. Timeframe and Success of Reclamation
An Inspection Personnel funded by NCWCD and hired by Boulder County will oversee and be
involved with the entire reclamation process. ,
To ensure compliance with all reclamation requirements, a pre-construction meeting will be held
with the contractor prior to each phase of the project.
Before any construction^activities proceed, the construction area should be delineated with a
temporary, orange construction fence on the boundary between the construction easement and
remaining Parks and Open Space land, and silt fencing to serve as a visual reference for the
construction area. All traffic and construction activity shall be restricted to within the easement
area only. Areas impacted outside of the easement area shall be restored to the Inspection
Personnel's specifications. The orange construction fence and silt fence shall remain until the
project is finished.
Page 9 of 16
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.184
1.0 Topsoil Removal
^ After the construction area and its access have been delineated, the vegetation should be mowed
to a maximum height of 4 inches over the area to be disturbed. If the amount of vegetation
exceeds what can be incorporated into the soil without interfering with establishing a proper
seedbed, then excess vegetation shall be removed.
Topsoil should be removed by a front-end loader (preferred method) or grader. Under no
circumstances should topsoil be removed under wet soil moisture conditions. The County's
Inspection Personnel can provide assistance in determining topsoil depth and proper removal.
The depth of the topsoil layer may vary. Topsoil may be delineated from the subsoil by a higher
organic matter content (usually, but not always, indicated by a darker color) and a relatively
loose and friable soil structure. The Inspection Personnel should be present at the site as topsoil
removal is initiated to determine average topsoil depth. Typically, topsoil is between 4 and 8
inches in depth. Topsoil should be placed to one side of the construction area and demarcated
with a silt fence to avoid impacts.
Any subsoil removed should be placed separate from the topsoil. Under no circumstances shall
subsoil be mixed with topsoil, and subsoil shall not be placed on top of the topsoil. The
topsoil shall be protected from contamination by subsoil material, weeds, ete. and from
compaction by construction equipment and vehicles.
2.0 Backfilling and Grading
Contractor shall replace backfill material-as close as possible to the depth from which it was
removed. Compaction of the backfill must prevent settling that will cause the profile of the
disturbed areas to be significantly lower than the grade of undisturbed adjacent land. Also,
overall compaction of the top 24" of the disturbed area should not be restrictive to root growth of
plants.
3.0 Relieving Compaction
Following compaction of the backfill, the Inspection Personnel will determine if ripping and
chiseling is necessary to relieve soil compaction in the root zone to accommodate root growth
and soil water storage capacity. If it is deemed necessary, the contractor must rip and chisel the
soil to relieve compaction. Contractor must rip the entire length of the pipeline that is compacted
to a minimum^ depth of 18 inches (deeper is desirable) with no more than 20 inches between
ripped intervals. Contractor shall follow ripping with chiseling to a minimum depth of 12
inches, with no" more than 10 inches between chiseled intervals. At this point, depending upon
the size of soil clods left after ripping, discing, culti-packing or other operations may be required
to reduce the size of the clods. Contractor shall consult with the Inspection Personnel to inspect
the site at this time to make that determination.
Final grading of areas that are irrigable cropland is of particular importance. The overall grade
of land to be irrigated must provide for uniform coverage by flood irrigation.
Page 10 of 16'
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.185
4,0 Redistribution of Topsoil and Application of Amendments
The salvaged topsoil should be redistributed uniformly over the disturbed areas, minimizing
cornpaction by equipment. Topsoil redistribution shall not occur under wet soil conditions.
If topsoil is contaminated, compacted or otherwise improperly handled, topsoil should be
amended with compost at a rate of 3 cubic yards per 1000 square feet of disturbed area to
provide a suitable seedbed. Compost shall consist of at least 40 % organic matter, with a pH not
to exceed 8.0, and soluble salts not greater than 10 Mmhos/cm. The carbon to nitrogen ratio of
the compost shall be between 10:1 and 20:1. Compost shall be incorporated evenly throughout
topsoil.
5.0 Seedbed Preparation
Following redistribution of topsoil and application of amendment, the disturbed areas shall be
chiseled again to a minimum depth of 10 inches, with no more than a 10 inch interval between
chiseled furrows.
On disturbed areas, further seedbed preparation such as discing, harrowing and/or firming
operations will be necessary to reduce soil clods that are greater than 4 inches in diameter, and to
provide a seedbed that is firm and friable.
Irrigated and Dryland Cropland
On cropland, final grading and seedbed preparation will be performed by the agricultural tenant
on the property. NCWCD shall reimburse the tenant at a negotiated hourly rate to cover
equipment and operator time. Reimbursement shall be made upon presentation of an invoice to
NCWCD by the agricultural tenant.
6,0 Seeding
Irrigated and Dryland Cropland .
The agricultural tenant will perform seeding operations on irrigated and dryland cropland.
NCWCD shall reimburse tenant for any seed that has been planted prior to disturbance by
NCWCD's construction activities and for seeding operations at a negotiated hourly rate. All
other seed on cropland will be provided by Boulder County or tenant. Reimbursements for
seeding operations shall be made upon preseritation of an invoice to NCWCD by the agricultural
tenant.
Rangeland
Seed mix and planting rates for rangelands will vary amongst sites. An example seed mix and
planting rate specification are provided below. Seed should be provided by NCWCD or its
contractor according to specifications for each property. Each bag of seed must have its original
seed tag attached at the time of delivery and should remain attached until the seed is used. All
seed tags must be saved and provided to the Inspection Personnel.
Page 11 of 16
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.186
Seed shall be drilled with a drill that is capable of placing the specified seed at the specified rate,
at a '/2" - 3/4" depth. The drill should have an 8" or less drill row spacing and be equipped with
packer wheels to firm the soil civer the drill row. Dragging chains behind the drill to cover seed
is not an acceptable substitute. Seed drills must be clean of seed from previous seeding jobs
prior to any seeding on County-owned lands.
Seeding should be completed between October 1 and March 31. In between these dates a cover
crop may be used, until the appropriate time to' seed specified mix. Seeding shall not occur in
extremely windy conditions, or when the soil is frozen or^wet
Areas that cannot be drilled may be broadcast seeded. Hydroseeding is not acceptable. The
specified seeding rate in these areas shall be doubled. Broadcast seed shall be raked, harrowed
or otherwise-covered by soil to a depth of 1/2" to 3/4".
Example Rangeland Seed Mix
PLS/
Species ' Common Name - Variety Acre
Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama. Native 0.48
Bouteioua curtipendula Sideoats grama, Vaughn 2.33
Buchloe dactyloides Buf^lograss, Native 3.73
Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass, Pryor 4.11
Pascropyrum smithii Western wheatgrass, Arriba 8.32
Stipa viridula Green Needlegrass, Lodorm 2.31
Total PLS/Acre 21,27
PLS ib/ac = Pure Live Seed pounds per acre
2^0 Mulch
Irrigated and Dryland Cropland
Mulching is not necessary on irrigated or dtyland cropland. ^
Rangeland
After seeding has been completed, mulch should be applied within 24 hours after seeding to all
rangeland seeded areas to protect the seed and conserve soil moisture, which will aid in seedling
germination and establishment. The following types of mulch are recommended for 3:1 slopes
or flatter. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will need additional erosion control.
A. Colorado Certified Weed Free Hay or Straw Mulch: Applied evenly at a rate of 3000
to 4000 lbs. per acre over the seeded areas. Hay or straw may be crimped in or sprayed
with a tackifier according to the project plans. Guara gum tackifier is recommended.
Page 12 of 16
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.187
B. Wood fiber hydromulch with guara gum tackifier: A standard rate of 2000 lbs. per
acre of hydromulch and 80 lbs. per acre of guara gum tackifier will be appropriate for
most projects unless othervyise specified on the project plans. The operator shall spray
apply the slurry of wood fiber mulch according to the manufacture's specifications in a
uniform manner over the designated seeded areas. Seed shall not be incorporated and
applied simultaneously with the hydromulch slurry.
8,0 Post-Reclamation Weed Control
To prevent damage to young seedlings, no herbicides will be used through the first growing
season following seeding. Reclaimed areas with slopes not exceeding 3:1 will be mowed to
prevent flowering and weed seed development. Hand methods will be implemented on steep
slopes. Mowing will be undertaken no more than twice during each growing season to prevent
desiccation of the grass seedlings with an ideal mowing height of 6 to 8 inches.
9.0 Timeframe and Success of Reclamation
Irrigated and Dryland Cropland
The reclamation success of irrigated and dryland croplands largely depends on the soil condition
post-reclamation and is determined by the level of productivity of the crop grown within
•reclaimed area versus the crop productivity within surrounding undisturbed areas. If the site is
properly reclaimed, then reclamation success should occur in year-1 or 2 following reclamation.
Each year the site will be reviewed by Parks & Open Space's Resource Management and/or
Agricultural Staff, at which time NCWCD will be advised as to the management practices that
are expected to ensure reclamation success. If within that time period the reclamation process is
deemed successful by Parks & Open Space, the obligation incurred by the responsible party will
be released. Reclamation success is defined by the level of crop productivity compared to
surrounding undisturbed locations. Reclamation will be considered a success if the difference in
productivity between disturbed and undisturbed locations is less than 10%.
Rangeland
Reclamation with native and some non-native species requires three to five years to determine
stand establishment and productivity. It should be expected that early successional species (such
as summer and winter annuals) will occupy the area before the desired perennial stand
dominates.
Each year the site will be reviewed by Parks & Open Space's Resource Management and/or
Agricultural Staff, at which time NCWCD will be advised as to the management practices that
are expected to ensure reclamation success. If within that time period the reclamation process is
deemed successful by Parks & Open Space, the obligation incurred by the responsible party will
be released. Reclamation success is defined by the percentage of desired species compared to
weedy annual broadleaf species (which usually requires no less than three years). Reclamation
will be considered a success if there is 75% cover of the desired species present.
Page 13 of 16
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.188
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
32
(E) All issued permits shall require that the permittee notify all fee owners of real property to
be used in completing the approved development plan that failure of the permittee to
comply with permit conditions may result in foreclosure of a City lien.
Division 2
Permits
Section 4
Common Review Standards
2-401 Review Standards for All Applications.
In addition to the review standards for specific activities listed at Divisions 3 and 4, all
applications under these Regulations, including proposed mitigation measures, shall be evaluated
against the following general standards, to the extent applicable or relevant to the development
plan, in the Permit AuthorityCity Council’s reasonable judgment. To the extent a permit
application may not comply with a particular standard, the applicant may demonstrate
compliance with such standard by proposing mitigation measures that sufficiently offset the
extent of noncompliance.
(A) All of the provisions of the permit application procedure have been complied withThe
applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits and approvals necessary for
the proposal, including surface, mineral and water rights.
(B) The health, welfare and safety of the community members citizens of the City will be protected
and served.
(C) The proposed activity is in conformance with the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan and other
duly adopted plans of the City, or other applicable regional, state or federal land development
or water quality plan.
(D) The development plan is financially feasible. The determination of financial feasibility of the
development plan may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) The business plan submitted by the applicant.
(2) Relevant bond issue, loan and other financing approval or certifications including an
approved bond issue or bond counsel opinion.
(E) The development plan will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents
of the City.
(D) (F) The development plan is not subject to significant risk from natural or human caused
environmental hazards. The determination of risk from natural hazards to the development
plan may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Unstable slopes including landslides and rock slides.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.189
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
33
(2) Expansive or evaporative soils and risk of subsidence.
(3) Wildfire hazard areas.
(4) Floodplains.
(E) (G) The development plan will not have an significant adverse effect impact on the capability
of local governments affected by the development plan to provide local infrastructure and
services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The determination of the effects
of the development plan on local government services may include but is not limited to the
following considerations:
(1) Current and projected capacity of roads, schools, infrastructure, drainage and/or
stormwater infrastructure, housing, and other local government facilities and services
necessary to accommodate development, and the impact of the development plan upon
the current and projected capacity.
(2) Changes caused by the development plan in the cost of providing education,
transportation networks, water treatment and wastewater treatment, stormwater
drainage, channel stabilization, bridges, emergency services, or other governmental
services or facilities.
(2) (3) Need for temporary roads or other infrastructure to access serve the development
plan for construction and maintenance.
(F) (H) The development plan will not have a significant adverse effectadversely impact on the
quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. The determination of effects
impacts of the development plan on recreational opportunities and experience may include but
is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Changes to existing and projected visitor days.
(2) Changes in quality and quantity of fisheries.
(3) Changes in instream flows or reservoir levels.
(4) Changes in access to recreational resources.
(5) Changes to quality and quantity of hiking, biking, multi-use or horseback riding trails.
(6) Changes to regional open space.
(7) Changes to existing conservation easements.
(8) Changes to City parks, trails, natural areas, or recreation facilities.playgrounds,
community gardens, recreation fields or courts, picnic areas, and other City park
amenities.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.190
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
34
(G) (I) The development plan when completed will not significantly degrade adversely impact
existing visual quality. The determination of visual impaeffects of the development plan may
include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Visual changes to ground cover and vegetation, waterfalls and streams, or other natural
features.
(2) Interference with viewsheds and scenic vistas.
(3) Changes in landscape character types of unique land formations.
(4) Compatibility of structure size and color with scenic vistas and viewsheds.
(5) Changes to the visual character of regional open space.
(6) Changes to the visual character of existing conservation easements.
(7) Changes to the visual character of City parks, trails, natural areas, or recreation
facilities.
(H) (J) The development plan will not adversely impact significantly degrade air quality. The
determination of effects of the development plan on air quality may include but is not limited
to the following considerations:
(1) Changes in visibility and microclimates.
(2) Applicable air quality standards.
(3) Increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
(4) Emissions of air toxics.
(I) (K) The development plan will not significantly degradeadversely impact surface water
quality. The determination of effects impacts of the development plan on surface water quality
may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Changes to existing water quality, including patterns of water circulation, temperature,
conditions of the substrate, extent and persistence of suspended particulates and clarity,
odor, color or taste of water;
(2) Applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards.
(3) Changes in point and nonpoint source pollution loads.
(4) Increase in erosion.
(5) Changes in sediment loading to waterbodies.
(6) Changes in stream channel or shoreline stability.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.191
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
35
(7) Changes in stormwater runoff flows.
(8) Changes in trophic status or in eutrophication rates in lakes and reservoirs.
(9) Changes in the capacity or functioning of streams, lakes or reservoirs.
(10) Changes to the topography, natural drainage patterns, soil morphology and
productivity, soil erosion potential, and floodplains.
(11) Changes to stream sedimentation, geomorphology, and channel stability.
(12) Changes to lake and reservoir bank stability and sedimentation, and safety of existing
reservoirs.
(J) (L) The development plan will not significantly degradeadversely impact groundwater quality.
The determination of impactseffects of the development plan on groundwater quality may
include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Changes in aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity including
seepage losses through aquifer boundaries and at aquifer-stream interfaces.
(2) Changes in capacity and function of wells within the impact area.
(3) Changes in quality of well water within the impacted area.
(K) (M) The development plan will not significantly degradeadversely impact wetlands and
riparian areas of any size regardless of jurisdictional status. In determining impacts to
wetlands and riparian areas, the following considerations shall include but not be limited to:
(1) Changes in the structure and function of wetlands.
(2) Changes to the filtering and pollutant uptake capacities of wetlands and riparian
areas.
(3) Changes to aerial extent of wetlands.
(4) Changes in species' characteristics and diversity.
(5) Transition from wetland to upland species.
(6) Changes in function and aerial extent of floodplains.
(L) (N) The development plan shall not significantly degradeadversely impact the quality of
terrestrial and aquatic animal life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal
life, the following considerations shall include but not be limited to:
(1) Changes that result in loss of oxygen for aquatic life.
(2) Changes in flushing flows.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.192
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
36
(3) Changes in species composition or density.
(4) Changes in number of threatened or endangered species.
(5) Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including calving grounds, mating grounds,
nesting grounds, summer or winter range, migration routes, or any other habitat
features necessary for the protection and propagation of any terrestrial animals.
(6) Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning
grounds, riffle and side pool areas, flushing flows, nutrient accumulation and cycling,
water temperature, depth and circulation, stratification and any other conditions
necessary for the protection and propagation of aquatic species.
(7) Changes to the aquatic and terrestrial food webs.
(M) (O) The development plan shall not significantly degradeadversely impact the quality of
terrestrial and aquatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life,
the following considerations shall include but not be limited to:
a. Changes to habitat of threatened or endangered plant species.
b. Changes to the structure and function of vegetation, including species
composition, diversity, biomass, and productivity.
c. Changes in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirable species,
including noxious weeds.
d. Changes in threatened or endangered species.
(N) (P) The development plan will not significantly degrade oradversely impact natural habitats
and features as defined in Land DevelopmentUse Code Section 5.6.13.4.1.
(O) (Q) The development plan will not adversely impact historic resources.
(P) The development plan will not adversely impact significant trees as defined in Land
Development Code Section 5.10.1.
(Q) The development plan will not significantly deteriorate adversely impact soils and geologic
conditions. The determination of effects impacts of the development plan on soils and
geologic conditions may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Loss of topsoil due to wind or water forces.
(2) Changes in soil erodibility.
(3) Physical or chemical soil deterioration.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.193
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
37
(4) Compacting, sealing and crusting.
(R) The development plan will not cause a nuisance. The determination of nuisance impactseffects
of the development plan may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
increase in odors, dust, fumes, glare, heat, noise, vibration or artificial light.
(S) The development plan will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of, or exposures to,
hazardous materials or regulated substances. The determination of the risk of release of, or
increased exposures to, hazardous materials or regulated substances caused by the
development plan may include but is not limited to the following considerations:
(1) Plans for compliance with federal and state handling, storage, disposal, and
transportation requirements.
(2) Use of waste minimization techniques.
(3) Adequacy of spill and leak prevention and response plans.
(T) For applications requiring an evaluation of alternatives, the proposed development plan must,
to the extent reasonably feasible, be the least environmentally impactful alternative among
the alternatives analyzed.
(T) The development plan will not have negative impacts that fall disproportionately on
disproportionately impacted communities within the City considering, for example, the
distribution of impacts to the following:
a. Air quality.
b. Water quality.
c. Soil contamination.
d. Waste management.
e. Hazardous materials.
f. Access to parks, natural areas, trail and other recreational or natural amenities.
g. Nuisances.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.194
DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
38
Division 3
Regulations for Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic
Water and Sewage Treatment Systems and Major Extension of Such Systems
Section 1 General Provisions
3-101 Applicability
3-102 Purpose and Intent Designation of Site Selection and Construction of Major New
Domestic Water and Treatment Systems and Major Extension of Such Systems
Section 2 Specific Review Standards
3-201 Specific Review Standards for Major New Domestic Water or Sewage Treatment
Systems or Major Extensions
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet pg.195
Item 2
1041 Regulations
Public Comments
Packet pg.196
S:\ADMINISTRATION\Regulatory\City of Fort Collins\FC 1041 regs - 8-1-22.docx
To: Kelly Smith, City of Fort Collins
From: Brian Zick
Date: July 28, 2022
Re: City of Fort Collins Draft 1041 Regulation Review
General Comments
1.Boxelder Sanitation District has made an initial review of the draft regulations and
looks forward to subsequent meetings where the City can provide more information
on the background and intent of the regulations and how they would apply to District
projects.
2.The regulations appear to be specific to land use type projects with significant
reference to growth and impacts from growth. The District is only a service provider
and does not get involved in land use decisions and does not initiate development
activity, so it is unclear how the regulations affect the District.
3.The purpose and findings of regulations are to protect public health, which the
District is already doing at a high level.
4. The timing of those capital projects that will be subject to these regulations is not
triggered by a specific development project, but stems from long-term planning done
in a comprehensive manner.
5.The draft regulations will need further legal review and presentation to the District’s
Board of Directors, which may impact the proposed timeline established by the City.
We would like to understand, since this is a Council-initiated measure, whether the
Council will be reaching out our Board of Directors to explain its intent and
expectation of working with a fellow utility and sister local government.
6.Currently we are regulated by state and federal agencies include NPDES permitting.
7.We actively work with the regional 208 planning agency (NFRWQPA) on water
quality planning issues.
8.The cost of compliance with these regulations will have to be borne by the District’s
customers through monthly service charges. Some of the District’s customers are
City of Fort Collins residents and a portion of those are disadvantaged; those
persons would be impacted by rate increases, which would directly affect housing
affordability and other social equity issues.
9.The District is interested in determining how it can be exempt from the regulations.
10.Understanding of the master plans of all the utilities could be a better approach for
the City than trying to have regulations that duplicate existing stringent public health
regulations by higher levels of government and which will likely cause hardship for
the District and its customers.
MEMORANDUM
3201 E. Mulberry Street, Unit Q
P.O. Box 1518
Fort Collins, CO80522
Phone 970 498-0604
ITEM 2, COMMENT 1
Packet pg.197
ITEM 2, COMMENT 2
Packet pg.198
ITEM 2, COMMENT 2
Packet pg.199
ITEM 2, COMMENT 2
Packet pg.200
November 11, 2022
Fort Collins City Council
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
To: Mayor Arndt, Mayor Pro Tem Francis, and Council Members Gutowsky,
Pignataro, Canonico, Peel and Ohlson;
As a business community, we take great interest in matters that impact the
economic vitality of not just Fort Collins, but the entire region. After all, our
employees, customers, suppliers and partners are not strictly limited to political
boundaries. Preserving the character of our region and the integrity of our precious
natural resources is a vital component of our collective success. Often overlooked
is the fact that businesspeople also live here, raise families here, and make
significant investments that advance our collective well-being.
What the business community doesn’t do is build water treatment facilities,
diversion pipelines or reservoirs. We don’t expand highways (though we have
successfully lobbied for such projects). Rather, these type projects are undertaken
by government and quasi-governmental entities that exist for the purpose of
delivering vital services to the public. As such, there are very concrete and
deliberate processes under which significant infrastructure improvements are
analyzed, designed and implemented through the benefit of public input.
The product of this existing framework is evident. Environmental disturbances
that result from infrastructure placement are remediated to a level that is equal to
or superior to pre-existing conditions. We fail to see how introducing a whole new
process under 1041 Powers provides any tangible benefit to the community –
unless it’s assumed the community is better off with higher utility costs, slower
processes for meeting basic needs, or dictating the terms under which other
jurisdictions across the region are allowed to function.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 3
Packet pg.201
The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce strongly encourages Council to
reconsider imposition of 1041 Powers. Should you feel compelled to move
forward, the next best option is to extend the current moratorium at least 90 days
while City staff and Council recommit to an engagement process that was short -
circuited by special interests. In the haste to stop a single project, the collateral
damage was made to appear inconsequential. We now recognize that to be a false
narrative.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and we welcome the opportunity
to bring greater clarity to this issue while demonstrating the commitment of the
business community to strengthen and preserve a verdant, healthy environment
upon which we can all thrive.
Sincerely,
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Ann Hutchison, CAE
President & CEO
cc: Kelly DiMartino
ITEM 2, COMMENT 3
Packet pg.202
1
LAW OFFICE OF
JOHN M. BARTH
___________________________________________________
P.O. BOX 409 HYGIENE, COLORADO 80533 (303) 774-8868 BARTHLAWOFFICE@GMAIL.COM
December 19, 2022
By email to: byatabe@fcgov.com
Brad Yatabe
Assistant City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
300 La Porte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Response to Trout Raley letters of August 30 and September 16, 2022 regarding Fort
Collins Draft regulations on Area and Activities of State Interest, § 24-65.1-101 et seq.
Mr. Yatabe:
I am writing on behalf of my client, Save the Poudre, in response to two (2) letters dated
August 30 and September 16, 2022 sent to you by the law firm Trout Raley on behalf of
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (“Northern”) taking issue with language in the
City’s draft 1041 regulations. We provide this response to the two letters.
August 30, 2022 letter
Northern’s letter of August 30, 2022 takes issue with two aspects of the City’s proposed
1041 regulations, namely section 2-201 (Intergovernmental Agreements) and section 3-201
(L)(water conservation mitigation measures).
a. Section 2-201 (Intergovernmental Agreements “IGA”)
Northern first argues section 2-201 of the draft regulations allowing an IGA in lieu of a
1041 permit is not authorized under the state 1041 enabling legislation. Save the Poudre agrees
and suggests that any reference to an alternative IGA process be removed from the regulations
prior to enactment. In addition to the reasons set forth in Northern’s August 30, 2022 letter, we
also specifically take issue with the draft language of section 2-201 stating that “the approval of
any intergovernmental agreement is a legislative act…” (emphasis added).
The state 1041 enabling legislation authorizes local governments to establish a 1041
permit process for regulation activities of state interest. Local government land use permit
processes are “quasi-judicial” processes that guarantee public notice and due process rights of
participation by the local citizenry. Any final 1041 land use permits are appealable by citizens
ITEM 2, COMMENT 4
Packet pg.203
2
pursuant to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106 and are governed by the standard of review
outlined in that rule.
There is no support in the state 1041 statute allowing a local municipality to
fundamentally change the legislature’s mandated 1041 permit process to a “legislative” act, thus
depriving its citizenry of its quasi-judicial due process rights and ability to appeal under Rule
106. A change from a quasi-judicial process to a legislative process would also alter both the
procedure and standard of review of any challenge to a local 1041 decision. Accordingly, we
likewise request that section 2-201 be removed from the draft regulations prior to adoption and
that all references to an IGA be eliminated.
b. Section 3-201 (L)- water conservation mitigation measures.
Northern’s August 30, 2022 letter also argues that the City may not impose water
conservation mitigation measures on a water distribution system despite the fact that the water
diversion would be located within the City limits. We strongly disagree and recommend that you
adopt section 3-201(L) of the draft regulations.
Northern’s argument is based on a self-serving interpretation of the state 1041 law.
Notably absent from Northern’s August 30, 2022 letter is any evaluation of Colorado Supreme
Court case law interpreting the state 1041 law. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and federal
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado have stated that a local government’s power to
supervise land use extends to matters that “may have an impact on the people of the state beyond
the immediate scope of the land use project.” City and County of Denver v. Bergland, 517
F.Supp. 155 (D.Colo. 1981); City and County of Denver v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 782 P.2d 753
(Colo. 1989 en banc). Northern’s letter ignores that Section 203(1)(h) of the state 1041 law
specifically allows local governments to regulate “efficient utilization of municipal and industrial
water projects.” C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(1)(h). This is precisely what draft section 3-201(L)
does—namely, it ensures that Northern’s diversion of historically agricultural waters in Larimer
County is efficiently utilized as municipal water elsewhere. The Colorado Supreme Court has
recognized that the state 1041 law is “designed to protect Colorado’s land resources and allocate
those resources among competing uses.” City and County of Denver, 782 P.2d at 755. Further,
the Court has also recognized that the “Land Use Act gives [local governments] the power to
regulate…operation of extraterritorial waterworks projects.” Id. at 762.
We also disagree with Northern’s argument that the City cannot regulate “water
diversions” within the City limits. The state 1041 law defines the term “water distribution
system” to include definitions in “section 25-9-102(5), (6), and (7), C.R.S…” C.R.S. § 24-65.1-
104(5). In turn, C.R.S. § 25-9-102(6) defines “water distribution system” to mean “any
combination of pipes, tanks, pumps, or other facilities that delivers water from a source…to the
consumer.” It is clear that the General Assembly gave local governments broad power to
regulate water distribution systems anywhere from the “source to the consumer.” This includes
any “water diversion” that is appurtenant to the water distribution system.
Accordingly, we believe there is strong legislative and case law support for section 3-
ITEM 2, COMMENT 4
Packet pg.204
3
201(L) of the draft 1041 regulations and request that the City adopt the provision as written.
September 16, 2022 letter
The focus of Northern’s September 16, 2022 letter is a self-serving interpretation of the
Court of Appeals decision in City of Thornton v. Larimer County. Importantly, the City should
note that County’s decision to deny Thornton’s 1041 permit was upheld by the court. The City
must remember that its future decisions regarding 1041 applications will carry a presumption of
validity and the City’s interpretation of its own 1041 regulations will be given deference.
Second, none of the Thornton litigants brought an appeal of the decision to the Colorado
Supreme Court. Thus, the highest court in the State has not validated any of the Court of
Appeals findings in the Thornton decision. For the reasons stated below, we disagree with
Northern’s reading of the Thornton decision and believe several of the Court of Appeals findings
are inconsistent with prior overriding Colorado Supreme Court decisions and statutory language.
A. Northern’s September 16, 2002 letter argues that local government regulation is
“limited to the land area being disturbed by the project.” As noted above, this
argument has been specifically rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. See, City
and County of Denver v. Bergland, 517 F.Supp. 155 (D.Colo. 1981); City and
County of Denver v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 782 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1989 en
banc)(a local government’s power to supervise land use extends to matters that
“may have an impact on the people of the state beyond the immediate scope of the
land use project”).
B. For the same reasons noted above, we disagree that a local government cannot
consider “farm land dry up” in evaluating a 1041 permit application. The state
1041 law specifically allows local governments to consider “[t]he [protection of
the utility, value, and future of all lands…” C.R.S. § 24-65.1-101(1)(a).
C. The state 1041 law specifically allows local governments to consider impacts to
“privately owned land.” C.R.S. § 24-65.1-101(1)(a). Thus, we disagree with
Northern’s argument that consideration of eminent domain impacts to private
property is beyond the consideration of local governments in a 1041 permit
proceeding.
D. As noted above, a local government’s ability to regulate the siting of “water
distribution systems” extends from the “source to the consumer.” C.R.S. § 25-9-
102(6). Thus, local governments may consider water distribution system siting
alternatives that may differ from a water developer’s preferred alternative.
E. Further, applying to NISP and Fort Collins, just because some of the construction
of NISP occurs outside the City of Fort Collins’ annexed boundary, the City of
Fort Collins still has state authority to regulate any impact that will occur within
the City of Fort Collins including negative impacts to City property, wetlands and
Natural areas, habitat and riparian forests, and aquatic resources in and
surrounding the Cache la Poudre River in Fort Collins.
In summary, we urge the City to adopt strict and comprehensive regulations to
ITEM 2, COMMENT 4
Packet pg.205
4
regulate matters of state interest, including development of water distribution systems
that will have irreversible harm to the City’s great resource…the Cache la Poudre River.
s/ John Barth
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 409
Hygiene, CO 80533
(303) 774-8868
barthlawoffice@gmail.com
cc: Gary Wockner, Save the Poudre
ITEM 2, COMMENT 4
Packet pg.206
1-5-2023
My comments regarding Version 2 of the City’s Draft 1041 Regulations.
First, eminent domain is the right of the government to take property, including private property for
public use.
Examples of entities that have eminent domain powers:
Northern Water, like other water providers, stores and delivers water for irrigation, municipal, domestic
and industrial purposes. Northern Water is a public agency that contracts with the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation to build and maintain the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.
https://www.northernwater.org/about-us
The East Larimer County Water District is a pollical subdivision of the State of Colorado. ELCO has the
authority to condemn property. https://www.elcowater.org/about-us
CDOT is a Colorado state government agency. https://www.codot.gov/about
All Fort Collins residents and property should be protected under the City’s 1041 regulations. I would
like to see the City adopt 1041 regulations without geographic limitations.
Using regulations with geographic limitations that only protect City interests such as existing or planned
future City natural areas or parks, City owned right of ways, existing or potential future buffer zones for
natural habitat or feature and historic resources puts City residents and their property at risk for the
following reasons:
•Property owners are left to their own resources to deal with monied, powerful entities that have
eminent domain powers.
•Because 1041 regulations must be followed in addition to all other City development codes,
applicants may be incentivized to develop their project outside of geographic areas protected by
1041 regulations, in other words outside of City owned property and on private property
owners’ land.
•The specific purposes listed in the draft regulations, and below, are almost wholly gutted by
limiting the regulations to geographic locations of City owned land, natural area or park,
anticipated City building sites, buffer zones of natural habitats and historic resources. 1-102 (A)
o (1) protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment and historic and wildlife
resources;
o (2) Implement the vision and polices of the City’s Comprehensive Plan;
o (3) Ensure that infrastructure growth and development in the City occur in a planned
and coordinated manner;
o (4) Protect natural, historic, and cultural resources; protect and enhance natural
habitats and features of significant ecological value as defined in Section 5.6.1; protect
air and water quality; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance adaptation to
climate change;
o (5) Promote safe, efficient, and economic use of public resources in developing and
providing community and regional infrastructure, facilities, and services;
ITEM 2, COMMENT 5
Packet pg.207
o (6) Regulate land use on the basis of environmental, social and financial, impacts of
proposed development on the community and surrounding areas; and
o (7) Ensure City participation in the review and approval of development plans that pass
through and impact City residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners,
resources and other assets.
• Geographic limitations creates confusion and uncertainty for applicants and residents and
property owners. There are two different sets of regulations for land within and without
proposed geographic limitations.
The draft regulations attempt to address disproportionately impacted (DI) communities. According to
the draft regulations, DI community shall mean a community that is in a census block group where the
proportion of households that are low income, that identify as minority, or that are housing cost-
burdened is greater than 40% as such terms are defined in CRS § 24-4-109(2)(b)(II) and as amended.
(Bold added by me).
I recommend using Colorado’s EnviroScreen https://teeo-cdphe.shinyapps.io/COEnviroScreen_English/
to better characterize the Fort Collins community as to low income, minority or housing cost burdened
greater than 40%. I think how DI communities will be addressed needs to be expanded in the
regulations.
I appreciate that air quality, emissions and leak prevention are addressed in the regulations. I’m hoping
air quality measures, including limiting GHG emissions, are in place and enforced for both the
construction phase and operational phase of any development.
I agree the modification of standards, variances and appeal form administrative decisions to the land
use review commission of the land development code should not be applicable to the 1041 regulations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karen Artell
ITEM 2, COMMENT 5
Packet pg.208
225 S Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 482-3746
www.FortCollinsChamber.com
January 10, 2023
Kirk Longstein
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: 1041 Regulations
Kirk -
The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce continues to express tremendous concern about
the timeline for the local 1041 regulations. As currently designed, Council members and the
community would have four days to read, study and understand incredibly complex policy that
will have far reaching regional impacts. We contend that such an aggressive schedule serves
no one.
Additionally, we remain concerned that these regulations are out of place in our
community. All the projects that would come under these regulations already have expansive
and demanding layers of regulation and review at the local, regional, state and national level.
Should the City charge ahead with these regulations, we are very supportive of the suggestions
that Peggy Montano of Trout Raley has made regarding permit denial, criteria and timeline for
appeal. Her observations and recommendations for change are important and pragmatic
should we adopt such regulation in Fort Collins. She has submitted for consideration the
following changes:
•Whenever City Council determines that a permit will be denied, the denial must specify
the criteria used in evaluating the proposal, the criteria the proposal fails to satisfy, the
reasons for denial, and the action the applicant would have to take to satisfy the permit
requirements.
•The denial document will be served upon the applicant and the applicant may, within
sixty (60) days of such service, be allowed to modify the proposal.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 6
Packet pg.209
We would very much like to see this process allow for ample opportunity for external
stakeholders, the community and the Council to analyze this final draft and provide
constructive feedback.
Sincerely,
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Ann Hutchison, CAE
President & CEO
cc: Caryn Champine; Paul Sizemore; Rebecca Everette; Kelly DiMartino, Carrie Daggett, Peggy
Montano
ITEM 2, COMMENT 6
Packet pg.210
ITEM 2, COMMENT 7Packet pg.211
ITEM 2, COMMENT 7Packet pg.212
ITEM 2, COMMENT 7Packet pg.213
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
32825 CR 39 • LUCERNE, CO 80646
P.O. BOX 56 • BUS: 970-356-3020 • FAX: 970-395-0997
WWW.NWCWD.ORG • EMAIL: WATER@NWCWD.ORG
January 18, 2023
VIA EMAIL
City of Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Commission
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: City of Fort Collins Proposed 1041 Regulations
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the North Weld County Water District (the
“District”), this letter is to request a delay of at least 60 days by the Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Commission (the “Commission”) and the Fort Collins City Council (“Ci ty Council”) of
the proposed 1041 regulations (the “Regulations”). Delay ing consideration of the Regulations will
allow stakeholders and agencies impacted by the Regulations to have adequate time to review and
engage with Fort Collins staff regarding the impact of the Regulations. There is simply not enough
time to do so in the timeline provided.
1041 regulations are intended to allow local governments to regulate areas and activities
of statewide interest through enhanced review and permitting processes. Regulations of this nature
have costly and far reaching impacts to property owners, developers, and essential service
providers. The District believes the proposed Regulations are unnecessary and Fort Collins staff
has also not been able to articulate the need for the 1041 regulations in the City. If the City intends
to adopt 1041 regulations , which we understand it does , the Regulations should not be rushed to
approval. Based on discussions with Fort Collins staff, we understand th e timeline to consider and
approve the Regulations is driven by the City Council. Accordingly, we want to be sure that the
Commission and City Council understand that the District believes significant issues still exist in
the Regulations and there is not enough time to allow for thoughtful consideration and discussion
with Fort Collins staff.
The draft Regulations planned to be considered by the Commission at its January 25, 2023
meeting will only be made available to the public for review and comment at the same time it is
delivered to the Commission. There will be no opportunity to review, understand, and comment
on the Regulations, and there will be no opportunity for discussion with Fort Collins staff about
possible improvements to the Regulations or the impacts of the policies and procedures included
in the Regulations. Although there will be some time following consideration by the Commission
before consideration by the City Council, we understand there will not be an opportunity for
additional engagement with Fort Collins staff to recommend improvements. While discussions
with Fort Collins staff have been helpful to understand the direction the City is going with the
ITEM 2, COMMENT 8
Packet pg.214
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
32825 CR 39 • LUCERNE, CO 80646
P.O. BOX 56 • BUS: 970-356-3020 • FAX: 970-395-0997
WWW.NWCWD.ORG • EMAIL: WATER@NWCWD.ORG
Regulations, until they can be reviewed in totality, there is no way to truly u nderstand the impact
they may have.
Based on what the District has been able to review and discussions with Fort Collins staff,
the District believes the Regulations are being pushed forward too quickly, cast too wide of a net,
and capture projects that should not be included in 1041 review, and ultimately will result in
incomplete and problematic policies and procedures. The Regulations will delay essential utility
projects and will be costly to essential service providers lik e the District. Delayed projects result
in increased project costs and inhibit service providers’ ability to provide essential services to their
customers. Increased project costs are ultimately borne by rate payers and impact the affordability
to live in northern Colorado.
The District does not believe these impacts are intended, but they surely will be felt by
public service providers. The District desires to continue to work with Fort Collins staff to help
develop 1041 regulations that meet the goa ls of City Council without unnecessarily impacting
public service providers.
Sincerely,
NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Mr. Tad Stout
NWCWD Board President
ITEM 2, COMMENT 8
Packet pg.215
MEMORANDUM
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: January 19, 2023
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Recommendations Regarding 1041 Regulations Draft
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On December 15, 2022, Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner, presented on the
updated draft of 1041 Regulations. The purpose of this memo is to express considerations and
recommendations regarding the potential future adoption of 1041 Regulations. As a Board that
prioritizes the conservation of natural resources and the impact they have on the future of our
community, the Board views the 1041 Regulations as a legal method to offer the City greater
authority over public development projects, specifically those that deal with Highways and
Interchanges and Water Projects, that qualify as areas or activities of statewide interest.
In the most recent draft of the 1041 Regulations, the change of threshold definition from
“Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) to “Finding of No Adverse Impact” (FONAI) is
supported by the Board. Additionally, the Board further strongly advocates for the consideration
of cumulative impacts as it pertains to environmental degradation and disproportionately
impacted communities. To assess short, and long-term effects of projects evaluated under the
umbrella of 1041 Regulations, the Board recommends adoption of a monitoring program. A
defensible monitoring program that includes measurable indicators of project impacts, both
positive and negative, and how these metrics change over space and time. By analyzing the
cumulative effects and monitoring project impacts, potential long-term environmental, social,
and economic impacts can be more adequately understood. Utilizing the Considering
Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act is one recommended starting
point for consideration for creating a system on monitoring and cumulative impacts.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 9
Packet pg.216
Additionally, the Board recommends an adoption of 1041 Regulations that do not impose
geographic limitations as a filter at the front end of the review process (as currently defined and
proposed in “Version 2 of the Draft 1031 Regulations”). Ecological systems, and their social
impacts, are open systems that do not recognize ownership or political boundaries.
Further, the Board advocates for the addition of a definition of “Natural Resources” in the 1041
Regulations. The Board would recommend considering the existing definition for “Natural
Habitats and Features” that can be found in the Land Use Code, but with the intentional
addition of ecological corridors, including waterways, to incorporate not only habitat protection
but also to secure the connectivity patterns that Northern Colorado flora and fauna need to
thrive. Habitat protection, corridors, and connectivity as defined in the Nature in the City’s
Habitat Corridor Analysis and through Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s classification of High
Priority Habitats.
The Board is concerned that currently proposed development projects will have permanent and
pronounced reductions in the integrity of the Cache la Poudre River ecosystem and various
Natural Areas within the bounds of Fort Collins. Through the adoption of 1041 Regulations with
the aforementioned considerations, proactive efforts can minimize adverse impacts to natural
features, historical cultural resources, and disproportionately impacted communities.
The Board views the 1041 Regulations as instrumental in achieving Our Climate Future goals,
particularly as it pertains to the “Big Move 3: Climate Resilient Community,” “Big Move 11:
Healthy Natural Spaces,” and additional environmental health goals outlined in the City’s
strategic plan.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue and its future implications for the
community.
Very Respectfully,
Dawson Metcalf, MS
Chair, Natural Resources Advisory Board
ITEM 2, COMMENT 9
Packet pg.217
Page 1 of 5
2133 South Timberline, Suite 110
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ditescoservices.com
Delivery by email to:
smanno@fcgov.com
psizemore@fcgov.com
January 20, 2023
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Commission
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest of the City of Fort Collins
AKA: 1041 Regulations; January 25, 2023 Hearing
Dear Commission Members:
Representatives from our firm have participated in various stakeholder outreach events regarding the referenced
1041 Regulations since summer 2022. We have listened intently and tried to understand the purpose of these
proposed regulations and the problems they intend to solve. Our firm works across the federal, state and local
government sectors working with agencies to design, permit and construct water treatment, storage and
conveyance projects. We offer a unique perspective in that we work in this field; we know local, state and federal
permitting requirements; and have successfully managed over $900 million in delivered projects.
As the time to review and understand the operational aspects of the proposed 1041 program have drawn to a
close, stakeholders have not had the opportunity to review a final draft of the regulations. The last version provided
to stakeholders was in November 2022. Since that time, City staff have provided various informational slides and
notes, but nothing in the form of draft regulations. Surprisingly, this public input experience is contrary to the
historical approach to outreach and public feedback the City of Fort Collins is known for. Prior to the January 25th
Commission hearing, public comment on the final regulations will likely be limited to 1-2 business days. For
reference, the last draft of the regulations included 53 pages of materials.
In order to assist the Commission members in the review of this letter, we have broken our comments on the
proposed regulations into various parts. From the “Big Picture” to Definitions, to Operational and Regulatory
Considerations, we have summarized concerns with the proposed regulations while offering simultaneous solutions
and recommendations (in blue).
The “Big Picture”
Comment 1: What problem are we trying to solve through implementation of 1041 regulations? What is broken
with the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process?
Consider possible enhancements to the SPAR process to reinforce or strengthen the review to be
more regulatory in nature, versus advisory. The City should recognize that projects brought forth
through a SPAR, or 1041 process are typically sponsored by government or quasi-government
agencies and these projects are already highly regulated through federal, state and local permitting
processes.
Comment 2: What has City staff done to research best practices from other communities? What works for
municipalities that have implemented 1041? What doesn’t? Do other Colorado communities
regulate to the level recommended by City staff?
Consider doing additional research across Colorado communities, of similar size and geographic
situation, to understand what works when operationalizing 1041 regulations within municipal
boundaries.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 10
Packet pg.218
Page 2 of 5
Comment 3: There is currently no tiered system of review as many other Colorado jurisdictions have
implemented. The proposed regulations offer two levels of review - Finding of Negligible Adverse
Impact (FONAI) or full permit.
Consider implementing a process that allows for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), minor
permit review, and major permit review steps with defined levels of predictable outcomes for
applicants.
Comment 4: The current information presented from City staff is silent on whether or not a prior SPAR approved
project would be subject to 1041 regulations. At the Council work session held on November 7,
2022, Council advised staff to remove prior approved SPAR projects from 1041 consideration.
City staff should confirm, and communicate to stakeholders, that prior approved SPAR projects will
not be subject to 1041 regulations. As the stakeholder groups have not had the opportunity to
review the latest draft of the regulations, we are unsure of this outcome.
Comment 5: The regulations do not address new domestic water systems required, or driven by, City land use
decisions.
Much of the regulation document presented in November would regulate projects driven directly
from current and future City land use decisions. Many of the water districts that serve the Fort
Collins jurisdictional boundary are simply reacting to City policies and not sponsoring these
projects. How will development projects be viewed through the 1041 regulations if they trigger the
minimum threshold criteria for 1041?
Definitions
Comment 6: Why has the definition of significant impact been changed to negligible adverse impact? City staff
have subsequently changed the definition of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to Finding
of Negligible Adverse Impact (FONAI).
The definition of “adverse impact” leads to regulation at a level lower than that of “significant
impact”. The addition of “negligible” creates a subjective determination of a proposed action’s
impact. New domestic water or wastewater facilities should be regulated to a significant impact
definition. Consider staying consistent with statewide use of FONSI definitions when implementing
1041 regulations. Avoid creating new definitions specific to Fort Collins alone.
Comment 7: City staff have defined new major domestic water and wastewater projects to an incorrect level of
regulation. The proposed definitions are overreaching spanning projects much smaller than
projects defined as “major”.
Proposed regulation: Pipelines increasing average flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day.
This is less than the flow provided by a typical garden hose, which flows 8-10 gallons per
minute or 14,000 gallons per day.
Proposed regulation: Pipelines 12 inches or larger in diameter and greater than 1,320 linear
feet in length
This size and length definition brings in much of the distribution and collection systems across
the City without practical knowledge of how these systems operate. New major projects are
normally defined as 24 inches and larger and greater than 2-4 miles in length.
Proposed regulation: City staff are recommending exemptions including pipeline relocation,
replacement or enlargement in existing rights of way or easements except for when the
easement or ROW will be expanded to 30-ft or greater.
As an example, a 12-inch pipeline that is 1,500 feet long, is in a 25-ft easement/right of way
and the easement is expanding by 5-ft; a 1041 review would be triggered. 1,500 ft is the length
of three standard downtown blocks which is very small in the water transmission and
distribution world. This type of project is not one that would normally be considered matters of
state interest, for a new major domestic water system.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 10
Packet pg.219
Page 3 of 5
Comment 8: The definition of development is being redefined to include utility projects if they “have foreseeable
impact on natural features”. This metric is very subjective and undefined. Currently, utility projects
are exempt under the definition of development.
Utility projects should remain exempt from regulation under the definition of development.
Comment 9: Ditches and stormwater facilities have been added to the definition of new domestic water systems
as long as they are “contributory” to a domestic water system should they be devoted to the end
goal of providing treated water to end users.
A ditch or stormwater facility being “contributory” is not defined. Is there a size or type of facility?
Ditches and stormwater facilities should not be regulated as new domestic water systems. This
level of regulation is far reaching and beyond the intent of 1041. Have the ditch companies been
engaged in the stakeholder outreach process?
Comment 10: City staff presentation materials discuss compensatory mitigation which can, in some instances,
require the applicant to mitigate more than the necessary direct impacts of a proposed action. The
new definitions of mitigation offered are without context to how the overall regulations are written
and how they will be administered.
Operational and Regulatory Considerations
Comment 11: Currently. City staff have suggested that the 1041 regulations will be fully administered by a third-
party consultant and all costs associated with this administration will be passed along to the
applicant.
It appears City staff do not have the expertise to administer the 1041 program they have designed.
The cost for permitting will be excessive, not only due to third-party administration, but due to the
level of regulation proposed in the definitions of new domestic water systems. All of these
permitting costs will be passed along to ratepayers or developers through water rate increases/tap
fees which will then be passed along to homeowners.
Comment 12: The current timeframe associated with the 1041 permit review is 28 days for pre-application; 60
days for completeness review; then 90 days to hearing. This time count is without appeal
durations. The 1041 staff review a 6-month process-minimum. If staff deems an application
incomplete, the timeframe is extended without applicant control.
In practice, 1041 review timelines are not strictly followed and apply extensive risk to applicants
building large capital programs. These large projects are phased and implemented over multiple
years and often, phased to avoid environmental and various wildlife impacts. Having review delays
at the onset of the program extend schedule constraints across multiple phases and add significant
cost risk to the applicants. Any review process adopted needs to be predictable and controlled.
The City should consider piloting a project through the proposed process prior to adoption.
Comment 13: Division 5 of the proposed 1041 regulations calls for the applicant to provide the City with financial
security in the amount of up to 100% of the project value as determined by the City.
Proposed regulation: Adequate security shall mean such funds or funding commitments,
whether in the form of negotiable securities, letters of credit, bonds or other instruments or
guarantees, as are deemed sufficient, in the Director’s discretion, and in a form approved
by the City Attorney, to guarantee performance of the act, promise, permit condition or
obligation to which it pertains.
The applicants for 1041 permits will predominately be governmental agencies. Using security tools
that the development community typically uses may prove difficult. Municipalities, water and sewer
districts typically don’t have banking relationships that have asset security. Additionally, if security
is a bond, letter of credit or cash, and it’s determined the amount is not enough or defaulted upon,
how will the City collect on a lien against property it has no interest in? For example, considering a
pipeline easement to a water district: Will the treasurer collect additional property taxes from a
private owner that has granted an easement to a non-taxable public entity to cover the lien? The
operational aspects of the security provision in the regulations (Division 5) appear to be designed
around private development. Consideration should be given to removing security altogether or
modifying the requirements to match the applicant’s ability. Any security requirement will add cost
to the project, thereby adding to the cost of tap fees and homes.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 10
Packet pg.220
Page 4 of 5
Comment 14: City staff are recommending alternatives analysis, ecological characterization, conceptual
mitigation plans and cumulative impact analysis before project can be considered for a FONAI.
This requirement poses significant effort and risk to any applicant prior to submitting any sort of
1041 application. It will add anywhere from $20,000 to over $100,000 to a project cost before even
submitting to the City. Having a simpler process for early review of a project to determine
mandatory submittal requirements, with a submittal checklist, would be a better system. Much of
the required information listed above is not necessary to determine if a FONAI could be issued.
Comment 15: The current regulations require a neighborhood meeting prior to FONAI determination.
If this is an administrative process for FONAI determination, why is a neighborhood meeting
required? Why is a public meeting needed to determine if a FONAI should be issued?
Comment 16: FONAI determination criteria is completely based on property, historic, disproportionate
communities and habitat impacts.
There is no consideration for broader benefit of proposed project/action. In a formal NEPA
process, project benefits must also be considered in the application review. Here, City staff is
suggesting evaluation of project impacts alone.
Comment 17: City staff suggest a performance criteria-based approach to mitigation based on a reference site
with analogous habitat.
There is no context to how the “reference site” will be selected, who the parties are determining
what an appropriate reference site is and how it relates to the proposed action.
Comment 18: City staff committed to providing a check-list of application materials necessary to meet the
minimum thresholds of an application and meet “completeness” review.
No such check-list has been provided as part of the regulations and review materials.
Comment 19: Section 2-314. City Council may attach conditions to the permit pursuant to Section 6.3.9 and
additional conditions to ensure that the purpose and requirements of these Regulations are
continuously met throughout the development, execution, operational life, and any
decommissioning period.
Here, a development agreement between the City and the permittee may be required as a
condition of approval. Is it the City’s intent to regulate entire life cycle of a project? If so, how is
security released over such a long span of time? Domestic water systems have a design life of 75
to 100 years.
Comment 20: Section 2-401. The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits and approvals
necessary for the proposal, including surface, mineral and water rights.
How is the City going to regulate approval of a 1041 permit based on the applicant’s acquisition of
surface, mineral and water rights? Who determines if the applicant has the correct rights in place
to implement the project?
Comment 21: Section 2-401 (F). The City is requiring a development plan to have no adverse impact on:
o Visitor days
o Quality and quantity of fisheries
o Instream flows and reservoir levels
o Recreational resources
What is the baseline for these measurements? How will development performance be measured?
Who determines what is a negligible adverse impact on a water storage reservoir based on
installation of a new 12-inch pipeline in the City jurisdiction?
Comment 22: Section 2-401 (H). The City is requiring a development plan to have no adverse impact on air
quality:
o Changes in visibility and microclimates.
o Applicable air quality standards.
o Increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
o Emissions of air toxics.
What is the baseline for these measurements? How will development performance be measured?
ITEM 2, COMMENT 10
Packet pg.221
Page 5 of 5
Comment 23: Section 3-102. To ensure that new domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major
extensions of such systems are constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of
existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment
systems within the City.
How will the City ensure the purpose and intent of these regulations are met? Is the City’s intent to
analyze how other utility providers are operating their facilities to accomplish this goal?
We continue to appreciate the opportunity to be part of this process providing critical comments to a regulation that,
if not properly designed, will cause extensive impacts to applicants and important community projects.
We hope that the Commission and City Council will delay implementation of the proposed 1041 regulations or avoid
them altogether through a reconfiguration of the SPAR process. If the regulations are implemented, they need to
be right for our community, right for stakeholders and right for the City to properly administer.
Sincerely,
Keith Meyer, P.E.
President
970.988.8605
keith.meyer@ditescoservices.com
Cc: file
ITEM 2, COMMENT 10
Packet pg.222
January 20, 2023
Honorable Jeni Arndt, Mayor
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
jarndt@fcgov.com
Fort Collins City Council
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
cityleaders@fcgov.com
Re: 1041 Regulations Comments
Dear Mayor Arndt and Councilors Gutowsky, Pignataro, Canonico, Peel, Ohlson, and Francis:
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(“Northern Water”), the many constituents who receive water from existing facilities within the
boundaries of the City of Fort Collins, and the NISP Participants. These comments apply solely to
the issue of the development of domestic water systems under 1041. The designation of highways,
interchanges, and sewerage are not addressed in these comments.
Initially, Northern Water wants to acknowledge the open and transparent process of the City staff
in drafting regulations. Hosting the many stakeholder meetings and listening to the various groups
with numerous interests is a difficult task and was done with great professionalism throughout the
past several months.
The focus of the comments below is to propose changes to the draft regulations of November 2,
2022, which appear to create confusion or run afoul of existing authority, including being
inconsistent with the statute which created the authority for 1041 regulations, and the law as
interpreted through primarily case law; and to make Council aware of concerns of neighboring
cities, towns and water districts regarding the potential consequences of the regulations.
As you consider our and other comments, we ask that Council seek to find a middle ground with
these regulations which allow water projects to go forward without unduly burdensome provisions.
We ask that you reduce costly criteria which require the use of numerous experts, particularly
when state or federal permits already cover certain issues, and we ask that you seek to avoid
expensive and time-consuming litigation while protecting the interests of the City as allowed under
the 1041 statute.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.223
Page 2
Re: 1041 Draft Regulations Comments
Overview of the Scope of 1041
The thrust of the 1041 statute when passed in 1974 was to provide local governments a measure
of land use permitting authority which did not previously exist. Prior to this time transportation
projects could be constructed such as airports, highways and interchanges or actions taken such as
building power plants or substations within the boundaries of a local government with no input
from that government.
Initially, it is critical to bear in mind what is “a matter of state interest” under the law and, which
elected body is to identify such matters. The scope of the 1041 law was created 50 years ago by
the 1974 state legislature which created 1041 to identify a certain category of land uses “of state
interest” to be regulated by both counties and municipalities if they so choose. The list of “matters
of state interest” is now set by statute, and no new “areas or activities” are within the jurisdiction
of the regulating county or city to add. While some constituents may ask for a broader list, it is not
within the purview of the City to do so. The published designation addresses two of the statutory
activities concerning domestic water: “the site selection and construction of Major New Domestic
Water and Sewage Treatment Systems and the Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water and
Sewage Treatment Systems” which are the two activities “of state interest” by statute.
A second area that is critical to bear in mind is the land use/water use interface of the 1041 law.
The legislative history, which is testimony of bill sponsors and witnesses recorded at the time the
law was passed, is available through Colorado State Archives and has been studied to support these
comments. Excerpts of that history are provided to you in the Legislative History Summary
attached. The designation was about regulation of land use (it was titled the “Land Use Act”) and
made clear that water rights and the use of water was protected. The legislative declaration
provides that the “Protection and utility, value and future of all lands … is a matter of public
interest.” 1 This law is about regulation of facilities; not denial of the use of water. The legislative
history makes clear that no veto was provided or intended.
For example, during the house reading Representative Dittemore (one of the bill’s sponsors)
quoted the water rights savings clause in the 1041 statute and said that Colorado’s bill goes
“further” than similar federal legislation, noting that the bill:
“speaks to an issue that is so very important to every individual in the state of
Colorado. And that is the right of water…. [water rights] are protected by the bill
and are protected by the United States Constitution.”2
And as one testifying representative stated, this is not for local government to
“use as an excuse for a club to simply arbitrarily prevent some developer they don’t
like, they have to make a disposition and come up with some guidelines.”3
1 C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 (a)
2 House Second Reading (Feb. 27, 1974, approximately 30:00)
3 House Second Reading (Feb. 28, 1974, approximately 13:00)
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.224
Page 3
Re: 1041 Draft Regulations Comments
In plain language, the right to use water is outside the authority of local governments to deny and
the 1974 legislature included a specific section protecting water rights in 1041.
“Nothing in this article shall be construed as: (b) Modifying or amending existing laws or
court decrees with respect to the determination and administration of water rights.” 4
This also applies to groundwater: 5
“mineral does not include surface or groundwater subject to appropriation for domestic,
agricultural or industrial purposes, nor does it include geothermal resources”.
Lastly, in the general definitions a key portion of the 1041 law states, “Development” means any
construction or activity which changes the basic character or the use of the land on which the
construction or activity occurs.”6
In the face of this legislative history one might reasonably ask, how does this fit with the several
reported cases which uphold the denial of 1041 permits over the last decades? In the most recent
case, City of Thornton v. Larimer County issued in September of 2022, the Court of Appeals made
it clear that Thornton can reapply for a permit.7 The denial therefore may be temporary and both
governments will again face the cost and struggle for a balanced solution. In the Eagle County v.
Colorado Springs litigation of the 1990’s,8 the parties ultimately negotiated a settlement; and in
other counties, such as Adams concerning Aurora’s Prairie Waters Project, a balance through an
agreement was reached. The challenge here is how to balance the reasonable regulation of land
use within City boundaries with the protected right under state law to divert and use water for
domestic purposes either through a major expansion of a domestic water system or a development
of a new domestic water system.
We ask that Council provide a method within the regulations for an applicant to obtain a permit
and build its project without the need to engage in repeated permit applications as a result of
contested denials and appeals. This can be done by adopting some of the process suggestions made
during the stakeholder engagement meetings.
4 C.R.S. 24-75.1-106
5 C.R.S. 24-65.1-104 (10)
6 24-65.1-102 (1)
7 “As for the Board’s criticism of Thornton for failing to provide a “Shields Street” siting alternative, the court
concluded the request was outside the Board’s power. Again, Thornton had reason to believe that this proposal would
require it to degrade its water source by running it through Fort Collins vis-a-vis the Poudre River
before collecting, cleaning, and transporting it to Thornton. In addition to the fact that this would require modification
of the water decree, the court concluded that such a request was not part of the Board’s power to regulate the “siting
and development” of domestic water pipelines. See Land Use Code § 14.4(J); § 24-65.1-204(1)(a), C.R.S. 2021. For
these reasons, the Board could not justify its denial of Thornton’s application on this aspect of the application —or
require it to include such a route in future applications.” (emphasis added) Thornton slip opinion at 26-27.
8 895 P.2d 1105 (1994)
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.225
Page 4
Re: 1041 Draft Regulations Comments
Selected Comments concerning and proposed refinements to the Standards affecting water
facilities in the regulations
Create a set of Standards solely applicable to Major New Domestic Water and Major
Extension of Domestic Water Systems. To provide clarity for the water community and the City,
we request the City enact a stand-alone section of standards for regulation of water projects.
Currently there are two separate sections of standards; Common Review Standards for all
applications and second section of Review Standards for Major new Domestic Water and Major
Extensions of the same. Many of the Common Standards do not seem applicable, but we are not
sure. It would make the process cleaner and more efficient for both the Applicant and the City if
the Applicant does not have to try and sort through the Common Review Standards and add those
to the specific water standards to discern what the City’s intended standards are in total for
domestic water supply projects. For example, included within Common Review standards are
“changes to view sheds; quality of recreation fields or courts; changes in access to recreational
resources”. These appear to be more focused on the highway designation, but it is quite unclear.
Include Standards supported by the plain language of the statute and interpretive case law.
The litigation of the last decades is instructive that requiring an Applicant to evaluate certain
alternatives to a water project is not supported by law. Those include regulations that require the
applicant to degrade its domestic water quality and includes requests to run the water down the
river to a lower point of diversion that is not included in a water court decree.9 We believe that an
applicant’s engaging with staff prior to coming to council can be very useful to seek detailed on-
the-ground alternatives to a proposal and the regulations should require this be done as a part of
the overall project permitting. The language concerning alternatives can be modified to provide
that alternatives protect water quality and align with water court decrees.
Avoid attempted regulation of augmentation plans, exchanges and substitutions of water
supplies. These are singularly regulated and administered by the State and Division Engineer and
also subject to frequent changes. In a year of relative water abundance, no augmentation may occur
for a domestic water user while in a drought year, the State Division of Water Resources may
permit exchanges during specific days or months under certain conditions to meet a temporary
need. It is highly doubtful that the City may regulate these unique water supply activities which
are allowed by water court decree or administratively through the substitute water supply plan
statute. We suggest modification of Regulation 1-110 to eliminate these words in the City’s
definition of major new domestic water system.
Exercise regulatory authority so that City regulations acknowledge and work in concert with
County regulatory authority. The City can regulate within the authority set forth under the 1041
statute but so can the County. The basis of the authority is identical in for both governments. In
addition to the City and County, permit applicants also may be required to comply with a plethora
of state and federal laws. We request that the regulations expressly seek to work in concert with
the county 1041 regulations and recognize the scientific work done by an applicant for state and
federal permitting. It may well be that you or your staff disagree with some of those studies but,
9 See City of Thornton v. Larimer County slip opinion at 26 and 27.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.226
Page 5
Re: 1041 Draft Regulations Comments
recognizing them allows for a reasoned discussion of City concerns. If no coordination exists, an
applicant may be caught between conflicting levels of government to the detriment of water users.
Set realistic baselines for evaluation under the standards and avoid vague language.
Regulations 2-401 (F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(K)(L)(M)(O)(P) and (Q) encompass hiking, fisheries, reservoir
levels, quality of horseback riding trails, microclimates, soil deterioration, biomass, terrestrial food
webs and many more items. While the 1041 statute in its section 402(3) allows the guidelines to
be “more stringent” those more stringent requirements are to be related to the statutory criteria.
This result was set out in the Eagle County litigation discussed above. We have submitted requests
for clarification to many of these sections of the draft regulations in attempt to have clear objective
science-based standards so all parties can understand the requirements and subjectivity can be
minimized. While the City may now look at the regulations as to be applied to others, in the future
the City may likely be an applicant subject to these regulations as well.
Ensure that the statutory definition of “development” is included in the regulations and is
applied to a permit request. The 1041 statute regulates the basic character of limited lands, not
all lands within a jurisdiction. The definition is: “any construction or activity which changes the
basic character or use of the land on which the construction or activity occurs”.10 Including the
statutory definition will ensure that the regulations will not inadvertently be applied outside of
these parameters. The definition of Impact Area in the regulations at 1.110 ( …”shall mean the
geographic areas, including the development site, in which any adverse impacts are likely to be
caused by the development”) appears to be inconsistent with the statutory definition and could be
modified to be consistent.
Before concluding this comment letter, we also want to take the opportunity to outline an often-
overlooked portion of the work of Northern Water; the environmental programs as set out below.
Northern Water’s Environmental Stewardship
In addition to water collection and distribution, in 2018 Northern Water created an Environmental
Services Division that has continually expanded since that time. Northern Water understands that
operating and managing large scale water supply projects comes with an environmental footprint.
We take very seriously our responsibility to protect and manage the natural resources affected by
our operations and infrastructure. We also deem ourselves and integral part of the communities
that surround our systems, on both sides of the continental divide and are vested in their overall
well-being and the protection of the resources that they depend on for economic vitality, quality
of life and recreation. As a raw water provider on whom over one million people rely for their
drinking water supply, protecting watersheds is of utmost importance, and we take pride in
providing strong leadership in watershed protection and restoration. These commitments are
embodied in the breadth and scope of our programs and initiatives as well as an organization-wide
attention to environmental matters.
• This Division is responsible for managing water quality, water efficiency, environmental
regulatory compliance and planning, and environmental data collection and dissemination.
10 C.R.S. 24-65.1-102 (1)
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.227
Page 6
Re: 1041 Draft Regulations Comments
Additionally, the Division provides guidance on operational environmental stewardship,
including but not limited to, environmental impact avoidance and minimization, and water
conservation. As a part of its environmental services, Northern Water maintains ongoing
water quality monitoring that is publicly available on the Northern Website including
general water chemistry, metals, nutrients, physical parameters, chlorophyll a,
zooplankton, phytoplankton and approximately 150 emerging contaminants such as
pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
• Northern Water spearheaded a regional Source Water Protection Plan in 2019, which
encompasses all watersheds adjacent to our facilities and is focused on safeguarding the
highest water quality possible. In the wake of the catastrophic 2020 wildfires, Northern
Water agreed to sponsor the post-fire watershed restoration for the East Troublesome Fire
and has worked in tight partnership with the Cities of Greeley and Fort Collins, and the
Coalition for the Poudre Watershed to leverage Federal and State resources for the benefit
of the communities affected by fire-impacts from these burn scars and the wildlife and
aquatic resources that depend on these watersheds. In addition, Northern Water has
partnered with the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, and others to reestablish vegetation and ecosystem functions in the
headwaters of the Colorado River within and around Rocky Mountain National Park.
• Northern Water is a signatory to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) Headwaters
Partnership Memorandum of Understanding, and broadly engaged in forest health
management and protection initiatives in all watersheds connected to the C-BT, Windy
Gap and NISP projects. Northern Water is a founding member of the Kawuneeche Valley
Ecosystem Restoration Collaborative whose mission to restore the headwaters of the
Colorado River. Northern Water is actively pursuing other watershed restoration projects
through Learning By Doing in the Fraser and Colorado Rivers, as well as via the Windy
Gap Firming Environmental Fund established in 2021, which will distribute $15 million
towards river restoration projects over the next five years.
• Northern Water has for many years participated in the aquatic nuisance species boat
inspection programs to keep nuisance species from becoming established in the water
bodies that form the C-BT system and serve much of the front range including the City of
Fort Collins.
• Northern Water is a national leader in water conservation and has received the EPA Partner
of the Year Award four years in a row (2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022). Northern Water is
deeply committed to continuing to enhance our water efficiency programs in service of our
constituents and allottees in Northern Colorado. We also look within when examining
environmental impacts and have evaluated ways to improve our facilities and operations
to reduce adverse effects to wildlife. Northern Water has installed wildlife crossings to
protect elk, deer, moose and other animals from being trapped in water collection and
delivery canals. Northern Water completed the Watson Lake Fish Bypass project on the
Poudre River, which allows for aquatic life movement through a formerly impassible
barrier.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.228
Page 7
Re: 1041 Draft Regulations Comments
• For over two decades, Northern Water has played a critical role in the recovery of
endangered species on both sides of the Continental Divide through the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the Platte River Recovery and
Implementation Program.
• Finally, as a part of both the Windy Gap Firming Project and the NISP Project, many
environmental improvements will be implemented, including but not limited to,
reconnecting portions of the Upper Colorado River, restoring and enhancing wildlife
habitat, improving water quality, releasing flows to enhance ecological health and boating
opportunities, and providing new recreation sites, in a partnership with Larimer County, at
the Chimney Hollow and Glade Reservoir sites.
In conclusion, we recognize the authority of the City to regulate water supply activities as set forth
in 1041 but ask that it be done in an efficient and predictable manner for the benefit of the residents
of the region, including those within Fort Collins, who, as water customers, ultimately pay for the
permit program adopted by the City. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to
you.
Sincerely,
Peggy E. Montaño
For Trout Raley,
General Counsel to Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Enclosure: Summary of HB74-1041 Legislative History
CC:
City of Dacono
City of Evans
City of Fort Lupton
City of Fort Morgan
City of Lafayette
Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Left Hand Water District
Morgan County Quality Water District
Town of Eaton
Town of Erie
Town of Frederick
Town of Severance
Town of Windsor
Weld County Water District
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.229
1
SUMMARY OF HB 74-1041’s LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, FOCUSING SOLELY ON
WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS
Attached to January 20, 2023 comment letter to Fort Collins
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF C.R.S. § 24-65.1-101 et seq.
Colorado’s “Land Use” Bill
Repeatedly throughout the 1974 hearing testimony, the legislators emphasized that H.B. 74-1041
was meant to an “effective and sensible land use package.” House Second Reading (Feb. 27, 1974,
approximately 05:00). The problem the bill was intended to address was the fact that local
governments were not making uniform decisions when approving or disproving land
use/development projects with respect to those projects’ impacts on areas and activities of
statewide interest. House Local Government Committee (Feb. 4, 1974, approximately 1:32).
As set forth in the statute, the legislators were concerned with land development activity that would
impact things like mineral resource development and natural hazard areas – including floodplains,
mining, wildfire and geological hazards – or public health dangers in areas surrounding key
facilities. See C.R.S. §§ 24-65.1-201 -202. The original concept of H.B. 1041 (as enacted and
amended in 2005) was to establish a state permitting agency for zoning and land-use issues
concerning these areas of statewide importance and eliminate the problem of disparate land-use
decisions that were occurring on a county-by-county and municipality-by-municipality basis. The
statute does not directly address or contemplate 1041 regulations that would impede water
distribution and supply beyond the confines of a given development project or its impacts on the
immediate community.
The intent of the bill overall was to give local governments a growth management tool to work in
tandem with technical and financial assistance from the State when identifying, designating, and
regulating these “areas and activities of state interest,” but without giving local governments free
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.230
2
license to override other pre-existing resource regulatory frameworks in place. During hearings,
the legislature shifted the permitting function from a central stage agency to local governments
and then, at a late stage in the bill’s lifecycle, the Colorado legislature determined that the “State
Land Appeals Board,” which was meant to be the arbiter of disputes between state agencies and
local government decisions and other independent stakeholders, was both unfunded and
unnecessary, and the appeals board was written out of the bill.
Despite the fact that intermediary disputes process was written out of the bill at a late stage (the
disputes process is and remains the district court system) the legislative history makes clear that
the legislators – both the sponsors and amendment drafters, as well as those speaking during the
hearings – did not anticipate that the 1041 process of identifying, designating, and regulating areas
and activities of state interest would allow local governments to “veto” the decisions of water
districts (or other regulating bodies) with respect to developing, overseeing, and administering
water issues or other resources. For example, in an earlier session, one legislator addressed the
issue of RTD route site selection, and expressed the concern that 1041 might give local government
the power to override RTD route selection, noting that
The question, that, that comes up is can local government prevent the RTD route
from through its jurisdiction. I believe that there’s language in [the bill] that
prevents the local government from doing that. And, I would defend strongly the
idea that local governments should not be permitted to veto the RTD route.
House Second Reading (Feb. 27, 1974, approximately 1:37).
Rather, throughout the bill cycle, the legislators were primarily concerned with impacts connected
with the “footprint” of a given land use project. 1041 addresses development projects having a
“significant impact” on resources of statewide importance. See C.R.S. § 24-65.1-101. The bill
attempted to strike a balance between land and resource use and the decision-making process
amongst competing state and local interests and stakeholders. Pursuant to the statute, local
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.231
3
governments are empowered (via permissive, but not mandatory, authority) to enact their own
regulations and exert certain control over development in areas falling within the statute’s purview.
Certain of the statute’s provisions concerning “areas and activities” relate to water project
development. See id. § 24-65.1-203(a), (b), (h). The statutory scheme provides certain criteria for
how these areas and activities should be administered, see e.g., id. §204(8), and also provides for
notice and hearing procedures for designation as well as a permitting process for compliance with
regulations once an area or activity has been designated, id. §§ 401 – 501.
BILL’S PURPOSE AND INTENT OVERALL
One legislator testified that the rhetorical question of “What do we intend this bill to do?” could
be answered with “To me, the need for this bill, is because the local government has not been
looking uniformly at what is state interests when they make their decisions.” House Local
Government Committee (Feb. 4, 1974, approximately 1:32). Sponsoring legislators noted that “the
work of the interim committee … was based upon the American Law Institute recommendations
and some of the other bills that were passed in other states …. There have been very few states in
the West at this time who have adopted any kind of meaningful land use legislation.” House
Second Reading (Feb. 27, 1974, approximately 09:00).
Although the bill granted local government certain powers in administering (including permitting)
areas and activities of state interest, it was not meant, as one testifying representative stated, for
local government to “use as an excuse for a club to simply arbitrarily prevent some developer they
don’t like, they have to make a disposition and come up with some guidelines.” House Second
Reading (Feb. 28, 1974, approximately 13:00). Late in the bill cycle a senator framed both the
central goal of the bill and its central conflict as follows: “To me what we’re trying to do in this
land use thing is simply to determine what is the state’s role in land use? What should the state be
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.232
4
doing what should the state not be doing.” Senate State Affairs Committee (April 10, 1974,
approximately 25:00).
WATER RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Regarding water issues, the Bill includes a savings clause providing that
Nothing in this article shall be construed as: … Modifying or amending
existing laws or court decrees with respect to the determination and
administration of water rights.
C.R.S. § 24-65.1-106(b). When water issues or conflicts between water rights and potential 1041
regulations arose as hypotheticals during hearing testimony, the legislators frequently just
referenced this savings clause without additional explication, clearly not envisioning that 1041
regulations would interfere with the existing system of water law in Colorado.
For example, during the house reading Representative Dittemore (one of the bill’s sponsors)
quoted the water rights savings clause and said that Colorado’s bill goes “further” than similar
federal legislation, noting that the bill
speaks to an issue that is so very important to every individual in the state of
Colorado. And that is the right of water…. [water rights] are protected by the
bill and are protected by the United States Constitution.
House Second Reading (Feb. 27, 1974, approximately 30:00). Any time a legislator would bring
up water, the response would be that it was clear in the bill that it did not have an effect on existing
water law or decrees, without deeper analysis.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.233
5
With respect to another provision directly addressing water systems 1 the legislators frequently
raised the issue of what constituted “major” during the hearings and debated what precisely
delineated “major” vs. “non-major” within the meaning of the statute. One senator in a committee
hearing described “major” as “an activity that has a really significant impact on the present local
patterns of the community.” Senate State Affairs Committee (Mar. 27, 1974, approximately
24:00). The senators recognized the inherent difficulty in measuring “major” by its impact on a
community, as what might be “major” in a tiny town would be absolutely irrelevant under other
circumstances. The senators attempted to determine what percentage of a water pipeline extension
would become “major” but noted that number of different variables in a given project would make
such baseline determinations unworkable. See id. One senator noted that some types of industrial
activity and extension of water lines would have “virtually zero demographic” while other similar
extensions might have an effect on highway congestion, road services,…
Earlier in the bill cycle, in the House, a representative raised the concern about the development
of water resources, testifying in opposition to an amendment. He felt the development of the state’s
water resources was adequately covered under existing law. House Second Reading (Feb. 28, 1974
Part 2, approximately 1:18).
In response, sponsor Representative Dittemore noted that “[c]oming back to the original
contemplation of the committee … we have very clearly stated that this bill does not modify or
amend existing laws or court decrees with respect to the determination and administration of water
rights.”
1 “[A] local government may designate certain activities of state interest from among the following: (a) Site
selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of
existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems; (b) site selection and development of solid waste disposal
sites except those sites specified in section 25-11-203(1), sites designated pursuant to part 3 of article 11 of title 25,
C.R.S., and hazardous waste disposal sites, as defined in section 25-15-200.3, C.R.S.” C.R.S. § 24-65.1-203(a), (b)
(emphasis added).
ITEM 2, COMMENT 11
Packet pg.234
1/23/2023
From: Save The Poudre
To: City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Comments on Agenda Item #2, “Land Use Code Amendment – 1041 Regulations” as
posted here: https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/sites/fortcollins-
co.municodemeetings.com/files/fileattachments/planning_and_zoning_commission/meeting/p
ackets/3885/pz_january_25_2022_hybrid_hearing_packet_2_wp_rf.pdf
Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of Save The Poudre’s ~1,000 dues-paying members in Fort Collins and Larimer County,
we offer these brief comments on the proposed 1041 regulations.
First, we appreciate your service to the community and the hours you put in as volunteers.
Second, we appreciate that the City is moving forward with 1041 regulations, which has been
long past due and can be an important part of the City ’s regulatory toolbox to protect citizens,
the environment, and public and private property. Further, we appreciated being a ‘stakeholder ’
in the 1041 regulations process, and we appreciated staff ’s time in interacting with us over the
past months.
Third, at present, we do not support the current draft of the regulations. While the current
draft protects the community from certain types of construction projects, the draft absolutely
does not fully protect the community from all construction projects as allowed by the enabling
“House Bill 1041” legislation in the Colorado statutes, nor as allowed and directed by court and
case law precedent since that enabling legislation passed.
Specifically, the current draft is protective of the community only if the construction project
occurs “within the municipal boundary ”, not if the construction project occurs outside of the
municipal boundary but has “adverse impacts within the municipal boundary.”
As an example, if a dam and diversion is constructed in the Poudre River ecosystem upstream of
the municipal boundary of Fort Collins, it can and will have adverse impacts downstream in City
of Fort Collins property including in Natural Areas along the Poudre River, in the Poudre River
itself, and to citizens who use the River for enjoyment and sustenance all the way through the
municipal boundary. The impacts can include:
•The draining and destruction of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands in City of
Fort Collins Natural Areas.
•The degradation and destruction of wildlife habitat in City of Fort Collins Natural Areas.
ITEM 2, COMMENT 12
Packet pg.235
• A decrease in water quality in the Cache la Poudre River causing increased public health
threats (such as E Coli.) to swimmers, bathers, and boaters, including to disadvantaged
communities that swim and cool off in the River in the hottest days of the summer.
• A significant decrease in flow that will curtail the number of recreational “boating days”
in the City’s new multi-million-dollar Whitewater Park.
Attached to this comment letter and posted here: https://savethecolorado.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/STP-Response-to-Northern-Letters-FINAL-12192022.pdf is a legal
memo describing exactly how and why the City of Fort Collins has the ability to regulate any
adverse impacts to citizens, the environment, or private/public property by using 1041
regulations, regardless of if the construction project is inside or outside of the municipal
boundary.
Finally, we recommend these changes to the draft 1041 regulations in your packet. Our changes
are additions of words, in red below
1. Section 6.1.4(D)
City Council has designated as an activity of state interest subject to these Regulations,
the Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems and the Major Extension of Existing Domestic Water and Sewage
Treatment Systems that are constructed in, or cause adverse impacts in, the municipal
boundary of the City. Definitions for major new domestic water systems and major new
sewage treatment systems and major extensions of each are set forth in Section 6.1.10.
(packet page 29)
2. 6.8.1 Applicability
These Regulations shall apply to the site selection and construction of all major new
domestic water and sewage treatment systems, and major extensions of such systems
that are constructed in, or cause adverse impacts in, the municipal boundaries of the
City. (packet page 60)
If these words are added, Save The Poudre will have no further input before City Council on
February 7th other than to fully support the draft regulations.
We appreciate your service. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Thank you,
Gary Wockner, PhD, Director Save The Poudre
Gary.Wockner@SaveThePoudre.Org
970-218-8310
ITEM 2, COMMENT 12
Packet pg.236
ITEM 2, COMMENT 13
Packet pg.237
ITEM 2, COMMENT 13
Packet pg.238
ITEM 2, COMMENT 13
Packet pg.239
1041 RegulationsLocal participation, Transparency & Improved Environmental OutcomesKirk LongsteinSenior Environmental PlannerRebecca EverettePlanning ManagerJanuary 25, 2023ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.240
2Policy AlignmentCity PlanConserve, protect and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources throughout the GMA by directing development away from natural features to the maximum extent feasible.City Council Resolution1041 Regulations may better allow the City to achieve its policy and regulatory goals in furtherance of the best interest of the citizens of Fort Collins.City Regulatory GoalsAddress deficiencies with the SPAR processEstablish applicant predictabilityEstablish a meaningful public processIncentivize project designs that avoid impacts to critical natural habitat and cultural resources.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.241
3Where We’ve BeenInitial Council DirectionDraft Regulations Version 1Draft Regulations Version 2 Draft Regulations Version 3ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.242
Overview•Project size thresholds (Definitions)•Conceptual Review•Pre‐submittal meeting•Neighborhood meeting •Director Decision (FONAI ‐evaluation critera inlcuding geograhic based thresholds)Applicability of Standards•Application checklist•Completness Check•Third‐Pary analysis•Common Review Standards•ExemptionsFull Permit Review•Planning and Zoning Commissions (Hearing)•City Council (Hearing)•Issuance of a permit; conditionsPermit Decision MakingITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.243
51041 RegulationsApplicability of StandardsFinding of Negligible Adverse ImpactPotential for Adverse ImpactProject Size ThresholdDesignated ActivitiesIs the project subject to a Fort Collins 1041 permit?1. Is the project designated by the Fort Collins Code?Major new (expansion) domestic water systemMajor new (expansion) sewage systemHighways & Interchanges2. Does the project meet the defined project size thresholds?If yes; neighborhood meeting & FONAI reviewIf no; no additional action3. Does the project intersect with one of geographic thresholds?if yes; no FONAI without mitigationif no; no permitFULL PERMITORITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.244
61041 Regulations• Designation Procedures• Definitions• ExemptionsApplicability• Determination of Permit Type• Neighborhood Meeting• Public HearingApproval Process• General Standards• Activity Specific Standards• Activity Specific Purpose Review Standards• Financial Security• Inspection/Reporting• EnforcementPermit Administration• Permit Application (Submittal Requirements)ExhibitsDesignated Activities and Defined Project SizeDomestic Water12” diameter pipe and 1,320 linear feet new (or Expanded) easement of 30-feet or greater in width and 1,320 linear feet Increase the rated capacity from the Colorado Department of Public Health and EnvironmentWastewater/Sewage15” diameter pipe and 1,320linear feet new (or Expanded) easement of30-feet or greater in width and1,320 linear feet Increase the rated capacity fromthe Colorado Department ofPublic Health and EnvironmentHighway ProjectsNew Highways/ Interchanges/ Collector HighwaysExpansions by 1 Vehicular LaneExpansions of Interchanges orBridges**Excluded**(1) Any maintenance, repair, adjustment; (2) Existing pipeline or the relocation, or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same easement; ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.245
7Pre-Submittal ProcessFONAI DeterminationLUC 6.6.5AppealLUC 6.6.5 (G)Neighborhood MeetingLUC 6.6.4Pre‐Application Activity ReviewLUC 6.6.3Conceptual ReviewLUC 6.6.1Key Submittal Requirements1. 3 siting and design alternatives (including feasibility) 2. Ecological Characterization Study (1/2-mile radius)3. Cumulative Impacts Summary (1/2-mile radius)4. Conceptual mitigation plans 5. Historic documentation pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code28‐days after neighborhood meetingNotices mailed to owners and occupants within 1,000‐feet of impact areaITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.246
8LUC 6.6.5 FONAI DeterminationFONAI DeterminationLUC 6.6.5FONAINO ‐FONAIHas potential to adversely impact:•City natural area or park•City‐owned property•High Priority Habitat and Natural Habitat Corridors•Natural habitat features and buffer zones•Historic and cultural resources •Disproportionally Impacted Communities28‐Days•Finding of Negligible Adverse Impact DeterminationITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.247
9Full Permit Review•Completeness CheckCompleteness ReviewLUC 6.6.7Application SubmissionLUC 6.6.6Permit Required60‐DaysPermit Application Submittal 14‐days after FONAI determination. FONAI DeterminationLUC 6.6.5Administrative program designSubmittal checklist provided by staffAdditional analysis and third‐party scope provided with FONAI determinationITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.248
City CouncilHearingLUC 6.6.12 (B)PZ HearingLUC 6.6.12 (A)10Permit Decision MakingReferral AgenciesLUC 6.6.8Third‐Party Application ReviewApplication CompleteCompleteness ReviewLUC 6.6.790‐days to HearingApproval with ConditionsLUC 6.6.13Issuance of a PermitLUC 6.6.14•Full Permit ProcessITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.249
11Staff RecommendationStaff recommends adoption of the 1041 Regulations Ordinance, including the adoption of Article 6 to the Land Use Code and conforming changes in other articles of the Land Use Code. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.250
Back up slidesBack up SlidesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.251
•Consider anticipated adverse impacts + mitigation•Conformance to City Plans and policies•Natural hazard risk•Nuisances•Hazardous materials risk13Common Review Standards•Review StandardsEvaluate Impacts to:• Local infrastructure and service delivery• Recreational opportunities & experience• Viewsheds & visual character• Air quality• Water quality• Wetlands & riparian areas• Terrestrial & aquatic animal life• Terrestrial & aquatic plant life• Other natural habitats & features• Significant trees• Historic & cultural resources• Soils & geologic conditions• Disproportionately impacted communitiesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.252
LUC 6.4.1 - Exemptions1. Nonconforming Uses and Structures with the exception of enlargement or expansion of any such project2. Any project previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process.3. Proposed development plan otherwise subject to Development Review4. Any proposed development plan issued a FONAIITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.253
15LUC additionsCity Council is the sole decision maker (Including City projects)Project not covered by Article 6 may be subject to SPAR (including FONAI determination)Optional Pre-Application Area and Activity Proposal ReviewCost of specialized consultantsNotice required – 1000-feet mailerFONAI AppealDefinition of Development ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.254
16FALL 2023NovemberDecemberJanuary 2022 - 2023Council Work Session & v2 Draft Regulations PublishedPublic Engagement –Working GroupsReleased v3 Draft Regulations January 20EngagedCouncil Feedback:Support for geographic based thresholdsRemove exemption loopholesConcerns with term significantTiered review processPre-application timelineBoards & CommissionsEconomic groupsEnvironmental groupsWater Providers &Sanitation DistrictsUpcoming milestones:February 7 City CouncilMarch 31 Moratorium expiresITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg.255
Supplemental Documents
Received
after Final Hearing Packet
was posted prior to Hearing
Packet pg.256
ITEM 2, COMMENT 14
Packet pg.257
ITEM 2, COMMENT 14
Packet pg.258