The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081805.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 2008-31.6 RE: ASITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1629 FOR A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY OR PUBLIC AGENCY (ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION), SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23-4-420 OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE, IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - A. DALE SALTER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER, INC. A public hearing was conducted on July 16, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present: Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chair Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tem Commissioner William F. Garcia Commissioner David E. Long Commissioner Douglas Rademacher Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick County Attorney, Bruce Barker Planning Department representative, Michelle Martin The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated June 27, 2008, and duly published July 4, 2008, in the Greeley Tribune, a public hearing was conducted to consider the application of A. Dale Slater Trust B and United Power, Inc., for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit#1629 for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(electrical substation), subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 of the Weld County Code, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District, which was previously continued from June 25, 2008. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. She gave a brief description of the location of the site, and stated the substation will be located in the northwest corner of the property, on approximately six acres. She stated the property is within the three-mile referral areas for Boulder County,the City of Longmont,and the Towns of Firestone and Mead. Ms. Martin stated the referral from the Town of Mead, dated October 10, 2007, indicated there had been discussions with the applicant regarding annexation. However, a subsequent letter, dated July 7, 2008, states the Town is now objecting to the proposed location, adjacent to the Liberty Ranch Subdivision, citing incompatibility with the Town's Comprehensive Plan for residential uses, negative impacts on property values, future development, and view corridors, and adverse impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of area residents. She stated the Town further asserts the applicant cannot mitigate the impacts and has not adequately investigated alternative sites. Ms. Martin stated staff received no response from the Town of Firestone,the City of Longmont, or Boulder County. She stated the surrounding area consists of predominantly agricultural uses, with the Liberty Ranch Subdivision located to the north within the municipal boundary for the Town of Mead, the Adler Estates Planned Unit Development(PUD)to the south, and the Water Front at Foster Lake PUD to the east. She stated the applicant is proposing to 2008-1805 (1 ' . / 2 � / 1. 4/L 1 PL1963 �25.fe HEARING CERTIFICATION - A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 2 screen the facility; however, staff has received many letters of opposition expressing concerns regarding compatibility, decreased property values, and health hazzards. Ms. Martin stated 17 referrals reviewed the proposal,and 11 responded favorably,with the exception of the new referral comments from the Town of Mead. She stated the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial for the reasons cited in the Resolution, and she displayed maps and photographs of the site and surrounding area. She further stated the property is located outside any Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or Mixed Use Development (MUD) areas, and she displayed a map of developments in the surrounding area. In response to Chair Jerke, Ms. Martin stated the Liberty Ranch Subdivision is located north of the subject site, and has been annexed by the Town of Mead. She stated the Slater Trust owns 160 acres, north of County Road 28, and west of County Road 7, and the applicant is in the process of completing Recorded Exemption #4712 to create several lots, including the subject USR site. In response to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Martin stated the Recorded Exemption lot is approximately six acres, and the applicant has recently indicated they intend to acquire two additional acres to meet the setback requirements for drainage facilities. She stated the Liberty Ranch Subdivision is still developing, and the proposed facility will be 180 feet from the northern property line. She further stated the site photographs were taken in November, 2007; however, the property currently remains in agricultural production, with the exception of the Slater residence. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Martin stated staff recommended approval; however, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application, with a vote of three to two. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Martin stated she is not aware of any regulations regarding setback distances between substations and residential development. Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated she was not present at the Planning Commission hearing; however, she did review the minutes of testimony provided by Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, who cited research based on a 1992 study regarding the effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF's). She stated the study found that common household appliances produce stronger EMF's than the average output of a substation. Ms. Light stated she also conducted her own research of the NIEHS Report and Questions and Answers publications, marked Exhibits RR and SS,and stated,since 1995,two major reports have been released indicating limited evidence exists regarding a link between EMF exposure and the risk of Leukemia. She stated, in 1997, the World Health Organization agreed that the link between EMF's and cancer is weak, and she noted the two reports were based on the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report, as well as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Report,which was transmitted to the U.S. Congress. She stated the U.S. Congress concluded that exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe,due to weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a Leukemia hazzard; however, it found the conclusion of the report is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern, since almost all U.S. residents use electricity and are routinely exposed to EMF's. Ms. Light stated water and sanitation services are not an issue, since the site will be unmanned, and bottled water and portable toilets will be provided during construction. She further stated Condition of Approval #1.F requires the submittal of a Dust Abatement Plan, and Development Standards #4 through #11 address standard health requirements. In response to Commissioner Long, Ms. Light stated prudent avoidance only indicates that a greater distance will result in less impact, however, her research did not indicate a specific distance, and she reiterated that common household appliances produce more EMF's than the proposed facility. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 3 David Snyder, Department of Public Works, stated he is requesting that any proposed roadway match the cross section of corresponding roads to the north, in the Town of Mead. He stated the drainage will not be significantly altered, since the site will be surfaced with gravel, and he has no additional issues of concern. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Snyder stated the application materials indicate the facility will be accessed from County Road 5.5,which is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Mead and also serves the Liberty Ranch Subdivision. Dick Clark, Rothergerber Johnson and Lyons, represented the applicant and stated, without the proposed substation, United Power will be unable to serve the electrical demand in the service area. He introduced various members of the audience who represent or advise the applicant, and he thanked Weld County staff for all of the work in handling and processing the volumes of communications associated with the case. Mr. Clark displayed a map of Alternative Sites Considered since 2004, marked Exhibit CCC, and explained the service area is located west of Interstate 25 (1-25), north of Highway 119, and south of Highway 66, and he also gave a brief description of the locations of area reservoirs and railroad lines along the west side of the future Longmont Reservoir. He stated the red star depicts the identified load center as the ideal place for the substation, and noted that currently there is no substation in the entire service area. He further stated the red-dotted line depicts an existing 80-foot tall transmission line, which is not owned by United Power, lying adjacent to the Liberty Ranch development, and he noted the substation must be located near the transmission line for engineering purposes. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Clark stated Tri-State Energy owns the transmission line, and he displayed photographs of the transmission line next to the Liberty Ranch Subdivision. He stated the transmission line was there when Centex Homes purchased property in the area, and he clarified the transmission line is not subject to this application. He further stated County Road 5.5 extends south from Highway 66, between Parcels 3 and 4, and ends at the transmission line at the junction with Parcels 8 and 9. He stated the property is owned by Nancy Slater, and he read her letter into the record, marked Exhibit MM. He also submitted four affidavits from property owners in the area who are in support of the application (Myra Jane Silengo - Parcel 3, Ernest Kiteley - Parcel 5, Darwin Horan- Parcel 7, and Jerry Hergenreder- Parcel 9), marked Exhibits NN through QQ. He stated the application must be reviewed for compliance with 15 standards from the Weld County Code,and he stated there is no dispute on most of the criteria,therefore, he will only address those being contested. Mr. Clark referred to Section 23-4-420 and stated the applicant has two engineers who will address the need for a substation in the proposed area of service. He stated upcoming testimony will also address compliance with Section 23-3-400.G regarding reasonable alternative sites, Section 23-3-400.C regarding whether the design mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent possible, and Section 23-3-400.E regarding whether the applicant has agreed to implement reasonable measures to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the area. Mr. Clark stated Planning Services staff found that the applicant had met all 15 criteria; however, the Planning Commission expressed concern with the Sections he cited, which the applicant intends to address for the Board. David Foster, Foster Graham Milstein Miller Calisher, LLP, requested the opportunity to cross examine any people providing testimony today, pursuant to Section 2-4-50 of the Weld County Code. Mr. Barker stated in land use hearings, cross examination is done by the Board on behalf of the person asking questions, and it is within the Board's discretion to determine whether additional cross examination will be allowed. He concurred, however, that the process for this hearing started with an appeal, which does allow for cross examination. Chair Jerke commented he is uncomfortable with the request,and Commissioner Garcia requested input from the applicant. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR #1629) PAGE 4 Mr. Clark stated it is not appropriate to turn this land use hearing into a court proceeding,therefore, he concurs with Mr. Barker, that it would be appropriate for Mr. Foster, or any other members of the public,to present their testimony and questions,which the applicant will later respond to during rebuttal. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Barker stated the intent of cross examination is to conduct a fair hearing; however, as an administrative body, the Board also typically allows hear-say evidence and then determines what amount of weight they will give to the evidence submitted. Mr. Foster agreed, but added there are many people in attendance that may not be able to attend later in the day during his testimony time. In response to Commissioner Long, Mr. Barker stated the typical process does meet the intent of the Code. Commissioners Rademacher, Masden, and Long concurred that the current process works well and noted that it is in the best interest for those involved to remain for the duration of the hearing. Commissioner Garcia stated he does not want to change the process. He stated, due to the technical nature of the testimony, there may be questions that come up that will require review and consideration, and he wants to allow an opportunity for those who cannot return for the remainder of the day to pose their questions prior to leaving. Mr. Clark stated the only person who may need to leave is Mrs. Slater; however,she is not testifying,and Mr. Foster agreed,with the understanding that there will be a representative present to speak on her behalf. Jerry Haeger, Vice President of Electrical System Consultants (ESC), stated he is the manager of the utility planning department for United Power. Mr. Haeger stated he worked to prepare a long-range planning study, in 2001, which was later updated in 2004. He stated the conclusions of the studies indicate United Power needs a distribution substation in the northwest corner of the 25-square-mile service area. He stated electric utility planning requires great care to determine an appropriate location and size for substations and the related feeder lines to ensure the voltage is adequate for nearby transmission lines. He further stated they try to anticipate what improvements are necessary to keep the system useful for more than 25 years, while minimizing the impact on the entire area. Mr. Haeger stated the transmission lines are large in order to accommodate a larger magnitude of power over a long distance; however, the power is stepped down to lower voltages at the substation, and then decreased one more time near the users' buildings for appropriate use. He stated United Power relied on various sources of information to determine the number of customers in each square mile of the territory to determine the electrical loads, while also considering the potential for decreased growth in the future, and to make projections for future needs. He further stated,based on the gathered information,they determined a substation is necessary near Highway 66, 1.5 miles west of 1-25, near the existing transmission line. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Haeger stated United Power will use the transmission line, since they are the prime source of energy for Tri-State Energy, and he explained a substation steps the power down to the normal distribution voltage. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Haeger stated the substation is surrounded by locked gates, and only poses a danger if an untrained or unauthorized person enters the site. He stated it is common to locate substations in residential areas, and the proposed separation distance is very normal. He stated he has not conducted any studies; however, he has not observed any decrease in surrounding development after a substation is constructed. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Haeger stated the transmission line will drop down into the substation from overhead, and then underground distribution lines will extend out from the facility. Responding further to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Haeger stated if the requested substation is not allowed, it will become increasingly difficult to service the area. He explained area users will experience low voltage, and if one component fails, there will not be enough backup capacity to maintain the service. He further stated the system is already starting to experience some power loss in the area. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR #1629) PAGE 5 Mr. Clark introduced Donald McDaniel, engineering supervisor at United Power, and gave a brief summary of his qualifications. Mr. McDaniel stated he has worked in the utility business for about 20 years, and he has been with United Power for the past seven years. He stated he was involved with development of the study conducted in 2001, and revised in 2004. He further stated, in 2006, he became a supervisor and is now responsible for the acquisition of right-of-way and land, as well as planning, design, and management of construction activities. He stated the studies were used as a guide for the future, based on the best information available at the time. Although there has been a change in economy, Mr. McDaniel stated the area demand has grown 32 percent between 2004 and 2007, and the applicant is also in the midst of developing a new Long Range Plan for 2008-2017. He stated in 2004, the Mead area required 38 megawatts, or 13 percent, of the entire load, and by 2010, it is projected they will still need 34 percent, with a majority of the load located west of 1-25. He further stated, despite using separate data sources, there is a minimal change in the outcome and predictions for the area. Mr. McDaniel stated the Operations Department has indicated it receives approximately 100 complaints annually, United Power has 60,000 customers, and there were 26 complaints from the subject service area last year. He stated most problems are reported by customers as a result of equipment failure; however,there is the occasional failure due to overload on United Power equipment or maintenance issues. He stated there are areas which are only getting marginal voltage to the customers, and about a year ago it was realized that improvements were necessary in the subject service area. Mr. McDaniel stated he is confident that adequate service will be provided in 2008; however, the future is uncertain. He further stated a substation is very energy efficient, with losses equivalent to the heat that is lost in burning fuel or renewable sources. He further stated there are 22 substations on the United Power system, and only two or three are located more than a mile from the load center. He stated the proposed substation is in close proximity to existing transmission facilities, there is good soil stability to support the necessary equipment or any future alterations,and the location is ideal for underground feeders which can leave the facility in multiple directions. He explained they try to avoid barriers, such as lakes, ditches, railroads, and interstate highways, and it takes a great deal of care in considering a site and how it will service the area. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. McDaniel stated United Power does not pay the infrastructure cost; it is paid by the generation and transmission companies and ultimately the customer. He further stated the Del Camino and Mead substations are located east of 1-25, and it is unreasonable to upgrade those facilities with enough feeders to adequately supply the subject service area. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. McDaniel stated the applicant is aware of the proposed Longmont Reservoir; however, it will not likely have a significant impact on the water table to destabilize the subject site. Chair Jerke recessed the matter until 1:00 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr. Clark referred to Section 23-2-400.G regarding adequate assessment of all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. He stated Dean Hubbuck, Manager of Electric Design,was in charge of the assessment which was conducted in 2004, and he gave a brief summary of his professional qualifications. Mr. Hubbuck stated the boundary of the service area includes 1-25 to the east, Highway 119 to the south, County Road 1.5 to the west, and County Road 38.5 to the north. He stated, in 2006, United Power rebuilt the Del Camino substation to provide increased capacity and voltage demands to serve the Aurora Dairy; in 2007,they converted and rebuilt one of the lines along County Road 13; and, in 2008,they added a new regulator bank north of the Town of Mead, provided additional load balancing along Highway 119 to increase capacity, and energized a new circuit from the Del Camino station for the Sekich Business Park. He stated all of those improvements were mandated fixes to provide reliability and support in the area. He stated all of the alternative sites are located south of the load center to make the best use of the main corridors along County Roads 5 and 7, and he reiterated 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION - A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR #1629) PAGE 6 that locating a substation more than a mile from a transmission line is not as effective. Mr. Hubbuck stated the timing for the proposed Longmont Reservoir is unknown, Parcels 1, 2, 9, and 10 are all within the Longmont Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) area, and the City of Longmont has its own municipal power source. He stated County Road 5 has been identified as the main north-south arterial running parallel to 1-25, it is currently a dirt road with 60 feet of right-of-way, and it will likely be widened to 140 feet. He stated all of these factors will effect the existing homes and the amount of space required for a substation, and it limits the number of directions the applicant can send feeders from the facility. He further stated the portion of Parcel 9 located east of the railroad is proposed for reservoir use and is in a low-lying area, Parcel 10 is Longmont open space, and all of the remaining parcels are within the Town of Mead or its influence area. He stated Parcel 3 is bisected by Liberty Gulch, which is a large hurdle due to water issues, and the owner is also contemplating a preliminary development plan. Parcel 4 already has development occurring, and Parcels 5, 6, and 7 all have issues related to Foster Reservoir that would need to be addressed. Mr. Hubbuck stated Parcel 6 has drainage issues and oil and gas easements which would restrict the use of feeder lines to the north only, and much of Parcel 7, adjacent to 1-25, has been purchased by CDOT to address drainage issues, therefore, there is minimal room for distribution feeders, and it has also been approved for development as the Water Front at Foster Lake PUD. He stated Parcel 5 has two land owners with preliminary development plans, and there are water issues adjacent to Foster Reservoir. Finally, he stated although the southwestern portion of the subject Parcel 8, owned by the Slater Trust, is proposed for reservoir use, the northwestern corner consists of a hill currently in pasture use. He stated it appears to provide the best opportunity to minimize impact to the area, and it affords a good ability to tie into large circuits along County Road 28 on the south and the County Road 5 corridor. He further stated there is a lot of current or potential development in the area, and the applicant realizes they will continue to have service problems until improvements are made. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Hubbuck stated the Slater residence is located in the northeastern corner of the property, and the applicant has relocated the proposed substation site as far south as possible, resulting in approximately 600 feet between the existing homes in the Liberty Ranch Subdivision and the facility fence. He stated, due to the slope of the land, they intend to move down the hill so the substation will not be as visible, and the facility equipment will not exceed 23 feet in height. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Hubbuck stated United Power has experienced technical difficulties in supporting voltage demands in the area. He explained, due to the expanded use of home conveniences and appliances, the growth in energy use has increased without any actual growth or increase in people. Responding to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Hubbuck stated United Power has dropped below the 114 volts required by the Public Utilities Commission, therefore, the current proposal was devised to accommodate current and future needs in the area. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Martin stated the Longmont IGA extends out to County Road 5.5. Mr. Hubbuck reiterated Parcel 9 is not a good option, due to the Longmont IGA and existing uses on the land. He further stated the Platte River Power Authority transmission line, located near County Road 38.5, is too far away from the load center. Mr. Clark stated Section 23-2-400.A of the Weld County Code indicates the proposal must avoid irrigated crop land; however, the proposed site is only unirrigated grass land, and there is an existing underground feeder line along County Road 5. Regarding Section 23-2-400.C, he stated the proposed design mitigates the negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible. He stated once a site was determined, the applicant conducted public meetings to help facilitate a design. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 7 Jason Maxey, United Power District Area representative, stated the applicant did provide notification to area residents up to one-half mile from the site, and they hosted an open house at the Liberty Ranch Subdivision Grange Hall. He stated United Power has tried to address as many area concerns as possible, and he displayed a 50-second video, marked Exhibit UU, showing renditions of how the site will be cut into the side of the hill and set below grade. Mr. Maxey stated United Power is working to acquire two additional acres from Mrs. Slater, which will allow them to move the site 100 feet south. He stated the drainage and grading engineers have worked to design the facility to be set 22 to 24 feet into the ground, creating a berm, with only the top being visible to the surrounding area. He also submitted a computer-generated rendering of the site at completion, marked W, and stated the 10 to 14-foot berm will also be extended around the northwest corner to buffer the ten-foot fence and facility. He stated the applicant is also willing to place fencing along the northern boundary; however, representatives of Centex Homes indicated nothing the applicant does will improve the proposal. Mr. Maxey submitted a copy of a letter from Dean Hubbuck, to the Town of Mead, dated January 14, 2008, marked Exhibit WW, outlining the applicant's commitment for further landscaping if the site were to be annexed. He also submitted a copy of referral comments from the Town of Mead, marked Exhibit XX, indicating the Town found the proposal to be an important step in providing future electric service. He stated the applicant has reserved enough right-of-way on the west side of the property for the future right-of-way needs of County Road 5.5. He further stated the fence will be set back an additional 30 feet to accommodate any future landscaping needs. He stated all of the distribution feeder lines will be installed under the ground; he displayed a photograph of the proposed fence design, included in his PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit ZZ; and he reiterated the facility will be locked and secured. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Maxey stated the proposed substation will be approximately 240 feet from the nearest property in the Liberty Ranch Subdivision, and separated by a 100-foot utility easement. He stated the equipment will not be situated adjacent to the fence, rather, it will be set back 25 to 40 feet from the fence. He further stated all of the described accommodations are evidence of the applicant's attempt to comply with Section 23-2-400.E to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the area. Mr. Clark introduced Robert Pearson and gave a brief summary of his qualifications. Mr. Pearson stated Ms. Light's testimony is exactly correct, and he noted that he refers to the same reports all the time. He stated the best way to address EMF issues at a substation is to go and measure; however, since the subject facility does not exist, he relied on measurements taken at a similar facility to produce a computer model. He stated he took measurements around the Parkway Substation, near 160th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard, which produced very minimal readings, similar to the electrical output in the Board's hearing room. Mr. Pearson stated the measurements are below the level of concern by a considerable amount, and he submitted a magnetic field diagram, marked Exhibit W. He stated the black dotted line represents the fence, and only United Power employees will be allowed beyond that point. He further stated most of the area around the facility will generate the same EMF output as the Board's hearing room, and the elevated areas depict the points where energy is brought into the facility, converted, and then exits the site. Mr. Pearson stated there will be no evidence of electrical output from the facility if measured at the edge of the Liberty Ranch Subdivision. He stated there are no established setbacks for this type of facility; however,the State of Florida has restricted exposure from transmission lines to no higher than 150 miligous at the edge of a transmission line right-of-way, and the State of New York will allow 200 miligous. He stated the Colorado Public Utilities Commission did consider a line through Douglas County, at which time it determined it would allow up to 150 miligous. He further stated only employees of United Power will be exposed while working at the facility, not the members of 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 8 the public. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Pierson stated he has not measured the levels generated by the existing transmission line. Chair Jerke called for a five minute recess. Upon reconvening, Mr. Foster, representing Centex Homes and Liberty Ranch residents, expressed his appreciation to staff for their work through the duration of this project, as well as United Power representatives for their professionalism. He stated he was contacted approximately nine months ago to represent the opposition to the proposal. He further stated, following his presentation, he will introduce various professionals and residents in the area who wish to speak. Mr. Foster stated the area residents are not taking the approach of"Not in my back yard," rather, they assert that this will create a locally unwanted land use. He submitted a booklet, marked Exhibit LL, and he referenced Tab 8 containing a letter from Myra Salingo, owner of Parcel 3, who is withdrawing her support of the proposal. He stated the proposed USR will create a potentially greater impact than uses allowed by right, and it will require additional consideration to ensure compatibility with the existing and planned uses in the neighborhood. He stated his clients are requesting the Board vote in opposition to this proposal at the subject location. Mr. Foster agreed that most of the criteria have been met; however, five issues of concern remain. He referenced Section 23-4-420, and stated all the parties acknowledge that there is a need for power in this area; however, the Board must consider the issue of proper planning. He stated United Power displayed good planning in completing an analysis in 2004, at which time they tried to accommodate future growth. However, he referred to Tab 9,containing a referral response from United Power indicating it had sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Liberty Ranch Subdivision, formerly known as Frederiksen Farms, making no mention of an energy crisis. He stated, if the developer had known, Liberty Ranch would have been designed differently to accommodate a substation. Referring to Tab 10, Mr. Foster stated the Board of Commissioners approved the Water Front at Foster Lake development with 1,800 single family dwelling units and did not receive one comment from United Power. He reiterated there is no dispute that there is a need, or that United Power has been thoughtful in determining there is a need; however, on January 15, 2008, the Planning Commission indicated concern with United Power considering a moratorium without providing advising the Board during the process of reviewing other developments in the area. He further stated, when United Power was negotiating for the Mead Crossings, it should have made notice at that time, prior to Weld County proceeding with approval for the Water Front at Foster Lake or Liberty Ranch developments. He stated Section 23-2-400 states the application must be consistent with the following standards, and the application materials are dated September 11, 2007; however, just today the applicant has proposed an additional 100-foot setback and an increase of an additional two acres. He stated the increase was not a part of the original application, nor was it reviewed by the County or referral agencies. Mr. Foster referred to Section 23-2-400.B and stated the proposal should not create an undo adverse effect on the surrounding area or master plans, and he read paragraph 2.b of the staff comments for the record. He referred to Tab 1 of Exhibit LL, indicating the Town of Mead no longer supports the proposal, and Ms. Martin indicated if she had received that referral, she would have investigated the impacts further, rather than just referencing the annexation discussions. Mr. Foster stated there are two master plans that need to be used as guiding documents in determining an undo adverse effect. He stated Section 22-2-110 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan(UBG.Goal 3), regarding the Coordination of Land Use Planning, states although there is no IGA, the County may consider a use if all of the criteria are met. He stated the area is identified as Medium Density Residential in the Mead Land Use Plan, and a substation is not compatible, nor is it allowed as a Use by Right 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 9 in the Residential Zone District. Mr. Foster referred to Section 22-2-150 and read the listed criteria for the record. He stated the issue of incompatibility should have been identified by staff, but more importantly, it has been identified today for the Board's consideration. He stated there has been a lot of discussion as to whether the issue of decreased property values should be considered; however, he believes it falls under the criteria of adverse impacts. He further stated the Liberty Ranch Metropolitan District was established and has $5 million of existing debt. He stated the District requires 40 mills to recover the debt; however, it is approved for a mill levy cap of 50 mills. He stated the proposed location is just one of many impacts when considering the current housing market, and it would be unfortunate to allow a use that would drive the mill levy up to 50 mills. Mr. Foster also referred to Section 23-2-400.C and stated any new evidence presented today is separate from the original application submitted in 2007. He stated the surrounding area is identified as Medium Density Residential, and the applicant should be required to mitigate the impacts for other agricultural and industrial uses in the area, as well as the existing and proposed future developments. Mr. Foster referred to Section 23-2-400.G of the Weld County Code and stated all reasonable alternatives were not reasonably addressed at the time of application because the applicant was engaged in negotiations with surrounding property owners as recently as the last few months. He stated United Power created a 6.5-acre parcel, although there may have been the potential to purchase a larger site without subdividing. He noted today is the first time anyone has seen the 2004 Map with the proposed Longmont Reservoir, and the opponents feel the applicant should have planned for the facility earlier in the process. He stated the fact that United Power negotiated with Mead Crossing for 18 months without an alternate site is troubling, since they were considering a moratorium in a few short months. Lastly, Mr. Foster referred to Section 23-2-400.A and stated the applicant must avoid irrigated crop land or provide mitigation measures. Linda Purdy represented Centex Homes, and thanked the Weld County staff, United Power representatives,and the surrounding homeowners who have taken time from their professional and personal time to review this matter. She stated she served on a Homebuilders Association in the Denver area, which meet monthly with various representatives of area utility providers, and not once did United Power express the situation with the people who were going to be impacted. Ms. Purdy stated Centex Homes began negotiations, in 2003,to complete the project in two filings, and it purchased 153 acres, for a proposed 403 lots with a community park, school site, open space, and 12 acres for a commercial site. She stated the plat was approved and recorded in September, 2007, showing 80 lots in Phase 1. She further stated the total land development is estimated to cost$35 million, and Centex has already invested$9 million for on-site improvements and $18.5 million for off-site improvements, including upgrades on Highway 66, a sanitary sewer system, design and acquisition of easements, and Longs Peak Water Development line improvements,etcetera. She stated the development is compatible with the existing and proposed future uses of the properties, as reflected in the Mead Land Use Plan, and was expected to be built out by 2010. She further stated, due to current economics, most entitlements have been stayed, completion of Liberty Ranch has been extended out to 2015, and the home base purchase prices have been reduced. Ms. Purdy stated Centex Homes is no longer growing, and since 2006, it has reduced staff from 130 to 40 people. She stated the largest concern is the location of a power substation in close proximity to the Centex development, with visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. She further stated, following denial by the Planning Commission, Centex did not get involved while United Power tried to negotiate alternate sites. However,while the negotiations were being conducted on March 12, 2008, United Power proceeded with the appeal process on March 15, 2008, which indicated it was not very committed, therefore, further negotiations ceased. She stated the Centex residents in attendance have indicated they would not have purchased in the 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION - A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR #1629) PAGE 10 area, or would have negotiated reduced prices had they been aware of the substation proposal. She stated it is likely that future home buyers will do the same in an already unsteady Real Estate market, which is a direct undo adverse effect on the existing surrounding uses. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Purdy stated moving the facility further south is a relocation, not a mitigation measure,although Centex would have supported the project had it been relocated 600 feet further south. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Purdy stated the Mead Land Use Plan is dated 2004. Chair Jerke stated there is no IGA between Weld County and the Town of Mead, and the Town's Land Use Plan was approved unilaterally. She added the owners of the Slater property did not want to develop with Centex. Ken Poncerelli, CEO of Land Architects, stated he previously represented the Adler and Kiteley developments, as well as other developments in the area, and he has 24 years of experience as a land planner. He stated he was retained by Centex Homes to go through the time line of the entitlement process to expose whether there was any prior knowledge of a substation. Mr. Poncerelli displayed a PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit BBB, which he reviewed for the record. He stated the impact is created when the southern lots do not sell due to the placement of a substation. He further stated the area topography results in homes which are elevated 23 feet above the subject site and can view the facility over a ten-foot fence. He stated, if the developer had known of the proposal, the development could have been redesigned. Bret Poole stated he has been a Real Estate Appraiser for 18 years. He stated he inspected the property, reviewed maps, and analyzed the data. He stated he sent an e-mail of inquiry to the Appraisal Institute, which consists of approximately 600 members of various types of appraisers; however, he only received three responses. He stated most indicated they did not have real estate listings containing a similar use near residential structures, since they are not compatible. Mr. Poole shared two examples where an adjacent substation significantly reduced the value of the neighboring houses and resulted in delays for selling the property. He stated despite the studies that indicate substations are not a health hazard, it is a common perception and it does result in decreased sales prices. He stated he considered that there is already a transmission line in the area; however, the substation is an addition, and the eight to fifteen houses backing up to the substation facility may experience a decrease in value ranging from $9,800.00 to $25,700.00, per house, for a total loss ranging from $78,400.00 to $385,500.00. He stated the impact is limited to the south end of the property, the potential loss is difficult to measure due to limited examples, and potential purchasers indicate they do not want to live near a substation when they have other alternatives. Responding to Commissioner Long, Mr. Poole stated some of the houses within the development also have a view to the south, not just the ones which are directly adjacent. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Poole concurred the lots are already experiencing a loss due to the existing transmission line, and the substation is just an incremental increase of that loss. Mike Kboudi, land broker with Fuller and Company,stated Centex did get a discount for purchasing near an existing transmission line. He stated he represents Jane Salingo, owner of Parcel 3, who initially signed a statement of support when it appeared the project was going to proceed regardless of her position. However, she later realized the proposed use would be a detriment to any future use of her property, and she no longer supports the project. He stated it is the job of the broker/company/buyer to uncover every stone and exhaust every option, and if they are interested in purchasing a property, and they may have to pay more or purchase a larger site. Mr. Kboudi stated he would have tried to negotiate with several sellers, rather than just pursuing 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 11 the easiest location. He stated this is not the only location that will work, and it is not the best for the area. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Kboudi reiterated he represents the Salingo property, and the property owners were never contacted by United Power to ensure they had exhausted all options. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Kboudi stated Ms. Salingo withdrew her support on May 7, 2008. Liz Alexander, Liberty Ranch Homeowners' Association President, stated Centex made its point clear, and 50 homeowners in Liberty Ranch have approximately$12,500,000.00 invested in their properties. She stated they are not contesting the need; however, the location of the proposal is distressing. She stated she met with United Power representatives in December, 2007, to discuss the Slater property and suggested moving the facility further south, at which time they indicated a relocation would devalue the proposed development of the Slater property. Ms. Alexander stated at the Planning Commission hearing, United Power indicated it had done due diligence, although some of the property owners were not contacted until a later date. She stated the applicant appears to be concerned with the impacts on other developments, but not the impacts that will be experienced by the residents in Liberty Ranch, and United Power has the resources to complete the necessary mitigation measures. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Alexander stated she is not a resident of Liberty Ranch, rather, she is a Centex employee acting as the Homeowners' Association president during the development phase. Keith Sarris, Liberty Ranch resident, stated he has taken time off to come to the various hearings. He stated there are 32 children who reside in Liberty Ranch, and their parents would not have purchased in the area had they known of the proposed facility and the potential risks. He stated half of the lots have been purchased, and some of the residents paid a premium for their houses to face the mountains to the west. He further stated the cost of the facility will be borne by the existing homeowners and Centex,whereas United Power will not be absorbing any additional costs. He stated United Power did not make the power shortage known during the development of the surrounding subdivisions, and the residents of Liberty Ranch should not have to bare the negative consequences. Mr. Sarris stated he did contact a United Power representative; however, he was informed that they did not intend to change from the initial proposal, or provide any mitigation measures. He stated there are articles which indicate ambiguous findings regarding the relation between electrical facilities and health conditions; however, there is a perceived health hazzard which does impact property values. He referred to five letters from various Real Estate appraisers, each indicating the location of a substation will result in decreased prices and longer selling times. He stated there may have been other developments that were built following a substation; however, the prices of those homes were negotiated to reflect the surrounding uses. He further stated United Power does have other alternatives; however, there are additional costs. He stated additional costs for United Power should not be avoided at the cost of the existing area residents. Mr. Sarris stated United Power did not do due diligence in coordinating with the neighborhood or advising the County of power shortages during previous developments. He stated the people who signed affidavits of support are happy with the proposal because it will not impact them; however, if it were relocated onto their property, they would likely oppose the request. Mr. Sarris submitted a packet of maps and photographs, marked Exhibit ZZ,and concluded by stating he is an electrical engineer and he understands that proactive planning is necessary to ensure adequate power delivery. Chair Jerke called a five minute recess until 5:00 p.m. Upon reconvening, Beverly Tippon, Liberty Ranch resident, expressed concern with potential health impacts, specifically childhood leukemia. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 12 She stated cigarette companies used to say cigarettes would not kill; however, over time they later admitted the harmful affects of tobacco, and similarly, the medical field is slowly beginning to recognize the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields. She stated at the Planning Commission hearing, Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, indicated the EMF output from the substation would be less than the daily exposure to common household appliances. She stated there is scientific evidence that EMF exposure over 1 miligous(MG)from power lines poses a risk factor for childhood and adult cancers. She further stated most of the residents would not have purchased properties in Liberty Ranch if the substation had existed, and she questioned whether the Board of Commissioners or United Power representatives are willing to guarantee the residents will not incur medical issues as a result of the proposed facility. Ms. Tippon stated governing agencies have a responsibility to adopt a precautionary principle to ensure protection against any potential risks. Joyce Palaszewski,surrounding property owner,stated her family was the first to purchase a home in Liberty Ranch. She expressed opposition to a constant view of the proposed substation, and noted the area residents have expressed concern regarding health issues,decreased home values, and the lack of choices for relocating away from the facility. She stated they moved to the area knowing the power lines exised; however,they did not anticipate the potential for a substation. Ms. Palaszewski stated there was enough power when Liberty Ranch was built; however, since that time two other larger subdivisions have been approved for 1,600 and 1,700 homes. She stated the community is distraught that their choice to avoid a substation may be taken away, and if they had known of the potential use, they would have negotiated a better buying price or not purchased at all. She requested a guarantee of protection for the area residents' health and property values, or that the Board deny the application. Barbara Page,Johnstown resident and Beverly Tippon's sister,stated she intended to move in next door to her sister; however, the proposed substation has discouraged her purchase. She stated she is aware it will be difficult to sell her home in Johnstown, but she wishes to be near her sister in Liberty Ranch. Dan Calisher, Foster Graham Milstein Miller Calisher, LLP, requested that all submitted documents be included in the file as Exhibits. He stated Tab 15 of Exhibit LL, contains a publication from United Power indicating a $1 million credit to its members, which illustrates the company has the funds necessary to purchase a more suitable site. He stated United Power did not provide licensed testimony regarding the current market and perceived negative impacts. He further stated the application was filed on September 11, 2007, and it does not appear United Power has carried the burden of proof to support the request. Mr. Calisher stated there is limited and weak evidence and no conclusion that the EMF output is entirely safe, therefore, any reasonable homeowner may conclude that there is some potential for a negative impact. He further stated Dr. Pearson has studied the subject for 35 years and produced models, as well as stating that some states have enforced limitations on setbacks from similar facilities; however, he is not a medical doctor, nor is he qualified to address potential health impacts. Mr. Calisher stated United Power did not start negotiating with area property owners until November,2004,there were no meaningful discussions until late in 2005, and some of the discussions did not take place until after denial by the Planning Commission. He stated there is no evidence that United Power attempted to persuade sales on any of the alternate sites, and regardless of whether there is a real health concern, there is still a stigma that negatively impacts property sales. He further stated it is interesting that United Power 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 13 declined other sites due to close proximity to water features; however, the proposed site is very close to a proposed reservoir. Mr. Clark objected to Mr. Foster adding a second closing statement, and Chair Jerke requested Mr. Foster keep his comments separate from those already provided by Mr. Calisher. Mr. Foster referred to the County Mission Statement and stated this situation could have been handled in a proactive manner rather than leaving it to the Commissioners to make a determination. He read the statements of the Planning Commissioners for the record, and stated the additional setbacks and two acres are not a part of the original application. He further stated the current residents purchased their homes knowing there was a transmission line in the area; however it is unfair to state that the homeowners should have guessed that a substation would be coming. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Foster stated the Board must determine whether United Power has mitigated the area concerns to the greatest extend feasible. He stated if the Board determines there are no other suitable sites, then the Liberty Ranch residents and Centex representatives request that the proposed alternatives be imposed as a Condition of Approval. John Knutson, surrounding property owner, stated he agrees with all of the previous comments of opposition. He stated he would not have purchased had he known of the proposed facility, and it appears United Power tried to hide the request until the site was purchased, in 2007. He stated he installs and maintains medical equipment, and he must consider the surrounding uses in a building when installing an MRI,similarly, United Power should have considered the impacts on the area residents. There being no further comments, Chair Jerke closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Mr. Clark stated there is no standard that requires property values to be considered as part of a land use process. He introduced Stan Sessions and gave a brief summary of his credentials. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Barker stated new testimony from new people will be subject to comment from the opposition. Mr. Sessions stated typically these types of uses have a way of working themselves out. He stated most of the time all of the initial concern is for nothing, but he appreciates the process which allows all parties to review and comment. He stated he was impressed with the unobstructed views to the west of Longs Peak, and there does not appear to be much cause for residents to express concern with the view to the south, with the location of the substation down the slope, inset to the hill, and screened with a berm. He stated it is factual that negative views can affect property values; however, there is a natural hill on the north edge of the Slater property, and if the facility boundary is topped with a berm and landscaping, the view should be mitigated. He stated if United Power locates the facility appropriately,and mitigates the property to the maximum, there should be little to no impact on real estate values. Mr. Sessions stated when he served as the Weld County Assessor, he never heard a tax appeal based on power lines or substations,and if the facility is mitigated,the property values in the area will likely only decrease by two to five percent. He further stated Colorado has very strict disclosure laws, and he is uncertain whether Centex Homes ever disclosed the perceived potential health effects from the existing transmission line. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Sessions stated every property is unique and different and a successful sales involves a willing buyer and seller. He noted mitigation can also be overdone and result in ugly or gaudy features. Mr. Clark introduced Rich Borys and gave a brief summary of his qualifications. Mr. Borys stated he specializes in real estate appraisals, and he did an assessment at the request of United Power. He submitted an Appraisal Report, marked Exhibit AAA, and stated there is an existing 100-foot 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION - A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 14 power line easement along the south end of the Liberty Ranch property, containing an existing 115 kV transmission line, mounted on 80-foot wooden poles. He stated the transmission line has been in place for approximately 30 years and acts as a barrier between the proposed substation and the development to the north. He referred to the last page of Exhibit AAA, containing a map of the Rinn Valley Substation operated by United Power. He stated that facility is surrounded by residential development on three sides,and it was developed in 1998,followed by the subdivisions. Upon speaking with the developer of the Stoneridge Development, Mr. Borys stated they indicated an anticipated discount between 20 and 25 percent only on the properties that back to the substation. He clarified the southern lots in the Liberty Ranch Subdivision back to an existing transmission line corridor, not the proposed substation on the other side of an existing utility easement. He further stated it is difficult to find data of comparable sales; however, he reviewed the Appraisal Journal and found some articles that provided some reasonable insight indicating there is no evidence of price sensitivity or price appreciation for high voltage transmission lines, although there is a small decrease in value for sites that are 200 feet, or less, from a high voltage transmission line. Mr. Borys stated some reports found increased sales due to increased visual clearance and privacy adjacent to a utility corridor. He stated the listed prices in Liberty Ranch are not too costly or too cheap, and typically high priced homes tend to be more sensitive to surrounding uses. He stated he also does FHA appraisals, and there is no prohibition of making loans within proximity to power lines, unless the residence is within a fall zone, therefore, it is a mute point, since most of the poles are designed to fall within the easement. Mr. Foster stated Mr. Sessions indicated the potential health hazzard may be perceived, even if it is not real, and Mr. Borys stated it may result in a minimal value change. He stated setting the substation down in the ground does not matter, because the homes to the north are elevated 25 feet above the subject site and will be looking down into the facility. Mr. Foster further stated Mr. Borys indicated the transmission line creates a wall; however, the residents can see to the south beyond the transmission line easement. He concurred with Mr. Sessions that, if approved, the proposed facility must provide mitigation, and Mr. Borys' testimony regarding the Rinn Valley Substation is only relevant since it supports the finding that there needs to be mitigation. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Foster stated there is no proposed use between the back decks of the southern lots in the Liberty Ranch Subdivision and the proposed substation. He further stated at full buildout there will be approximately 15 homes that have a real impact,with the remainder of the development affected by the perceived impact related to a nearby substation. Mr. McDaniel stated United Power has offered to try and come up with a mitigation plan for the site; however, the representatives for Centex indicated there is no way to mitigate the proposal. He stated the applicant is still willing to work out a mitigation plan with Centex and any other parties involved, and lowering the facility was one way to mitigate. He further stated Parcel 10 is Longmont Open Space, which will not support the use, and placing landscaping under the transmission lines is not feasible if it gets too tall. Mr. McDaniel stated underground lines require 14-foot solid base poles, which are very visible and still require certain clearance distances to meet national electric standards. He stated United Power is willing to work out the details of aesthetics, and he noted lighting is necessary at the facility to avoid copper theft; however,the new substations are built with motion detectors to reduce the amount of time the lights are on. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. McDaniel stated landscaping around substations is becoming common practice, and the applicant is willing to work with Centex, with the understanding that they do have to get lines from tall poles down into the site and those features will be difficult to hide. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 15 Mr. Hubbuck stated United Power did discuss looking at mitigation opportunities; however, Centex representatives indicated nothing would be acceptable. He stated there is a significant setback from the northern property line, the additional two acres will accommodate stormwater runoff, and lowering the substation down into the hill will further mitigate views. He stated there is no additional cost to the residents of the Liberty Ranch Subdivision or Centex, nor is there a rate increase associated with the substation. He stated United Power provides"Will Serve" letters to represent they are the utility provider,and, unfortunately,the growth in the area requires upgrades. He stated United Power is a not-for-profit COOP, which uses generated funds to make and deliver power; any extra revenue must be returned to the customers, owners, or members. Mr. Clark stated Centex Homes is a Fortune 500 company. He stated the 100-foot easement is split by the Centex and Slater properties, and he believes Centex should have been aware of the proposed Longmont Reservoir, and known that substations are a potential product of the adjacent transmission line. He stated United Power raised the EMF issue in response to concerns expressed by the area residents, and research shows there is more potential for EMF harm from the existing transmission line than the proposed substation. He further stated Mr. Poole did not complete an appraisal, rather, he simply contacted others to get their opinion. Mr. Clark referred to the referral response from the Town of Mead, and stated after nine months, Mead held a meeting and changed its position based on public input from Centex and numerous homeowners. He stated United Power was not present to respond, and the Town requested that Mr. Foster draft the reasons for opposition. He stated the Town of Mead has no authority on the issue, since there is no Intergovernmental Agreement with the County, and it was simply responding on behalf of the area residents. He stated the parcel was originally six acres; however, following discussions with Centex, United Power did further studies and, considering the future location of the Longmont Reservoir, it was determined the facility could be relocated 100 feet to the south, with an additional acreage being purchased from the Slater Trust for drainage from the property. Responding to Commissioner Long, Mr. Clark clarified the additional acreage is on the south end of the proposed site for drainage. In response to Chair Jerke, Ms. Martin stated there is nothing in the file reflecting the additional acreage,since it was only introduced through the course of this hearing. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Barker stated the main consideration is that the staff, referral agencies, and the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to review the increased size; however,the Board may make a finding in the motion to amend the parcel size referenced in the final Resolution. Mr. Clark reiterated the additional area was proposed in response to concerns from Centex and the neighbors, and it will be for drainage only, not an expansion of the substation. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Clark stated, in an effort to address neighbors'concerns, the substation was relocated 100 feet south, thus additional room is required to accommodate the drainage requirements of the County, and Mr. Snyder concurred. Chair Jerke referred to Condition of Approval #1.1, regarding the improvements agreement, and stated he would like to strike the last sentence and require review by the Board to hear comments from staff and the affected parties to ensure the proper steps for mitigation are in place. He also proposed including the Liberty Ranch HOA and Centex Homes as referral agencies for review and comment regarding the Improvements Agreements. Commissioner Masden agreed that the affected parties should be notified on the matter, and he would like to direct the applicant to hire a landscape architect that will work to also address the concerns of the neighbors. Chair Jerke agreed, although it may not be appropriate to name a specific company or professional. Commissioner Masden agreed. 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 16 In response to Commissioner Long, Chair Jerke clarified he would like the affected parties to be notified of the various plans or agreements which will be reviewed by the Board as a regular item of business on the Agenda. Commissioner Garcia stated the Board typically supports less government involvement and oversight; however, he supports the proposal, due to the special circumstances in this case. Commissioner Rademacher stated the proposal may set a precedent. Commissioner Long stated the precedent is that there are times of extraordinary circumstances that require extra steps; however, he does not believe it will need to be necessary in every case. Commissioner Masden agreed this is an extraordinary accommodation; however, it is appropriate in this application. He stated each case is different and must be handled accordingly. Mr. Barker asked for clarification from Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board, who stated a notice is published following approval of any Site Specific Development Plan, which includes the acreage size, therefore, the public would be notified of the acreage change, in addition to any revisions the Board makes to the Resolution. Commissioner Rademacher stated Condition of Approval #1.D needs to be modified to replace "Weld County"with "Mountain View"to reflect the appropriate Paramedic Service. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, regarding Condition of Approval#1.G, Ms. Martin stated she has been shown evidence of an approved access permit; however, she does not have a copy for the record. Responding further to Commissioner Rademacher, Commissioner Garcia stated the standard lighting requirements are addressed in Condition of Approval #1.K.8. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Clark agreed with deleting the last sentence of Condition of Approval #1.1, resulting in a review before the Board. Mr. Barker stated the second sentence adequately addresses the intent of the Board. He clarified the Board has indicated its desire for the Improvements Agreement to include a landscaping component, done by a landscaping expert whose services will be paid for by the applicant. Additionally, the Board would like to require notification to the Liberty Ranch HOA and Centex Homes of any proposed Improvements Agreement,as well as notification of when it will be considered by the Board to allow an opportunity to make any comments. Mr. Barker proposed adding the following in place of the last sentence: "The Improvements Agreement shall include a landscaping component that is designed by a landscaping expert, paid for by the applicant. The Liberty Ranch Homeowners' Association ("Liberty')and Centex Homes ("Centex')shall be provided notice of the proposed Improvements Agreement, and the time and date of the meeting when it will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. Liberty and Centex shall also be notified of any other hearings or meetings thereafter which address the Improvements Agreement." Chair Jerke proposed replacing "landscaping expert" with "licensed landscape architect," and the Board concurred. Mr. Clark stated the applicant agrees with the proposed modification. Mr. Barker also suggested adding a new "Whereas" paragraph to reflect the increase in acreage and the finding that it is not a substantial change. Mr. Clark suggested the language reflect the specific acreage size of 7.67 gross acres. (Clerk's Note: The acreage change was also reflected in criteria paragraph #2.a.) Mr. Snyder stated the Improvements Agreement also needs to reflect drainage improvements, in addition to landscaping, and the Board and applicant concurred. Mr. Barker proposed additional language to state, "WHEREAS, the applicant has offered an amendment to the application, such that the total acreage is 7.67 acres, and the Board hereby finds and determines that such change is not considered to be a substantial or material change for the 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION -A. DALE SLATER TRUST B/ UNITED POWER (USR #1629) PAGE 17 purposes of the Weld County Code, and." Commissioner Long stated the change will not change the activities as originally proposed, since the increase is only for drainage. The Board and Mr. Clark concurred. In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Clark stated he and his client have reviewed, and agree with, the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as proposed and modified. Commissioner Garcia thanked all of the people who provided testimony. He stated this has been a learning experience for all involved, and both sides of the issue provided good presentations and information. He referred to Section 23-4-420 and stated it has been established that there is a need, and regarding Section 23-3-400, he stated it is difficult to determine how may alternatives need to be pursued; however, he feels ten properties along the transmission line is adequate. He further stated Section 23-3-400.C will be met, if the design and landscaping alternatives are utilized, and although Section 23-2-400.E was initially a concern, the testimony provided by Ms. Light and Dr. Pierson mitigated his concern. Regarding Section 23-2-400.E, Commissioner Garcia stated there could be impacts, either real or perceived; however, the experts on both sides have acknowledged the existence of the powerlines and their impacts on property values. Commissioner Long stated he agrees with Commissioner Garcia's findings. He stated the appraisers were unable to quantify the distance at which an impact is made, and his rationale is that more distance diminishes the impact. Commissioner Masden agreed, and stated he feels there is a need and he supports the proposal. Commissioner Rademacher thanked everyone for coming. He stated he has been a resident in the area for 51 years and even farmed the land as the last tenant before it was developed. He stated he does have a United Power substation on his land and they have been a very good neighbor; however, he is opposed to the process. He stated he believes the Planning Commission was supposed to be the last stop for this case, and he intends to hold to that position. He stated there may still be some other alternative sites, although he realizes the neighbors still would have been in opposition for visual reasons if the project were moved to the west. He stated he does not believe a substation poses a heath hazzard, since they are commonly located in municipalities. He further stated he would have preferred to have the project petitioned into the Mixed Unit Development (MUD), water issues are not a concern since that happens anywhere, and the compatibility issues have already been addressed. Based on conflict with the process, Commissioner Rademacher stated he does not support the application,and he requested a roll call vote. Chair Jerke stated he concurs with the comments of Commissioners Long, Garcia, and Masden, and he supports the application due to the need. He stated it is good to address the energy demands now, before any more development takes place. He further stated the perfect site is hard to find; however, this appears to be a good site, with appropriate mitigation measures. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the request of A. Dale Slater Trust B and United Power, Inc., for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1629 for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (electrical substation), subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 of the Weld County Code, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the findings as noted above, with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record. His motion included the addition of a new"Whereas" paragraph to amend the total 2008-1805 PL1963 HEARING CERTIFICATION - A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER (USR#1629) PAGE 18 acreage of the parcel and make a determination that the change is not a substantial or material change, amend Condition of Approval#1.D to replace"Weld County"with"the Mountain View"to reflect the appropriate Paramedic Service, and replace the last sentence of Condition of Approval#1.1 with the following: "The Improvements Agreement shall include a landscaping and drainage component that is designed by a licensed landscape architect, paid for by the applicant. The Liberty Ranch Homeowners'Association ("Liberty) and Centex Homes ("Centex) shall be provided notice of the proposed Improvements Agreement, and the time and date of the meeting when it will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. Liberty and Centex shall also be notified of any other hearings or meetings, thereafter, which address the Improvements Agreement." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Masden, and it carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: Paragraph #2.o was added to recognize the stated findings of the Board regarding the need for the facility within the proposed service area, and the first sentence of Condition of Approval#1.K.7 was modified to state, "County Road 5.5 is classified by the County as an Arterial Roadway, which requires 100 feet of right-of-way at full buildout.") There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 7:25 p.m. This Certification was approved on the 21st day of July, 2008. APPROVED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �► , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO IL,'l ��•r/Ze � � - Z-Gu ATTEST: �. b. I, V'gm -,;1+ a *%William H. Jerke, Chair Weld County Clerk to th o. ., �I EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL,� Ro ert DL/ en, Pro-Tem BY: �.�Il3J� Dep n Clerk the Board illiam F. Garcia EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL David E. Long nn tICDouglas Rtademache 2008-1805 PL1963 J Mc d •••::s c...4 JOcp , , N% 3° \-/ c . �, u N <9 1 e .4,4, O--2 TA I 't I‘ jtS ?,- :CI 5 V 0 _�. 0 s w , 7 �' ;,: U N <4'. cn C ? . - m 3 2 T v J `r KN w o w y c 'N-_v N. v^\ z N d U - I\ -?• r- 7 \ k �/ z waW m ≤n � .. `3 ti v � � W LL O Z a H a w \ �, � C� o W . Q 0 FMd v LL' Z 9 ' Vl \ ,3 ; o t . O - Ns N{ cn wvw z F- z 2 v 0 gQa 0 3 weep c P1 v 72 Si o c0z c 1 o. o� �v LL QR' 0 Y L \� S v vl - \ CO ; eta 3 �e 1 � 0� . � 3 w co co w >+ Q NNE 0) �_a) C ° a � �� 1 � � U) \' y gg � ' < 000 z 2-4 d •� p / 1 �� I 0 0 0 a CY �� c� � Qp oc- ,,, 60. . , (9 °3 ‘-\s © 4 � V.^,/(1 Q \ y , hV. ,, 4 , ,, ,-.: c - al � � a �,J 41 41 'LW N a t/'�\ ( J �v m0 `) .„, a re ad it L., A c Q1 q ki U\ELI 0 N C1 H 2, jT vJ . ;_e U k , , � V C E a uf Z c 67 rat \ r• S _ alb ck fi '• !.' y • a r W li eO w u. ca 2 2 V2 `j k '1 2 x . x IL I- >- cm E y 3 S Q ;o p , `l , T S e in e m c.) m Q N 3 I`J O \ ,�7 \n t`• r y c� r pj I � L~ " C Z W2 _ i • 0 sus , 0 4 en 0 A0 2 v C S44 ( t) 'vi 0 Nab o v � Ac ,-- o L N , m . � ,- d i w or1v 3 Cj .~ S cO 0aoao T y 01NN d 1 <1 - T` �J N J S L O 1 a wujw Q a 6 NJ� ,) iti T e2 YYY WW � ��'�SV��_ 1 w 000 a g .._ d� �^�� V\ Lt M a INA J J 'J D r O U N w a i r4 a 00 (n ) U N c d U N z w v` a) .31 d3 _ z a " d w O 2 f- >- c d a w E w z U .9 Q = No �? c a 0 Z J0 I- a) CO a) c 0 in N eerU of Q U) " 7 A £ = F )- 7 co Z w .d+ I- fa A U 7 U) Q in co c T j- 0RA c Jc O 0n a ({) _ NLEIy ' "v, 71 4 0 '� rT ) k -v5 m w , c, ,�. S et 000 .0N 000 � � z� — \ < 4 4,;_ y t l� V . Z www w w ° -' :.p e 5 \/ -.1-: - UUU w w O O O a z 2 �� N �0 V � D � � n ' q, � �,n � n o ( � � c� � �� I o i� � ' V N Q W � � � � � � � W o � � � , � U W c d U U e � Z _ a u� ��" O � � 1�0 .��. � �'\ � � 3 � � v w O a � �' 'J F � Of'C G. fn L ≤ r � y � . Q � j�j .d„ C�t � z �.n � F a�i m N � � c� � r, N d y V d a �' � y � ` ` � = F- F- 7 ip H � r" C Z y A V 7 � > y � O 3 Q T � °' � � o � os �Q ` � � = Q a o � .� O y m, V �. � Q . � o o � a ! y . a NNN 01 � �' � 4k it Xt N I� � � N Z W W W W W � � � VJ y) , a � �, W OOO J L 2 G G G a Z � � A ,-) n ni O er) V , �� f 4, , J h G % , „s“ v, li_J _IN 4 _5_, 00 „ it c, — 1 W v: \O IX l , 4 CD z C 'o ✓I 1 i ` k' �� w M ,� _7' o Q1 re re'w o w r ') s �� S U c_ z >= a d v N \ C rJ •V I o -J 0 a v V g 1} 1 � o ' d d L \\ 4 � ] Z LL z_ m 2 i - O. Cl) r •- t 2 N S i- g m c w 3 J ; ` , , y4 �. < o y o n• z° a. a A (ti 2 a o _ IJ• �t g 8 01' �- (b N re E 2 w R H Q C ti J 7 O a J O fn Cl) w >` V s �^' chi— O o s R O :11 :--.? 4 --• tf-Na L. J-th' • 0 'RC% ‘tt\ck . 1\ ! O an J Q M \" „ ;IV- -- 'v 1 v 5 vai i d a ` J Q y3 d z v y w p° v L N: a (n\4elf j ,4� i a Y a E S , p� 1�`�ccj� w O -I z 13 a' ' I� 2 0 a 04;e0 Q 3 to n6 rc1 Po p _i N rr ,,..3 V \ • , e, J c. \.` ? ' t, 8 O 0_ • 1 tsN'4 >r?‘ - ! 1/4 C$ -. - ,ThS(C) re re co tu 0 v `J yff) a � r' N5 t 00 w (a \ � C:iy w o 3 y S: y k z a j c CI 2) Li2 o m Q a d N (1 Z s� CS Z u_ z d 2 65 3 ` '•1> 14 T5 e- 3 I-- >- — o Cl) o _Lc, v ' v km N '� y u re Z J ,9,.e) c-- r3U N.m D 2 o co r) (k U G 'I cm y h CO\1\ cn h 1 y (X E W 1-i ii2 C0 w r ' l l l O G •a 2 ? ' 4 (�� e� o a M 3 s - 't � V`� 7 si LIJ o >, ors y p � � "\- ` ----) re ..75 N f - s p �' e- O ?' _ x c a [NI 4_ ki o 3 re O a. o U N cf v W ? m y�) <� ki d' io cl w co ' V\ '\ V N O H P C 4 m CI pv Q J o 7, N ft 0 \ `J F CD - � Z LL 2 w 22 W 0 7 -cD Q Cl) t F < m E W Z Q- �@ C\ a r y o \tea •9' V ref Co Fes=- R Q N , . VI Q' E W F C I— Z I i O V) p O \ in W d a o C '\L ( OJ Q C p '\ I q C L. a CIll 3 2 o sa Cl) � " � J Z w W W 0 V`co � (v � 2 Y Q w c �.� w o z g --, —le) x 0 a EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR#1629 - A. DALE SLATER TRUST B / UNITED POWER Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 01/15/2008) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing (Filed under Legals) E. County Attorney Letter and appeal packet to David Foster, dated 03/24/2008 F. Clerk to the Board Letter to Laura Macken requesting Transcript, dated 03/25/2008 G. Residents of Liberty Ranch Letter of Opposition, dated 04/07/2008 H. Residents of Liberty Ranch Letter(4/7/08) and Supporting documents re: Power line facts and PowerPoint, dated 11/20/2007 Clerk to the Board E-mail re; Appeal Timeline, dated 04/17/2007 J. Clerk to the Board Certification of Electronic submittal of file K. Clerk to the Board E-mail re: Proposed language from Cynthia Treadwell, dated 04/21/2008 L. Clerk to the Board E-mail re: Follow-up from County Attorney M. Rothgerber, Johnson and Lyons Objection to Appeal criterion, dated 04/25/2008 N. Clerk to the Board Transcript O. Rothqerber, Johnson and Lyons Amended Complaint, received 05/07/2008 P. Clerk to the Board Second Notice of Hearing (Filed under Legals) Q. Peyton Ellington E-mail and Letter of Concern, dated 05/12/2008 R. David Foster/Liberty Ranch and Centex Homes HOA Response to Amended Complaint, Motion to Strike all New Evidence, and Response to Objection to Appeal Criterion S. Rothergerber, Johnson and Lyons Reply to Centex Homes' Response and Response to Motion to Strike all New Evidence, dated 05/16/2008 T. David Foster Supplemental Response to Amended Complaint, dated 05/19/2008 U. Mark Meyer List of Speakers, dated 05/19/2008 V. David Foster Letter requesting continuance, dated 06/06/2008 W. Clerk to the Board Copy of File Certification, Quote for copy and transcript, and Evidence of Payment X. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting Y. Foster Graham Milstein Miller and Calisher, LLP (FGMMC) E-mail correspondence re: Con't request, 06/16/2008 Z. Mark Meyer E-mail re: Continuance date, 06/17/2008 AA. Clerk to the Board Continuance Notice, dated 06/27/2008 (Filed under Legals) BB. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting CC. Andrew and Lyndsee Saulino E-mail of Opposition, dated 07/07/2008 DD. Keith and Alicea Sarris E-mail and Letter of Opposition, dated 07/11/2008 EE. Roy and Jody Orback E-mail and Letter of Opposition, dated 07/14/2008 FF. Laura, Matt and Kyle Stubbs E-mail of Opposition, dated 07/15/2008 GG. Clerk to the Board Transcript of 06/04/2008 Hearing HH. Town of Mead Letter of Opposition, dated 07/07/2008 I I. Bill Pollock and Janet Sage Letter of Opposition, dated 07/13/2008 JJ. Jeff and Beverly Trippon E-mail of Opposition, dated 07/16/2008 KK. Joyce Palaszewski Letter of Opposition, dated 07/14/2008 LL. David Foster Packet of Exhibits 1-16, dated 07/16/2008 MM. Dick Clark Letter of Nancy Slater, dated 07/15/2008 NN. Dick Clark Affidavit of Myra Jane Silenqo OO. Dick Clark Affidavit of Ernest Kiteley PP. Dick Clark Affidavit of Midwest Heritage Inn QQ. Dick Clark Affidavit of Jerry Hergenreder RR. Health Staff HIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields SS. Health Staff EMF - Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power, dated June 2002 TT. David Foster Petition of Opposition UU. Jason Maxey CD with 50 second video of United Power property W. Jason Maxey Two photographs of site WW. Jason Maxey Copy of Letter from Dean Hubbuck, dated 01/14/2008 XX. Applicant Copy of Referral from Town of Mead, dated 10/10/2007 W. Robert Pearson Diagram of Magnetic Fields ZZ. Keith Sarris Packet of 11X17 Maps, Site photos with computer enhancements, Site Design, and Proposed Fence AAA. Richard Borys Appraisal Report, dated 07/15/2008 BBB. Kenneth Puncerelli PowerPoint presentation, dated 07/16/2008 CCC. Jason Maxey Map of Alternate Site Parcels Hello