HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101188.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A special meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 101h Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton -Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll, Department of Public Works;
Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the May 4, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Alexander Zauder. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1723
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek II, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility(a wind energy facility with a generating capacity up to
250.8 megawatts (MW) along with a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line, an
interconnection facility to tie into an existing 72-mile transmission line, existing
collector transmission lines, up to five (5) permanent 80-meter meteorological
towers, one (1) substation, an operations and maintenance building/facility, along
with one (1)temporary batch plant and construction facility) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Wind Energy Facility
T10N R57W Section 6
T10N R58W Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
T11N R56W, Sections 5, 6, 8, 17
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
T11N R58W Sections 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 27, 34, 36
T12N R56W Sections 28, 32, 33
T12N R57W Sections 34, 36
Transmission Line
T10N R58W Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9
T10N R59W Sections 4, 9, 10, 11, 12
T10N R59W Sections 5, 6
T10N R6OW Section 2
T11N R57W Section 7
T11N R58W Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, 36
T11N R59W Sections 31, 32
T11N R60W Sections 35, 36
1
Comrrthmlea-tivtA2 l0-7- O1O 2010-1188
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Wind Generator facility is generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of
and adjacent to CR 138.5; North of and adjacent to CR 120 and west of CR 153.
The section of transmission line lying outside of the boundaries of the Wind
Generator Facility is located north of CR 118 and east of and adjacent to CR 382.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this case was originally heard by the Planning
Commission on March 16, 2010. The purpose of this hearing is to address re-notification of this case for legal
purposes as well as some minor modifications to the application.
The applicants have slightly modified the location of the transmission line at the very southwest corner to keep
it out of some existing oil and gas drill envelopes. Additionally, the applicant is proposing two (2) additional
meteorological towers associated with this facility. The original application indicated up to three(3)towers and
now they are proposing a total of up to five (5) towers.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
David Gonzales, Senior Wind Developer for BP Wind, commented that they feel they have a project that has
addressed everyone's concerns and look forward to being a member of the business community.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1723, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a brief recess to set up for the next case.
The Weld County Planning Commission Chair and Greeley Planning Commission Chair called the joint
hearing with the Greeley Planning Commission to order at 2:00 pm.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Brett Payton—Chair
Chuck Jones—Vice Chair
Eddie Mirick
Paulette Weaver
Robb Casseday
Jon Rarick
Ryan Mayeda
2
5- 12-moo i o
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2010-4
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: Proposal to adopt the North Greeley Railroad Subarea Plan for Greeley&Weld
County.
Chris Gathman,Weld County Planning Services, commented that a proposal of the Subarea Plan be adopted
as an Appendix to Chapter 22-A of the Weld County Code. Included is one amendment to Section 22-2-
20.3.a by adding a second sentence The North Greeley Railroad Subarea Plan has been adopted by the
Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners and is attached as Appendix 22-A."
Brad Mueller, City of Greeley, commented that this is a request to consider the North Greeley Railroad
Corridor Subarea Plan. It is a partnership effort between the City and County over the last two years and is
intended to support comprehensive plan principles and goals that were developed independently by both the
City and County in their Comprehensive Planning processes. The main goal in both plans centered around
the idea of evaluating the opportunity for economic development along this corridor.
A much larger area was studied initially and then the subarea, which is proposed, is a smaller subset of that
larger area studied. The larger study area is from Highway 85 to County Road 23 where essentially the
planning boundaries that the City of Greeley has with the Town of Windsor. Early in the study they did talk
with Windsor of the possibility of three jurisdictions studying this area; however Windsor recognized that this
was largely out of their planning area and asked to instead be advised throughout the process. The other
limits are State Highway 392 to the north and roughly the Cache la Poudre River to the south. In analyzing this
area, transportation is one of the key aspects to this area. It was noted that the north-south and east-west
transportation corridors were key towards any future land uses.
The market will demand what type of land uses will be in the area; but we also recognize that change will
happen in this area. We have seen that both in the general population trends for the Front Range on a macro
scale and in the trends for annexations of jurisdictions of the Front Range. Change is very likely due
according to the number of inquiries that have come in through some of our economic development partners
(Upstate Colorado), City of Greeley Economic Development, etc. Without a plan such as this one of the
potential outcomes is that there is less coordination between jurisdictions and individuals that you have land
uses that prove to be incompatible with each other.
One of the reasons this area was singled out by both the County Comprehensive Plan and City of Greeley's
Comprehensive Plan was because of several unique qualities. Rail lines are fairly unique as they are a built
infrastructure and they are not likely to change. This particular stretch of railroad is unique also for the number
of stretches of rail that are uninterrupted by road crossings. Another uniqueness is that it lies in an area that
has good quality road infrastructures. In addition,there is a very near possibility and plan for central water and
sewer to this area. The City of Greeley for several years has been looking at the prospect of being able to
move water and sewer north of the Poudre River both in response to market demands that it has been
approached with and recognizing that it is important to do long range planning for water supplies. That study
will culminate by the end of this year and it is anticipated that it will show that there is an opportunity to move
those services north of the river at some particular time.
The policies that are drafted for your consideration are for the entire subarea; but there are a couple policies
that relate to the railroad principle corridor.
There are three (3) Economic Goals and two (2) Land Use and Transportation Goals. The first Economic
Goal is to encourage industrial and commercial uses within the Subarea that provide jobs. A second
Economic Goal is to develop that key infrastructure along the corridor. The third Economic Goal is to move
closer towards the idea of a shovel ready property.
The first Land Use and Transportation Goal is similar to the first Economic Goal in recognizing a vision for this
area while still ensuring that there is mitigation of those uses through the site planning and other types of
processes. One way to promote that is to encourage those re-zonings to an industrial zone district. A policy is
included to work to improve road alignments.
3
The second Land Use and Transportation Goal has to do with the functionality of the rail line itself. To do that
and to encourage those other goals is to include a policy that within that principle corridor that the residential
subdivisions not be encouraged recognizing that proximity to the rail is useful for industry. Also, in the area
identified as the Rail Centric Employment Area that subdivisions be considered when found to be compatible
with industry.
Overall, the goals and policies are designed to encourage primary job producing industry in the entire subarea.
Mr. Mueller commented that both the City of Greeley and Weld County staff recommend approval of the North
Greeley Railroad Corridor Subarea Plan.
Mark Lawley asked if there was comment from private landowners. Mr. Mueller said that for the first 2 open
houses an individual postcard was sent to every landowner in the whole study area. They were invited to the
open house or invited to send correspondence or make comments via the website. No input was received
through the web or by correspondence; however Mr. Mueller indicated that they talked to a group of about 80
at the first open house, primarily landowners. Those comments were then recorded and became the basis of
much of the analysis as the process moved forward.
Tom Holton asked how many of those people were for and against it. Mr. Mueller said it would be difficult to
characterize it as for or against it. The first open house was a listening session on our part. The second open
house is where opinions about specific goals and policies were proposed to folks. Mr. Mueller said that people
did not really give any indication if they were for or against it in those precise terms. There were certain
individuals who had concerns of aspects of the draft scenarios at that point but they also heard from some
people who felt that this was exactly what was needed in the area.
Mr. Holton expressed concern on Section 5 Goal 2 where residential subdivisions are not encouraged. He
understands the reason but it also limits the property owners options of what they can do with their ground
should they decide to do it in the short term. Mr. Mueller said that they have tried to be precise about that type
of thing and added that this is one of the very tough things about land use. We know that industry works on a
certain economy of scale. Current land uses in the area largely only allow agricultural uses. Land use is a
balancing act between allowing creative opportunity and at the same time setting parameters for predictability.
This plan tries to establish a certain amount of predictability while still allowing a very wide range of creative
opportunity.
Jon Rarick referred to the Great Western Railroad which runs through this area and asked what feeling Mr.
Mueller has as far as Great Western allowing spurs to come off of that. Mr. Mueller commented that while
they have coordinated with the rail company they did not want them to dictate this process.
Nick Berryman understood that this is to create permit ready sites and that there is some effort for the
developers to pay a portion of that; however he is not sure to what extent the infrastructure, be it utility or
transportation, is going to be incentivized by one of the jurisdictions here. Mr. Mueller said that this plan does
not attempt to create incentives for economic development; however it is not to say that other entities couldn't
create those separately. It does attempt to recognize that growth should pay its own way.
Tom Holton commented that there is a process to go back and amend the Comp Plan for Weld County and
asked if there is a process for this Subarea Plan as well. Mr. Mueller replied that he believed it could be
amended. Counsel for Weld County and the City of Greeley concurred and added that it would go through the
same process as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plans.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joe Plummer, Director of Planning for the Town of Windsor, commented that he is here on behalf of the
Windsor Planning Commission. Mr. Plummer stated that he attended the first open house meeting and at that
time it appeared as if it was mostly a plan that would be more appropriate for North Weld County and the City
of Greeley because it was pretty far east from Windsor at that time. In the interim, however, Windsor's
industrial activities have moved east and Greeley's annexations and industrial developments have moved
west. Currently,there is an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Greeley which is south of the study
4
area and east of the study area.
Mr. Plummer commented that he is not sure that constant communication has occurred during this process.
He added that they asked to receive a copy of the Subarea Plan and staff provided that to them. Shortly
thereafter, Mr. Mueller made a very good presentation which peaked the Windsor Planning Commission
interests. He entered into record his letter dated May 12, 2010 itemizing 3 points for consideration.
1. The City of Greeley and Weld County work with the Great Western Railway to reconstruct the 59th
Avenue bridge in Greeley to accommodate eastbound rail traffic;
2. The City of Greeley and Weld County work with the Great Western Railway also to tie into the Union
Pacific switch in the Greeley switching yard to further accommodate eastbound rail traffic; and
3. For consistent and compatible industrial development within the sub-area and properties within
Windsor which abut the sub-area, that Greeley and Weld County enter into discussions with Windsor
to create an intergovernmental agreement for the development within and adjacent to the sub-area;
Mr. Plummer wished to applaud the efforts of this subarea plan and added that they would like to have the two
Planning Commissions take these points into consideration.
Jon Rarick asked Mr. Plummer to explain what is happening with the 59th Avenue Bridge. Mr. Plummer said
that it is their understanding that the traffic that comes out of the current industrial developments both in
Windsor and the developing areas of Greeley and North Weld County may not go east with the bridge not
repaired; therefore causing westbound traffic to go through downtown Windsor and also through the eastern
part of Windsor. He added that this is a concern with the Town of Windsor.
Michelle Goad, 12211 CR 66, commented that she is not positive that the public in the subarea was fully
informed of what has been going on. She indicated that her husband is in construction and planning and
unfortunately was not able to attend the open house meetings. She stated that she couldn't say if they are for
or against this but added that she would have liked to have a little more effort to have more information about
what the plans are.
Dan Swanson commented that he has the same opinion regarding the process and the outcome. He
appreciates open houses and feels they are a good opportunity to get general feedback; however he is a little
concerned that direct contact with landowners has been lacking. He doesn't live in that area any more,
although he still owns land there.
With regard to the outcome he has mixed emotions. As a landowner he doesn't want to see any restrictions
put on. As a potential market place the opportunity for guided development carries some significant
advantages. He inquired about the definition of Rail Centric Employment. He added that we hear about
primary jobs but would like clarity of what that might involve or why specifically rail centric is being defined and
promoted. He requested that more direct contact with landowners be made.
Mr. Mueller stated that Trussell Bridge burned down a couple years ago in the vicinity of 59th Avenue. Great
Western has chosen not to replace that due to the cost. It is his understanding that the rail line currently
operates at about 20% of its capacity in this area and one would presume that if additional orders came in
then the rail line would replace those bridges.
On the question of communication, to the degree that they did not communicate with Windsor on an ongoing
enough basis was not intended. The plan was just produced after the final open house. There has been a
fairly small team working on this and there is a lot of moving parts to this plan. He added that if they fell short
he apologized.
The definition of rail centric is really a label and goals and policies dictate what that means. They were trying
to come up with a name that emphasized the importance of the rail along there.
Robb Casseday commented that the specifics and incorporating any ideas from Windsor would probably
come at a later date when the plan is implemented as he is not seeing detail in the plan that would
accommodate those kinds of specifics yet. Mr. Mueller replied yes; however changes would be brought
5
through the amendment process and added that the key is in the implementation of the plan. The
implementation takes place in every land use case that would come forward in the area.
Jon Rarick moved that the Greeley Planning Commission finds the proposed Subarea Plan consistent with
relevant City Goals and Policies outlined in 2060 Comprehensive Plan and therefore recommends approval of
the North Greeley Railroad Corridor Subarea Plan to the City Council, seconded by Paulette Weaver. Motion
carried unanimously.
Alexander Zauder moved to approve the amendment to language as proposed by staff in Section 22-2-20.3.a
as well as the addition of Appendix 22-A to the Weld County Code, with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill Hall,yes with comment;Alexander
Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Robert Grand recommended that discussions with Windsor continue in the development of the application of
this effort.
Bill Hall commented that there are some areas out there that would be beautiful as residential and not to stand
in the way of those strictly for an industrial area.
Meeting adjourned at 3:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
6
Hello