HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062075 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Doug Ochsner,that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1563
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL: Parts of Sections 19, 30, 31, 34 Township 11 North, Range 58 West; Parts of
Sections 6, 7,Township 10 North, Range 59 West; Parts of Sections 16,21,22, 23,
24,25,26,27,28, 29, 30, 31,32, 34, 36 Township 11 North, Range 59 West; Parts
of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, Township
10 North, Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14,15, 16, 17,20,
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,33,34,35,36 Township 11 North, Range 60 West;
Parts of Sections 25, 36, Township 12 North, Range 60 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of
a Public Utility(Up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators and up to
three electrical substations and associated power lines) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: Generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of and adjacent to CR 138;
North of and adjacent to CR 114, East of and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR
123.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Chapter 21 of the
Weld County Code
2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services's staff that the applicant has shown
compliance with Section 21-3-340. A of the Weld County Code, as follows:
Section 21-3-340.A.1 —The health,welfare and safety of the citizens of the County will be protected
and served.
The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240), Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250), Conditions
of Approval, and Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the
protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
Section 21-3-340.A.2-The natural and socio-economic environment of the County will be protected
and enhanced.
As outlined in the application, approximately 118 acres of the site (out of a total site area of
approximately 31,670 acres) will be disturbed on a long-term basis (turbines, access roads,
substations and electrical system connections.). This is approximately 35-40% of the area to be
disturbed on a short-term basis during construction. Wind turbines will be set back a minimum of
1,000 feet from adjacent homes and a minimum of 400 feet from existing roads and USR site
boundaries. Impact on farming and ranching activities will be minimal as these activities can
continue up to the base of the wind turbines.
Section 21-3-340.A.3--All reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including use of existing
rights-of-way and joint use of rights-of-way wherever uses are compatible, have been adequately
assessed and the proposed action is compatible with and represents the best interests of the
people of the County and represents a fair and reasonable utilization of resources in the impact
area.
The location of the proposed facility was based upon consistent wind speeds and appropriat:
topography. The proposal is proposed to help meet the renewable energy mandate outlined unde
Amendment 37. Public Service has signed a Power Purchase Agreement with Greenlight Energ
Coal and/or gas power generating facilities would not satisfy the renewable energy requirement. I
2006-2075
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 2
Section 21-3-340.A.4--A satisfactory program to mitigate and minimize adverse impacts has been
presented.
The applicant is in the process of conducting site investigations and consultation with the Colorado
Department of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the potential for the
presence of state listed species and/or species of concern. Once studies are finalized the applicant
indicates that they will develop mitigation measures including 1)some movement of turbines,roads
or collection system components; 2)construction timing constraints to avoid breeding seasons in
some areas for certain activities;3)additional study of potential impacts and species reaction to the
presence of the wind energy facility; and 4) provision of on- or offsite mitigation areas. Final
locations for facility components and final mitigation measures will be determined prior to applying
for building permit applications.
Section 21-3-340.A.5--The nature and location or expansion of the facility complies with all
applicable provisions of the master plan of this County,and other applicable regional,metropolitan,
state and national plans.
Section 22-4-50. A .3 AIR Policy 1.4 states: "The county encourages innovative and creative
approaches to alternative energy sources." Wind energy is considered an alternative energy
source.
Grover is located to the west of the proposed windfarm facility.The Town of Grover,in their referral
letter dated July 7, 2006, indicated their support for the project.
Section 21-3-340.A.6 --The nature and location or expansion of the facility does not unduly or
unreasonably impact existing community services.
The applicant indicates that they will work with Public Works to ensure the proper maintenance and
repair of all roads used by the project. The applicant will also propose to work cooperatively with
the Pawnee Fire Protection District to ensure adequate fire protection. Only 15-20 long-term
employees are proposed for the site and will not generate significant demands on community
services such as the school district. In the short-term up to 200 short-term employees will be
involved in the construction of the project. The site is located approximately 5 miles east of Grover,
Colorado,approximately 60 miles southwest of Kimball,Nebraska,and approximately 55 northeast
of Greeley, Colorado. •
Section 21-3-340.A.7--The nature and location or expansion of the facility will not create an
expansion of the demand for government services beyond the reasonable capacity of the
community or region to provide such services, as determined by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Only 15-20 full-time employees are anticipated for this site. The Town of Grover indicated support
for the project and indicated that the most important factor in maintaining support from the Town
of Grover will be in adequately maintaining and servicing roads that will handle additional traffic to
support the construction phase of the project.
Section 21-3-340.A.8-- The facility site or expansion area is not in an area with general
meteorological and climatological conditions which would unreasonably interfere with or obstruct
normal operations and maintenance.
The proposed site was selected because it has ideal meteorological and climatological conditions
for wind generation.
Section 21-3-340.A.9--The nature and location of the facility or expansion will not adversely affect
the water rights of any upstream,downstream or agricultural users,adjacent communities or other
water users.
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 3
The applicant will be required to obtain a well permit through the Colorado Division of Water
Resources for the permanent onsite operations and maintenance facility. The application states
that the project will not impact hydrologic flow of either surface of either surface water or
groundwater, nor will it affect groundwater recharge. Existing drainage patterns will be preserved.
Permanent facilities would not be located in stream channels, appropriately sized culverts will be
installed to maintain channel flow and morphology.
Section 21-3-340.A.10--Adequate water supplies are available for facility needs.
Bottled water will be used during construction of the facility and the applicant will be required to
obtained a well permit through the Colorado Division of Water Resources for the onsite operations
and maintenance facility.
Section 21-3-340.A.11—The nature and location of the facility or expansion will not unduly interfere
with existing easements, rights-of-way, other utilities, canals, mineral claims or roads.
The applicants have negotiated land lease and easement agreements with property owners within
the boundaries of the proposed site. Remaining agreements will be obtained once the Weld County
permitting processes are complete.
Section 21-3-340.A.12--Adequate electric, gas, telephone,water, sewage and other utilities exist
or shall be developed to service the site.
Water for permanent facilities(operations&maintenance building)will be obtained via a proposed
well and sewer will be provided by individual septic system. Electric, gas and telephone are in the
area.
Section 21-3-340.A.13-The nature and location for expansion of the facility will not unduly interfere
with any significant wildlife habitat or adversely affect any endangered wildlife species, unique
natural resource or historic landmark within the impact area.
The State of Colorado, Division of Wildlife (CDOW) stated in a letter dated June 25, 2006 staff
reviewed the application and consulted with biologists, staff from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), staff from the Colorado State Land Board (CLSLB) and biologists fro the Colorado
Natural Area Program of Colorado State Parks. Additionally CDOW has met on numerous
occasions with representatives from Greenlight Energy, Inc. CDOW notes that they are continuing
a dialog with the applicant in an effort to resolve outstanding concerns, and are optimistic towards
their willingness to work cooperatively in minimizing risk to wildlife. However, in the opinion of
CDOW there are ten significant issues to be resolved as of June 25, 2006. The applicant is still
continuing to work with CDOW to develop mitigation measures that are compatible with project
goals and that will minimize impacts to wildlife along the corridor.
The application indicates that a cultural resource file search of the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)has been conducted for the project area. In areas where sensitive historic,paleontological,
or archeological resources are known to occur the applicant will coordinate with State Historic
Preservation Office to conduct on-site preconstruction surveys or monitor during construction to
minimize and/or avoid impacts to cultural resources.
Section 21-3-340.A.14— The nature and location or expansion of the facility, including expected
growth and development related to the operation and provision of service, will not significantly
deteriorate water or air quality in the impact area.
The proposed project will have no long term impact on water or air quality. During construction,
some fugitive dust may be generated during periods of dry weather in areas where soil has been
disturbed. The contractor will control dust by applying water to any such disturbed areas.
Section 21-3-340.A.15—The geological and topographic features of the site are adequate for all
construction, clearing,grading, drainage,vegetation and other needs of the facility construction or
expansion.
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 4
The project area consists primarily of grassland, grazing land and some dry crop areas with few
trees. There are also bluffs and escarpments along the western edge of the site and eastern area
of the site. The applicants have indicated that they are proposing to place the wind turbines a
minimum of 150-feet from the edge of the escarpment areas. The geological and topographic
features will be adequate for the facility.
Section 21-3-340.A.16—The existing water quality of affected state waters will not be degraded
below state and federal standards or established baseline levels.
The existing water quality of affected state waters will not be degraded below state and federal
standards or established baseline levels by the project.
Section 21-3-340.A.17—The proposed project will not have a significantly adverse net effect on the
capacities or functioning of streams, lakes and reservoirs in the impact area, nor on the
permeability, volume, recharge capability and depth of aquifers in the impact area.
According to the application,there are intermittent drainages(Sidney Draw...)and ephemeral playa
lakes within the proposed site. Wind turbine sites will be located outside of these areas. Existing
drainage patterns are proposed to be preserved during the construction phase and long-term
operation of the facility.
Section 21-3-340.A.18 —The benefits of the proposed developments outweigh the losses of any
natural resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands as a result of the proposed
development.
The majority of the site consists of grazing lands/open lands with some areas of dryland crop
production. The facility will have little impact on agricultural lands within the site. Permanent
facilities upon completion will only cover approximately 118 acres of the 31,670 acre site. The wind
turbines and associated operations as proposed will not interfere with existing oil and gas facilities.
The applicants have been working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Division of Wildlife
regarding mitigating impacts to wildlife. The applicants are proposing measures such as setting
wind turbines a minimum of 150-feet from the edge of the escarpment (a prime bird habitat),
conducting pre-construction surveys for habitat and installing up to 15 bird nests.
Section 21-3-340.A.19—The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits and
approvals necessary for the proposed project, including surface, mineral and water rights and
easements for drainage, disposal, utilities, access, etc. If the applicant has not obtained all
necessary property rights,permits and approvals,the Board may,at its discretion,grant the permit
conditioned upon completion of the acquisition of such rights prior to issuance of a zoning or
building permit by the County.
The application indicates that individual land lease and wind easement agreements have been
obtained between Greenlight Energy, Inc. and 31 property owners. The applicant has obtained or
will obtain all property rights, permits and approvals necessary for the proposed project, including
surface,mineral and water rights and easements for drainage,disposal utilities,access,etc...,with
approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Section 21-3-340.A.20—The proposed project(nonlinear facilities)will not present an unreasonable
risk of exposure to or release of toxic or hazardous substances within the impact area. The
determination of effects of the project shall include the following considerations:
A. The means by which outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials, equipment and related
items are adequately enclosed by a fence or wall.
�-. B. The likelihood of hazardous materials or wastes being moved off the site by natural causes or
forces.
C. Containment of inflammable or explosive liquids, solids or gases.
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 5
The proposed project will not present an unreasonable risk of exposure to or release of toxic or
hazardous substances within the impact area. The Health Department is requiring that a waste
handling plan be submitted as a condition of approval.
Section 21-3-340.A.21 — The scope and nature of the proposed project will not unnecessarily
duplicate existing services within the County.
The scope and nature of the proposed project will not unnecessarily duplicate existing services within
the county. The proposed facility will address increasing demands for electricity in Colorado and
address renewable energy requirements outlined under Amendment 37.
Section 21-3-340.A.22—If the purpose and need for the proposed project are to meet the needs of
an increasing population within the County, the area and community development plans and
population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development.
The purpose and need for the proposed project is to address additional growth in Colorado principally
in the Front Range Area. Weld County(especially the Southwest Weld County Area)is experiencing
a portion of this growth.
The Project is proposed in response to PSCo's need for additional energy resources and desire to
purchase wind energy. Electrical demand continues to increase in Colorado, largely as a result of
continued growth and development along the Front Range. In December 2004,the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission approved PSCo's 2003 Least-Cost Resource Plan,which included plans for a
competitive solicitation to procure new energy resources. This Project will help fulfill PSCo's energy
needs, as identified in the 2003 Plan. In 2004, Colorado voters passed Amendment 37, the
Renewable Energy Requirement. This initiative requires that the state's largest utilities obtain a
minimum of 3 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2007, 6 percent by
.— 2011,and 10 percent by2015.The 10 percent renewable energy standard will reduce about 3 million
metric tons of power plant CO2 emissions per year by2025,which is a reduction of 4.5 percent below
businesses - usual levels. This Project will help PSCo meet obligations related to the Renewable
Energy Requirement.
This recommendation is based, in part,upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Board of County Commissioner's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on
the Special Review Plat prior to recording the plat. The completed plat shall be delivered to the
Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's
Office within 60 days of approval by the Planning Commission. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for periods of dry weather for roadways,
parking areas and in areas where soil has been disturbed during construction. The plan shall
be submitted for review and approval, to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
B. The applicant shall provide graphic and written documentation addressing the location and
identification of all public rights-of-way, existing and proposed structures, utility easements,
irrigation ditches, etcetera per Section 21-3-330.B.4 of the Weld County Code. This
document shall be prepared for recording in the Clerk and Recorder's office. (Department
of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 6
C. The applicant shall demonstrate attempted compliance with the Colorado Division of Wildlife
as stated in their referral dated/received June 25, 2006 and July 12, 2006. (Department of
Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall demonstrate attempted compliance with the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service as stated in their referral received July 12, 2006. (Department of Planning
Services)
E. The applicant shall provide current evidence that the facility has an adequate water supply
(i.e., well or community water system). (Department of Planning Services/Department of
Public Health & Environment)
F. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. The
plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1. A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2. A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3. The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed(including the facility
name, address, and phone number).
4. Written evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. The applicant shall vacate SUP-141 (Radio Towers -located within the NE4 of Section 21-
T11 N-R60W)&USR-594 Gravel mining-located within the SE4 of Section 12-T10N-R60W)
or amend the boundaries of USR-1563 to exclude the SUP-141 and USR-594 permit
boundaries. (Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall identify a designated haul route from the nearest paved road to the office
and substation(s). Written evidence that this haul route has been designated and accepted
shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
To determine if a road right-of-way exists along a section line,determine the land patent date.
The applicant shall complete a Nonexclusive License Agreement for the Upgrade and
Maintenance of applicable Weld County Rights-of-Way. (Department of Public Works)
J. The access width requirements for emergency equipment(fire department)is a minimum of
20-feet. The applicant indicated that it has been cleared with the fire department and
emergency services that the width and weight capacity of the access lane shall be adequate
for emergency purposes. The applicant shall provide written verification of such to the
Department of Public Works. (Department of Public Works)
K. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Pawnee Fire Protection
District as stated in their referral dated June 8, 2006. (Pawnee Fire Protection District)
L. The subdivision exemption plat for the proposed main substation shall be submitted for
recording to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
M. A landscape/screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for
the substation(s) to screen the facilities from residences within site distance. (Department
of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall provide an approximate number of semi-trailer trips and large truck
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 7
usages on a daily or weekly basis to the site during the construction of the project to the
Department of Public Works. (Department of Public Works)
O. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Public Services that Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements have been met for the proposed facility.
(Department of Planning Services)
P. The applicant shall enter into a Long-Term Road Maintenance and Improvements
Agreement with the Weld County Public Works Department on the designated haul route
described in the Agreement. The applicant shall also address all transportation and non-
transportation improvements associated with this application. Evidence of approval shall
be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public
Works, Department of Planning Services)
Q. The applicant shall submit a screening plan to the Department of Planning Services to
address screening of the substation(s)from residences within site distance. (Department
of Planning Services)
R. Written evidence from the applicant indicating all requirements and agreements between
the surface developer and the mineral owners and/or lessees have been completed shall
be submitted or evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate their
concerns or delineate drill envelopes on the plat shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
r-- 4. The Plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
A. All sheets shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
B. All sheets shall be labeled USR-1563. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The Development Standards associated with this application. (Department of Planning
Services)
D. Graphically delineate the locations of the transmission line relative to sensitive areas as
identified in the CDOW referral dated June 25, 2006 of the most recent correspondence
of record, specific to setbacks of turbines from escarpment edges, raptor nests and
Plains Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. (Department of Planning Services, Colorado Division
of Wildlife)
5. The access should be placed in such a location that there is adequate sight distance in both
directions and not below the crest of a hill. (Department of Public Works)
6. Prior to the release of building permits:
A. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the wind turbines and any
other buildings or structures on site. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 8
r
shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete
sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Building plans shall also be
submitted to the Pawnee Fire Protection District. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. Buildings/structures shall conform to the various codes adopted at the time of the permit
application. Current codes adopted by Weld County include; 2003 International Building
Code, 2003 International Mechanical Code, 2003 International Plumbing Code, 2003
International Fuel Gas Code, 2002 National Electrical Code, and Chapter 29 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
D. Each turbine will require an engineered foundation based on a site specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer.
(Department of Building Inspection)
E. The structure will probably be classified as a U (Turbine)occupancy. Fire resistance of
walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable
areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be
determined Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
F. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building
Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various
uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements
from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in
accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance
with offset and setback requirements. When measuring building to determine offset and
setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the
first site inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
G. The applicant shall provide written evidence that all property right easements, permits and
approvals necessary for the proposed project, including surface, mineral and water rights
and easements for drainage disposal, utilities, access, et cetera are in their possession.
(Department of Planning Services)
7. One month prior to construction activities:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land
disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality
Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
8. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed temporary office trailer
complex and the permanent O & M Building and shall be installed according to the Weld
County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
Resolution USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC/Green Light Energy LLC
Page 9
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Prior to operation:
A. The applicant shall contact the Weld County Sheriffs Office to schedule a walk through of
the new facilities to address their program of crime prevention through environmental
design. The program reduces the likelihood of criminal activity at a specific location by
"hardening" it to crime. (Sheriffs Office)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CEDAR CREEK WIND ENERGY, LLC
USR-1563
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility
(Up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators and up to three electrical substations and
associated power lines)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,as indicated in the application materials
on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated
hereon. (Department of Planning)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health& Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate conditions, blowing debris and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health & Environment)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste handling plan". (Department of
Planning Services)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health & Environment)
8. The applicant shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the industrial Zone
as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
9. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and visitors of the facility.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
11. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system located on the property
must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
12. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking and hand washing during construction of the project.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
13. Adequate portable toilet facilities(port-a-potty)shall be provided during the construction of the project.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
14. If applicable,the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
15. Any time the applicant would utilize the right-of-way or cross the right-of-way,a Weld County right-of-
way permit shall be required. This permit shall also be required for transporting overweight or
overwidth items utilizing county roads or rights-of-way. Contact Ted Eyl,Weld County Public Works
Department,P.O.Box 758,Greeley,Colorado,80632,at 970-381-3779. This permit shall be in place
prior to any work being done within the right-of-way. (Department of Public Works)
16. Upon notice by Weld County,the applicant shall cease hauling operations or direct the contractor to
cease hauling operations until the roads are repaired to the satisfaction of the Weld County Public
Works Department. Hauling operations will not be allowed to resume until the condition of the road
allows heavy hauling without damage being done to the road. (Department of Public Works)
17. There will be no staging or parking of equipment or vehicles on maintained county roads. Utilize on-
site locations and private rights-of-way. (Department of Public Works)
18. If excessive heavy truck hauling of concrete or materials cause dust problems to the adjacent
property owners, the applicant shall be required to provide an adequate dust suppressant chemical
(calcium chloride or magnesium chloride)for approximately 300 feet at any residence. Determination
on the application shall be determined by the Weld County Public Works Department(Motor Grader
Division Supervisor)based on complaints, average daily traffic counts, and increase of heavy truck
hauling associated with this operation. (Department of Public Works)
19. If Weld County roads are damaged beyond normal wear and tear by importing or delivering concrete
material due to heavy hauling, the applicant or the applicant's contractor will repair the road damage
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department (Motor Grader Division Supervisor). The Weld
County Department of Public Works will determine when this is warranted. (Department of Public
Works)
20. If a drain culvert is required, a 15-inch corrugated metal pipe is the County's minimum size
requirement. If the applicant chooses to place a larger culvert, please contact the Weld County
Department of Public Works to adequately size the culvert. (Department of Public Works)
21. Access shall be placed in such a location to have adequate sight distance in both directions and not
below the crest of a hill or where physical obstructions are present. (Department of Public Works)
22. Adequate turning radiuses shall be installed at all entrances to accommodate large truck movement.
(Department of Public Works)
23. The off-street parking and loading zones shall be surfaced with gravel or the equivalent and shall be
graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
24. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the
property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner
shall be responsible for controlling noxious weeds. (Department of Public Works)
25. Utilize the(MUTCD)Traffic Manual to appropriately sign construction zones and crossings adjacent
to county roads. (Department of Public Works)
26. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it
will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases,diversions,concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
27. The applicant must take into consideration storm water capture/quantity and provide accordingly for
best management practices. (Department of Public Works)
28. The applicant shall utilize an erosion control plans until vegetation is established in the area.
(Department of Public Works)
29. Tracking pads are required at all measured construction locations where there is heavy traffic coming
from the site on the county road. The purpose of the tracking pads is to keep mud and debris from
leaving the site and tracking on existing county roads contaminating the existing gravel road(s)with
mud and debris. (Department of Public Works)
30. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the wind turbines and any other
buildings or structures on site. (Department of Building Inspection)
31. In areas where sensitive historic, paleontological, or archeological resources are known to occur the
applicant will coordinate with State Historic Preservation Office to conduct on-site preconstruction
surveys or monitor during construction to minimize and/or avoid impacts to cultural resources.
(Department of Planning Services)
32. Construction and development of the site shall be mitigated in accordance with the Construction
Practices and Mitigation Measures as outlined in the application materials. (Department of Planning
Services)
33. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the County wide Road Impact Fee Program. (Department of Planning Services)
34. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
35. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
36. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
37. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code.
38. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of
Planning Services).
39. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
40. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Chad Auer.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on July 18, 2006.
Dated the 181h of July, 2006.
1St/Donita May
Secretary
1 1?-30
Roy Spitzer said he had just realized the site was less than one half mile from his house and as there was
no existing development in close proximity to the site, he would support the application even though there
might be questions as to compatibility in the future.
Bruce Fitzgerald felt it was incompatible with Gloraloma and would not support the application.
Chad Auer moved to forward Case 3rd AmUSR-894, as amended with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial.
Second by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad
Auer, yes; Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Roy Spitzer, no;
James Welch, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion tied 4-4, therefore no recommendation was made to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Chad Auer cited Section 22-2-220A.3., regarding incompatibility with the surrounding area.
Erich Ehrlich cited Section 23-3-40F. and Section 23-2-20A.3.
Tom Holton cited Section 23-3-220A.3.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 23-2-220A.3., and believed it was compatible as he did not see the area ever
becoming high density residential due to the turkey farms and the oil and gas production, and that fact that
Commissioner Spitzer had lived there for some time and just became aware of the helicopter activity in
the past three days.
Roy Spitzer said that based on living in the area, his lifestyle was more disturbed by traffic accidents and
their emergency equipment than he had been by the helicopter.
Bruce Fitzgerald cited incompatibility.
7. CASE: USR-1563
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Major Facility of a Public Utility(Up to 300 individual three-
bladed wind turbine generators and up to three electrical
substations and associated power lines) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL: Parts of Sections 19, 30, 31, 34 Township 11 North, Range 58
West; Parts of Sections 6, 7, Township 10 North, Range 59
West; Parts of Sections 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 34, 36 Township 11 North, Range 59 West; Parts of
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28,
29, Township 10 North, Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 1, 2,
3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14,15, 16, 17,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 33, 34, 35, 36 Township 11 North, Range 60 West; Parts of
Sections 25, 36, Township 12 North, Range 60 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of and
adjacent to CR 138; North of and adjacent to CR 114, East of
and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR 123.
8. CASE: USR-1562
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy I
PLANNER: Kim Ogle d
) 3
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(a 72 mile 230 KV
transmission line and one new switching station) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL: Parts of Sections 2, 3, 9,10, 16,17, 19, 20, 30 Township 10 North
Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 25,
35, 36 Township 10 North Range 61 West; Parts of Sections 24,
25, 36 Township 9 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1,12,
13, 24, 25, 36 Township 8 North Range 62 West; Parts of
Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 Township 7 North Range 62 West;
Parts of Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36 Township 6 North
Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 Township 5 North
Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 22 Township 5
North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 2, 3, 11, 14, 23, 26, 34,
35 Township 4 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 3,10,
15,22, 27,34 Township 3 North Range 63 West; Parts of
Sections 3,5, 6 Township 2 North Range 63 West; Parts of
Sections 1, 2, 3,4, 10,15, 22, 27 Township 2 North Range 64
West; Part of Section 7 Township 4 North Range 62 West; and
Part of Section 13 Township 4 North Range 63 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Commencing at a point east of CR 105 and North of CR 120 at a
proposed substation within the boundary of the Proposed Cedar
Creek Wind Farm, traversing in a southwesterly direction to a
point in the general vicinity of CR 106 and CR 87, then traversing
in a southerly direction to CR 98 and CR 87, then traversing in a
southwesterly direction to a point one-half mile west of CR 85.5
then traversing in a southerly direction to CR 62 and CR 85.5
turning west onto CR 62 to CR 79.5 then traversing to a point
near the intersection of CR 73 and CR 58; turning to head south
onto CR 73 to a point near CR 44 then westerly along CR 58
to CR 69, then south to the northerly right-of-way of Interstate 76,
then turning west to CR 65.5 to a point south of Interstate 76 then
westerly on CR 24 to CR 55 then south on CR 55 to the
proposed Keenesburg Switching Station.
James Welch recused himself due to his family involvement with the project.
Chris Gathman and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented USR-1562 and USR-1563 in
tandem, as the two cases were related. The applications were for a Site Specific Development Plan and a
Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(a 72 mile 230 kV transmission line and one
new switching station)and up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators and up to three
electrical substations and associated power lines) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The applicant's
were Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC and Green Light Energy Inc. The representative for this application
was Nelson Teague.
The sign for today's hearing and for the August 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners hearing was
posted a minimum of ten days prior to the July 18, 2006 Planning Commissioners hearing by planning
staff.
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC and Green Light Energy Inc. proposed to construct approximately 300
wind turbines in the Chalk Bluffs area of Northern Weld County near the Town of Grover, with at least one
new substation and a new 72 mile 230kV transmission line with one new switching station sited in
southern Weld County near the Town of Kennesburg. The wind farm component was generally described
as an irregularly shaped area south of and adjacent to CR 138; north of and adjacent to CR 114, east of
and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR 123;whereas the transmission line was described as commencing
at the wind farm substation near CR 105 and CR 122 and traversing the County in a southwesterly
11
direction to the new switching station near the south 1-76 Frontage Road and CR 55, which would allow
the facility to interconnect with the existing transmission system owned and operated by Public Service
Company of Colorado at a site west of the Town of Keenesburg.
The proposed wind turbines were located on approximately 118 acres of the site(out of a total site area of
approximately 31,670 acres). Wind turbines would be set back a minimum of 1,000 feet from adjacent
homes and a minimum of 400 feet from existing roads and USR site boundaries.
The majority of the wind farm site consisted of grazing lands/open lands with some areas of dry land crop
production. The facility would have little impact on agricultural lands within the site. The wind turbines and
associated operations as proposed would not interfere with existing oil and gas facilities. The applicants
had been working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)
regarding mitigating impacts to wildlife. The applicants were proposing measures such as setting wind
turbines a minimum of 150-feet from the edge of the escarpment(a prime bird habitat), conducting pre-
construction surveys for habitat and installing up to fifteen bird nests.
The applicants had continued to meet with representatives from the CDOW and United States Fish and
Wildlife regarding potential wind turbine setbacks from the escarpment edge along the western end of the
site. Based on these meetings and site review of these locations, the CDOW recommended in their
referral response dated July 12, 2006 that ten of the thirty nine turbine sites visited adjacent to the
escarpment be set back at least 220 yards from the current rim edge identified by the applicant. The
CDOW indicated no significant impacts with the other twenty nine wind turbine sites.
CROW also indicated that setbacks from Sharp-Tailed Grouse would be less than '/ mile for three of the
turbine sites. These lesser setbacks would be in exchange for the applicant funding and/or conducting
research in regards to the impact of turbines on Grouse behavior to guide future development of turbines.
CDOW also indicated that the applicants and CDOW have agreed to engage in habitat enhancement
projects as well as supplemental Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse transplants.
Grover was located to the west of the proposed wind farm facility. The Town of Grover, in their referral
letter dated July 7, 2006, indicated their support for the project.
The turbines would have an overall height ranging from 327 to 391.5 feet to the tip of the blade and would
be spaced approximately 700-800 feet on center. The application indicated that turbines of up to 416.5
feet might be used. In subsequent conversations with the applicant, they had indicated that the 416.5 foot
turbines would not be installed. Turbines of up to 327 feet and up to 391.5 feet in height had been
specifically identified on the project map. Rows of turbine blades would be set back approximately 1/3 to
'A mile from other rows. The blades of the turbines rotated at a fixed rate of between 20 and 25
revolutions per minute.
The applicants were proposing a permanent operations and maintenance facility that would be staffed by
employees. They were in the process of applying for a well permit to provide a permanent water source
for these employees.
The applicants were also proposing a temporary concrete batching facility and gravel mining facility to
support the construction of the concrete foundations for the wind turbines along with the upgrade and
support of county roads during construction. These facilities would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners under separate Use by Special Review permits.
The proposed transmission line route included approximately seventy two miles of 230 kV single circuit
electric transmission line to transport power generated from the proposed 330 MW Cedar Creek Wind
energy Facility near Grover, previously identified as USR-1563. The power would be transported via the
230 kV line to an interconnection point with Public Service of Colorado's (PSCo's)existing transmission
system at the Rocky Mountain energy Center(RMEC)to Green Valley 230 kV line near Keenesburg.
The proposed switching station and rebuild of a portion of the Fort St. Vrain to Green Valley 230kV line
would become part of PSCo's high voltage transmission system, serving customers throughout PSCo's
service territory in Colorado.
The applicant requested a permit for placement of the 150—foot transmission line right-of-way at a specific
location within the corridor determined through final negotiations with landowners and further analysis of
12
environmental resources. In locations where the corridor was bounded by two section lines, an additional
three hundred feet was included to allow for potential siting of the transmission line right-of-way on either
side of the section line. The portion of the proposed corridor at Crow Creek was two miles in width to allow
for flexibility in avoiding the creek and associated riparian corridor, if feasible.
The transmission line structures would consist of a two-pole H-frame structure approximately sixty to one
hundred feet in height. The two poles of the wood H-frame structure would be nineteen and one half to
twenty four feet apart at the base and forty to forty eight feet in width at the top of the structure.At angles
of greater than five degrees, or at other locations where engineering needs dictate, guyed three pole steel
structures would be used. Guyed H-frame structures would be used at angles of less than five degrees.
Structures would have a weathering steel (core-ten)finish.
The pole spacing would vary from six hundred to twelve hundred feet depending on terrain, existing
obstructions and the type of pole utilized. The maximum ground clearance beneath the conductor was
twenty-seven feet and the maximum height of working machinery that may be safely operated under this
line was fourteen feet in height. In one location, on lands aligning with CR 55, the applicant was proposing
to rebuild a segment of existing 230 kV transmission line to accommodate a date uncertain future PSCo's
transmission line. All lines would end at the proposed Switching Station where there was an existing
interconnection with the PSCo's Distribution system.
The applicant was continuing to work with all of the affected property owners to establish a centerline and
pole locations that maintained adequate clearance from residences and outbuildings and did not interfere
with the operation and maintenance of pivot irrigation structures and to minimize impacts to farming
operations.
The preferred line route avoided sensitive areas associated with river corridors, wetlands, riparian edges
and playas through the placement of structures and the utilization of large line spans.
The preferred transmission line route had been developed in full cooperation with the Towns of Grover
and Keenesburg. The Town of Grover did not respond to the referral request indicating a conflict with
their interests and the Town of Keenesburg voiced opposition to the Secondary Proposed Transmission
Line Route as it was in conflict with their Comprehensive Plan. The preferred transmission route was part
of a rebuild of the Fort St. Vrain -Green Valley Line, utilizing an existing transmission line corridor that was
in alignment with CR 55 Section Line.
The proposed initial alignment was represented in this graphic, as well as the proposed alternate
alignments.
Additionally, the second graphic delineated the alignment of the transmission taking into consideration the
referral agency comments, existing site conditions and concessions brokered with property owners.
The proposed line would be close to several residences. However, potential problems resulting from the
line's proximity to any of these structures would be minimized or negated by designing the line in
accordance with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC)and Rural Utilities Services (RUS)standards.
The Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC -Greenlight Energy, Inc. presentation would address this issue
further in their presentation.
There would be some interruption to the use of the land during construction, however, Cedar Creek Wind
Energy, LLC-Greenlight Energy, Inc had indicated the owners would be compensated for loss of
agricultural crops. All disturbed areas would be re-graded and where appropriate, re-seeded to provide
proper drainage, stabilize the soils and prevent erosion.
Per the application materials, the project may have mitigated impact on existing park and recreation
facilities, known historic or pre-historic sites, threatened or endangered species, significant wildlife habitat
or water courses/water bodies. There were no known natural hazards in the area that would affect or be
affected by the proposed project.
This application was a 1041 regulated USR as the matter of siting, transmission and generation, was a
matter of statewide concern. Further, the project was proposed in response to PSCo's need for additional
energy resources and desire to purchase wind energy. Electrical demand continued to increase in
Colorado, largely as a result of continued growth and development along the Front Range. In December
2004, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission approved PSCo's 2003 Least-Cost Resource Plan, which
included plans for a competitive solicitation to procure new energy resources. This Project would help fulfill
PSCo's energy needs, as identified in the 2003 Plan. In 2004, Colorado voters passed Amendment 37, the
13
Renewable Energy Requirement. This initiative required that the state's largest utilities obtain a minimum
of three percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2007, six percent by 2011, and ten
percent by 2015. The ten percent renewable energy standard would reduce about three million metric tons
of power plant CO2 emissions per year by 2025, which was a reduction of four and one half percent below
businesses-usual levels. This project would help PSCo meet obligations related to the Renewable
Energy Requirement.
For the wind farm component of this proposal, seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case and eight
provided comment. For the transmission line and switching station component of this proposal, fifteen
referral agencies reviewed this case and eight provided comment with the US Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, providing an un-requested referral on July 12, 2006. In both applications,
referral agencies offered comments in favor of the proposal, some with specific conditions should this
application be approved.
Numerous telephone inquiries and letters were received from surrounding property owners. A majority of
the telephone inquiries and letters were related to the alignment of the transmission line relative to their
property. The concerns and issues raised in the correspondence received included the alignment of the
line, the potential devalue of the property, and the implied loss of view corridors to the front range and
surrounding agricultural lands.
The Department of Planning Services was recommending approval of USR 1562 and USR-1563, Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility including a
72 mile 230 kV transmission line and one new switching station and Up to 300 individual three-bladed
wind turbine generators and up to three electrical substations and associated power lines in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Don Carroll, Public Works Department and Char Davis, Environmental Health Department were both
present.
The applicant, Nelson Teague, was present along with his consultants, as were representatives of some
of the referral agencies.
Nelson Teague, Director of Project Transactions for Greenlight Energy, thanked the Department of
Planning Services for their assistance over the past ten months of the application process and gave a
brief overview of the project. The primary reason for the project was because Cedar Creek Wind Energy
and Public Service Company of Colorado had a "power purchase agreement"to purchase the output
(power)of the project and sell it at retail. The wind farm itself would involve over seventy County residents
either through the leasing of land or privately negotiated rights-of-way. The project history began with
conceptual work more than two years ago and included evaluations in many areas; including evaluation of
the wind resource, initial evaluation of the appropriateness of the siting with respect to socio-economic
reasons, and environmental reasons. They saw a developing market for renewable energy and have four
other projects of this type in other counties.
Mr. Teague relayed how many turbines (274)would be on the site; discussed access roads for
maintenance and emergency response; spacing of turbines (up to seven to eight hundred feet); substation
on the site; transmission line (alternate routes and why the present one was chosen, 230kV line with the
poles eight hundred feet apart, sixty to one hundred feet in height, nineteen to twenty four foot base and
forty to forty eight foot top width where the wires hung down)and connection to Public Service; options for
right-of-way easements (roughly forty six landowners of which they have agreements with approximately
twenty); sizes of turbines; and landscape screening at the substation. Mr. Teague said they had an option
with the landowner to purchase land for the switching station,just west of Keenesburg, and after the
station was built they planned to subdivide off the land and sell what they did not need. The construction
schedule would begin late October into the first quarter of 2007 and must be in operation by the end of
2007; the project would create a significant tax base for the County;would include a significant amount of
temporary employment(up to two hundred people)as well as the permanent employment of up to fifteen
people; and during the construction period the County would see considerable economic stimuli in the
area.
,.0. Bruce Fitzgerald asked why this site was chosen. Mr. Teague said it was chosen because the wind blows
there almost all of the time; this was a relatively rural area and with respect to development, was a better
area for its placement; the residents were interested in generating revenue from their property; and its
interconnectivity to the existing transmission grid.
14
i-. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if dry land farming and grazing would still be accessible after the project was
complete. Mr. Teague replied they could graze cattle and farm right up to the bases of the turbines.
Chad Auer asked about the percentage of renewables for Public Service and did Mr. Teague have any
particulars. Mr. Teague replied that he did not know the actual specifics. Mr. Auer asked about dual use
for solar energy and were there any technologies available in that area. Mr. Teague said if that
opportunity presented itself they would be agreeable.
Tom Holton asked why they came all the way to Keenesburg. Mr. Teague said any other lines in the area
were too small to support a project of this size. Mr. Holton said the lines seemed to have avoided public
lands and wondered where the lines actually would end up. Mr. Teague said it made the most sense to
avoid the Federal bureaucracy and their timing requirements and work with individual landowners to avoid
undue delays.
Doug Ochsner asked why the irregular shape of the project on the maps. Mr. Teague said the holes in
the map were lower elevation lands where wind resources were lower, therefore they did not pursue those
lands.
Roy Spitzer asked if wind energy was really competitive at this point. Mr. Teague replied that it was,
because pre-existing fossil fuels were expensive and this was more cost effective.
The Chair said he would allow the public agencies to speak next.
Larry Rogstad, District Manager with the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW), stepped forward to
address: species decline and management, more specifically regarding the millions of dollars spent on
wildlife management; their dedication to wildlife preservation; the huge economic resource wildlife was to
the State(3.2 billion dollar industry on an annual basis); and he disputed the applicant's claim that wildlife
would not be impacted, as a project with this large a footprint would impact the area's resources and
essential habitat for numerous plants and animals. Mr. Rogstad listed the animals, plants, riparian
corridors and escarpments that would be impacted by this application; said the stakes were high for all
involved and a poorly planned facility would impact the wildlife in the area; asked the applicant to honor
the landowners concerns; and preferred site avoidance to mitigation in resolving potential wildlife conflicts.
Mr. Rogstad requested modification by the Planning Department for USR-1563 on page seven, items 3.C.
and 3.D.which read, "The applicant shall demonstrate attempted compliance with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife as stated in their referral"and requested the word "attempted" be removed as it was ambiguous
and suggested "significant compliance"as an alternative. On page fifteen of the USR-1563 application,
Mr. Rogstad requested the opportunity to review all building permits and comment on the application's
locations. He summarized by saying that he felt the CDOW and Cedar Creek had established a good
relationship as both were committed to working towards development of this needed resource but it was
imperative to protect those species valuable to the state and its residents.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Rogstad if in his view this was a poorly planned project. Mr. Rogstad replied that
the CDOW has no problems with the number of turbines except for those located on the escarpment
(approximately ten)which would affect plants, animals and views significantly and wanted that impact
minimized.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Charles "Jim"Sturrock, self-proclaimed "Don Quixote of the Pawnee Bluffs", 50001 CR 122, Grover, CO
80729, Manager/owner of Lonesome Pines land and cattle company on the Pawnee Grasslands, in a
hand-out to the Planning Commission, compared himself to Don Quixote; said he was fighting dragons
that were arrogant, dictatorial, single minded and lacked respect for the eco-system and property rights;
realized he lived in a society willing to spend millions of dollars and gallons of water of money on fairway
oysters (Rocky Mountain Oysters); he was merely trying to live in harmony with his environment and make
the least amount of impact; not requesting denial but requesting the Commissioners minimize the impact
on the Bluffs; a portion of his two and a half mile water line would need to be moved; he refused to sign
the lease as it was not financially smart; was advised by his lawyer that he would need a minimum of fifty
15
thousand dollars to fight the application; said society revolves around the making of money and he was
fine with that; not against progress; more to life than the almighty dollar when it comes to the diminishing
landscape; did not oppose the transmission lines but had not signed the lease for that yet as he wanted to
see less impact on the raptors and minimize the impact on the pasture lands; showed a"winter fat" plant
and said they were none on his property when he first came there in 1995 but with his grazing procedures
he had brought them back to what they were two hundred years ago before man was present in the area;
and he closed by asking that towers 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 2, 38, 36, and 35 not be placed any closer than
% mile from the escarpment on his property.
Tom Holton asked if those were the ten turbines under discussion with the CDOW now. Mr. Sturrock
replied they may be, but he did now know for sure.
Matthew Ososky, 223 Chatoga Av, Grover, CO 80729, Mayor of Grover, said there was a majority of
support in the town for the application; they saw it as a chance for development; major concern was for
dirt roads and maintenance of them during and after the project and requested some sort of agreement
for their maintenance to their current levels; one hundred fifty residents in town and the potential for two
hundred additional workers made road maintenance critical; the impact on grasslands and wildlife is
obvious but the financial impact of those wildlife viewing opportunities affects the small communities out
there. Tom Holton asked the Mr. Ososky if he had an agreement for road maintenance. Mr. Ososky said
just a verbal agreement with the applicant. Erich Ehrlich thanked Mr. Ososky for attending and asked if
the Union Pacific Railroad was operating in the area. Mr. Ososky said the line had been abandoned so
rail was not a viable way to get supplies to the area.
Kevin Hahn, 55655 CR 124, Grover CO 80729, thanked the Commissioners for their diligence and read
an article about the benefits to the drought stricken economy of the area with the addition of the wind farm;
emphasized the increased dollars to area business and landowners; said this could bring more residents
and students in their schools; and that Greenlight Energy had been a top company to work with from day
one and supported their application.
Jay McCarthy, 5108 Stetson Creek Ct, Fort Collins, CO, a landowner in the Crow Creek area; concerned
that information to him could have been improved; power of eminent domain needed to be clarified to the
landowners in order to understand their options; impact on his property was two-fold, environmental and
diminished value of the property; he bought property to protect it under an environmental easement;
concerned about the path of the transmission line; asked what the incremental cost was of altering the
path versus the incremental benefit; and requested re-evaluation of the area for an amenable solution that
would work for everyone.
Bob Sanderson, no address given, landowner of two parcels directly affected by the transmission line in
the Crow Creek area; said it would cross his property about four times; his intent when he purchased the
property was to preserve the property; would like an alternate route be considered; cited diminished value
to his property; addressed impact to wildlife in the area; and agreed with the nature of the wind farm but
the specific impact to his property was too high. Erich Ehrlich asked about the route of the transmission
line on Mr. Sanderson's land and clarification of that route. Mr. Sanderson replied the property currently
affected runs south of CR 100 on the west side and the corner of CR 89.
Beth Humphrey, Wildlife Biologist for Pawnee National Grasslands, 660"O"Street, Greeley, CO 80631,
gave a background on Pawnee Grasslands; 193 thousand acres in northeast Weld County; wind farm
would be in NW corner of their east block and goes around some of the smaller parcels in the Pawnee
Grasslands; have four specific concerns—wildlife(and gave a list of those affected), visual effects, roads
and migration impacts; area with greatest impact related to raptors; turbines close proximity to bluffs; must
be able to maintain viability of the species in the area; support CDOW recommendations and are in
alignment with that; migratory birds corridor not identified in any books but have over three hundred
species identified that migrated through the area each spring; bats were impacted by wind turbines;
fragmentation of the roads for species that must move through the area; Pawnee National Grasslands
stressed the importance of Pawnee Buttes to the area; effects to Pawnee Trails Scenic Bi-way; turbines
on the bluffs would forever alter the view; transmission lines were also a concern regarding wildlife and the
visuals that would be altered; overall they supported the economic benefit to the residents; supported
alternative sources of energy but do have these specific concerns.
16
Mark Cross, 7233 Whitworth Ct, Fort Collins CO 80528, owner of property on transmission route line and
also one adjacent to Crow Creek; primary concern was for Crow Creek habitat and wildlife that lived there;
had a conservation easement on one of his parcels and was attempting to put the same on his other
property; transmission lines crossed the creek twice on his property; economic concern for impact on his
property; no compensation or benefit given to those who are the closest to the transmission line; ability of
Greenlight Energy not to touch Crow Creek would not impact their application even if they went as little as
two miles north of proposed path and would bypass four miles of some pretty special property; would like
to see best efforts made to minimize impacts.
Janice Harms, 62500 CR 119, Grover, CO 80729, said the wind farm would be on their property;
applicants had walked the area on many occasions and thought Greenlight Energy had done their
homework as far as wildlife awareness;felt the project would help the community and would not impact
her view; her closest neighbor was two and a half miles away and anyway residents were not all piled up
out there like you were here.
Kim Ehmke, 56348 CR 384, Grover, CO 80729, said the gentlemen from Fort Collins who owned property
in the area were probably more concerned about potential development on their property than the
transmission lines or saving Crow Creek, but that was her personal opinion; she would benefit greatly from
the project as she would realize income from this project; had seen hawks perched on moving wind mills
and did not feel they would be negatively impacted;wildlife in the area was very resilient; and residents in
the area needed the economic benefits the project would bring. Tom Holton asked how much of the land
up there was Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) but Ms. Ehmke did not know the answer.
Bonnie McIntosh, 8335 CR 55, Keenesburg, CO, sent a letter and after looking at the applicant's map
asked why the transmission line couldn't follow 1-76 rather than turn west on CR 24 and then go south
through the full length of their farm.
Fawnda Stately, 43001 CR 76, Briggsdale, CO 80611, said Cedar Creek had worked on this for many
years yet she had only heard from them very recently; applicant approached her with an alternate route
but company did not have a real feel for the landowner, seem more interested in their own gain; and
asked the applicant not threaten her with eminent domain and be prepared to pay what the land is actually
worth.
Kevin Malovich, 42949 CR 76, Briggsdale, CO 80611, asked about the possibility of alternate routes for
the line; concerned for the value of his property and did not want power lines running two hundred feet
from his property lines; asked they be informed of plans more regularly.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting and asked Mr. Teague to respond to citizen concerns.
Mr. Teague's responses to Mr. Sanderson and Mr. McCarthy was that their property was owned by
someone else so Greenlight Energy had to wait to see who the new owners were before they could notify
them of proposed route; that his company did have some latitude within the proposed pathway; that most
of the land was already under option; that it was not their intent to go through residential areas; they were
cautiously optimistic they could satisfy the majority of the landowners; there would be no new power lines,
they would use existing easements; there was a landowner in segment fifteen they had reached
agreement with but did not intend to permit anything in the old segment fifteen as it was not their intention
to permit anything other than the proposed line that was under review today(they wanted to withdraw
anything in the grey area or segment fifteen on the older maps); and then asked to have their
environmental expert address wildlife concerns.
Bruce Fitzgerald said he would like to see a road maintenance agreement with Grover. Mr. Teague said
he would have no problem with that and the Planning Department could add that as a Development
Standard.
Doug Oschner asked what their options were if a landowner refused them. Mr. Teague said the option
they had been pursuing most actively was to work with the landowner but they did have the right of
eminent domain, but were confident they would not need to do so. Mr. Ochsner asked about moving Mr.
Sturrock's water line and if they were willing to work with him on resolving that issue. Kevin Davis,
17
Greenlight Energy, Director of Site Development, said they were in the process of trying to accommodate
for this water line, that they could move the water line or move a turbine and it was easier to move a
turbine.
Erich Ehrlich asked how the soil impacted the turbine placement and also what impact would the yellow
proposed line have on any cost or profit sharing with Morgan County. Mr. Teague said they had
alternative paths but were pursuing the set path, as the line by Morgan County had a lot of issues with
respect to appropriateness to siting, and it was only included as an alternative route.
Tom Holton asked if the route shown was accurate except for a few small deviations and applicant
answered yes.
Paul Branham asked about the CDOW request to change"attempt"to"significant"("applicant shall
demonstrate attempted compliance with the CDOW as stated in their referral"and requested the word
"attempted" be removed as it was ambiguous and suggested "significant compliance"as an alternative)
and Development Standard Thirteen where CDOW asked for an additional sentence asking for the ability
to review building permits. Mr. Teague said he did not know how appropriate it was to allow other entities
to review their permit once it had been issued by the County and he would not be in support of that
request.
Tom Holton asked if Greenlight Energy was still working with the CDOW on the ten turbines that might be
moved. Mr. Teague deferred to Kevin Davis who addressed the rim edge and escarpment edge and the
reason why they were building a hundred fifty feet back from the edge, and why they were building a
seventy two mile power line; locations were extremely critical for their production as they needed to be as
high as possible on those rim edges for maximum wind speed and power generation; they considered
themselves environmentalists and wanted to work with the CDOW and had hired a company from
Wyoming, Western Ecosystems Technologies, to guide them; and they would have the Pawnee National
Grasslands trail head moved to lessen impacts on grasslands.
Rhett Good, Western Ecosystems Technologies, a wildlife consulting firm hired by Greenlight Energy; said
they had worked with the CDOW regarding wildlife preservation and minimization of impacts on wildlife;
had conducted studies on specific wildlife impacts; spoke about setbacks as recommended by the
CDOW, specifically a minimum of four hundred meters from all inactive raptor nests and hawk nests and
this was the first project they were aware of that had suggested a buffer for inactive nests and avoided
turbines in those areas and he credited Greenlight Energy with being pro-active; established a minimum
setback of fifty meters from the rim edge as the majority of raptor use occurs in that area; a half mile
setback from shark-tailed grouse areas; Greenlight Energy had agreed to fund an extensive study on the
effect of wind turbines on the shark-tailed grouse; Mountain plover surveys would be conducted prior to
turbine placement; fox den site surveys were done so their burrows would not be disturbed; and they
found no major prairie dog towns in the area.
Tom Holton asked if many raptors were injured or killed by turbines. Mr. Good, Western Ecosystems
Technologies, replied that it had happened in the past but developers had gotten smarter and they had
seen lower mortality rates since then.
Mr. Teague thanked Mr. Gathman and Mr. Ogle, Department of Planning, and said he felt Greenlight
Energy had crossed their"t's"and dotted their"i's" and then some, and asked for a recommendation of
approval.
Doug Ochsner asked Don Carroll, Public Works Department, about the road agreement. Mr. Carroll said
the first thing missing was the USR questionnaire containing key items he used to complete his referral.
He added that: he needed to get a handle on what would happen with truck traffic; he requested the
applicant identify a haul route so as not to impact roads as much; that they address heavy truck traffic;
and they institute dust abatement. Mr. Carroll asked the applicant to be aware of road damage beyond
normal wear and tear and bring them back to standards or beyond standards. He said the Grover road
maintenance agreement was great but the County did maintain roads in the area. Mr. Carroll was also
missing and wanted to add a Road Maintenance Improvements Agreement with the County and still
needed information and agreement from the applicant, and if they used County rights-of-way, Greenlight
18
Energy would need appropriate documentation. Mr. Carroll said he would draft a paragraph and consult
with Grover. Tom Holton and Erich Ehrlich asked if they needed to add a development standard regarding
the roads. Chris Gathman said typically improvements agreements were done as conditions of approval
prior to recording the plat, and they could be added on USR-1562 as 3.M., page thirteen and on USR-
1563 as 3.P., page eight.
Doug Ochsner moved they add item 3.P., page eight to USR-1563. Erich Ehrlich seconded. Motion
carried.
Doug Ochsner moved they add item 3.M., page thirteen to USR-1562. Erich Ehrlich seconded. Motion
carried.
Chris Gathman, Planning Department, addressed language changes in items 3.C. and 3.D. and Staffs
comment was the Board of County Commissioners would need to determine if they replaced "attempted"
with "significant", how would they define "attempted". Staff recommended leaving the language as it was
regarding compliance and that the CDOW could bring it up at the Board of County Commissioner's
hearing. Mr. Gathman said regarding Development Standard thirty and the CDOW request to review
building permit applications, a potential solution would be to ask for a designated building envelope on the
plat to show where the operation maintenance facility would be built and because there were Department
of Defense facilities in the area, they should be informed of the construction. Recommendation for the
turbine site locations would be covered under the condition "prior to recording the plat". Paul Branham
asked if that would be a new condition and Mr. Gathman replied they already had that as a condition, an
"attempt to address"and recommended leaving it as it was.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the changes. Mr. Teague said they
accepted the revised Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Roy Spitzer asked if there were other alternate, reasonable routes they were pursuing that would impact
Crow Creek less. Mr. Teague replied there was flexibility but they were continuing to pursue the proposed
route that allowed them to connect the wind farm with the transmission system.
Doug Oschner said this was a huge project with far reaching benefits for many residents and he believed
the applicants had really tried to satisfy everyone involved and he supported the project.
Erich Ehrlich applauded Greenlight Energy's open house and was glad to see the project in Weld County
as well as property owners that supported the application. He asked Greenlight Energy to continue the
education of and resolution with the property owners, and gave his support to the project.
Paul Branham also supported the project as development of wind energy was needed; said the applicant
was to be commended for their effort and work with the property owners; and was optimistic Greenlight
Energy would come to agreement with all of the property owners.
Chad Auer congratulated the applicant and the landowners for their positive work on this enormous
project; gave his support to the project; and applauded the large number of people in the audience that
gave their time and attention to the hearing today.
Roy Spitzer echoed the other Commissioner's views; said he had several questions prior to the hearing
but they had been answered to his satisfaction; appreciated the property owners that had attended the
hearing; and supported the project.
Tom Holton strongly suggested the applicant continue to work with the property owners in order to prevent
use of eminent domain and he supported the project.
Doug Ochsner moved to send USR-1562 to the Board of County Commissioners with the amended
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with their recommendation of approval. Chad Auer
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
19
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to send USR-1563 to the Board of County Commissioners with the amended
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with their recommendation of approval. Chad Auer
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
9. CASE: USR-1561
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas
Support and Service Facility(Oil and Gas Processing Facility) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL: Part SE4 SE4 of Section 10, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; 400 feet west of CR 21 Section
Line.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said USR-1561, was an application for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an
Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility(Oil and Gas Processing Facility) located on approximately one
acre in the agricultural zone district. The applicant was represented by Tim Clancy of Witwer, Oldenburg,
Barry&Johnson, LLP, Attorneys.
This site was located north of and adjacent to CR 22;four hundred feet more or less west of CR 21
Section Line. The site was located within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Frederick and
Firestone and the City of Fort Lupton. The City of Fort Lupton and Town of Frederick stated they had
reviewed the request and found no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Firestone did not respond to
the referral request.
Surrounding lands were in dry land crop production. There were several residences in the immediate
vicinity, predominately to the north and south. The facility was located on higher ground, north of CR 22
on ground sloping north from a two lane gravel road. The high point was associated with lands to the
south of the facility.
Primary access was from CR 22, a local gravel road. The site was fenced with compressor components
and two locked and gated access points. The service yard was graveled and graded with overhead
lighting directed at specific equipment locations. There were two compressors with a baffle-sound wall to
the northwest of the service yard. There was no visual outside storage. There was a dumpster that would
require screening from adjacent properties and road right-of-way.
The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by staff and was evidenced
by photograph.
Fifteen referral agencies had reviewed the case and nine offered comments, some with specific
conditions. There had been one letter received from a surrounding property owner, and one person
reviewed the case file. Two telephone inquiries were received from adjacent property owners who had
questions regarding the application and had also raised concerns.
The Planning Department recommended approval of this application with the attached Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
20
Hello