HomeMy WebLinkAbout20202330.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 0 Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Wailes, at 11:53 a.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille, Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Elijah Hatch,
Skip Holland, Dwaine Barclay.
Also Present: Diana Aungst, Angela Snyder, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Lauren
Light, Department of Health; Mike McRoberts and Melissa King, Department of Public Works; Bob Choate,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the July 7, 2020 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Tom Cope,
Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
U SR20-0011
SCOTT PETERSON, C/O PIVOT SOLAR 8, LLC
ANGELA SNYDER
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW FORA SMALL SCALE SOLAR FACILITY IN A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT
W2NW4 SECTION 10, T3N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 36, EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO
CR 31.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, presented Case USR20-0011, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Snyder noted that the Weld County Code does add nine (9) extra
requirements onto the USR for solar facilities and all of these were addressed by the applicant or have
been included as conditions of approval. She added that this is a distribution level system that will not
connect to a transmission line. The generated electricity will be able to power up to about 400 homes in
the vicinity and will not be transmitted to other counties.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site. Ms. King stated that a final drainage report was received subsequent to the writing of the referral
and has been accepted by Public Works. Therefore, she requested the deletion of Condition of Approval
1.C regarding the submittal of a Final Drainage Report.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Luke Rickard, Pivot Energy, 1750 15th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that the site is located on limited
dryland ag and has some oil and gas operations, agricultural, and residential uses surrounding the site.
This request is for a 2 -megawatt solar facility. The construction of the facility will last approximately 12 to
18 weeks and will be operational for 20 to 40 years. The reason for the long range on the operation is the
contract with Xcel Energy for a rewards program is 20 years; however, there is possibility that the use will
be extended by Xcel Energy in the future.
Commissioner Wailes said that currently electricity is not stored on site and added that technology is
changing all the time. He asked the applicant if he foresees a time in the future when they may implement
some type of battery storage to maintain a current flow of electricity. Additionally, Mr. Wailes asked Staff if
storage should be added how that would be handled with this type of USR. Mr. Rickard said that this
CoMMun:cAi-ionS
O6/05/2O
1
2020-2330
technology is coming; however, they don't have any plans to do that for this project. He added that they
are looking at ways of working that into their projects in the future.
Commissioner Holland asked what the decommissioning plan is for this and who is responsible for it. Mr.
Rickard said that they and the applicant have the responsibility to decommission the site. He added that
they would remove the fence, all concrete and steel, remove all the electrical infrastructure on site and then
reseed it to prairie grass condition as they found it. Mr. Holland asked if the applicant provides a bond or
financial requirement to perform that job should Pivot Energy not be available. Mr. Rickard replied that
there is currently not a requirement for a bond for that. He added that if the applicant were to go under, the
decommissioning responsibilities are written into the lease and the banks underwriting this would inherit
the responsibility for decommissioning.
Commissioner Johnson said that in some cases they have allowed for sheep to graze. He added that he
is concerned with ground cover because without it there is a dust issue which isn't good for you or the
neighbors. He asked if there is a ground cover established going into the project or after. Mr. Rickard said
that they will work with what is already there and then they revegetate the area. He added that they typically
do not establish some type of ground cover crop prior to construction. Mr. Rickard referred to the grazing
of sheep and said that is something that they are pursuing at a company level to make their landscape
maintenance practices more productive.
Ms. Snyder referred to the question of storing energy and said that is included in the definition of a small-
scale solar facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Scott Peterson, 15002 CR 36, stated that he is the landowner and has been working with Jonathan
Fitzpatrick for the past 5 years and looking for the opportunity to provide money for himself and his family
beyond his life. He added that the site has very bad soil and there is a problem with blowing and vegetation.
The Chair asked the applicant if there was anything else they wanted to add. Mr. Rickard replied no.
The Chair referred to the request by Staff regarding Condition of Approval 1.C.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.C, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR20-0011 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard
Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR20-0012
COLORADO STATE LAND BOARD, C/O PIVOT SOLAR 4, LLC
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SMALL SCALE SOLAR FACILITY IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
SUBX20-0006, BEING PART OF THE NE4 OF SECTION 16, T3N, R66W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 32 AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT
TO CR 31.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR20-0012, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that the solar facility will connect directly to the existing Xcel
2
Energy distribution lines running along the western property boundary. The facility will generate electricity
for approximately 400 homes.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Luke Rickard, Pivot Energy, 1750 15th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that this property is owned by the
State Land Board but is very similar to the previous case. There is a slight increase in acreage inside the
fence line, but it is the same type of panels and electrical infrastructure.
Commissioner Cope asked who determined the 95.3 feet between facilities. Mr. Rickard said that the State
wanted a reasonable distance between the two solar facilities and the other solar operator wanted to ensure
that Pivot Solar would not shade their array.
Commissioner Cope referred to taking the electricity up to the substation and asked if they are able to share
the same transmission line that is already in place for the other operator. Mr. Rickard replied yes and added
that Xcel Energy will bring a step-up transformer to a concrete pad on site and that will be the point where
their facility ends, and their equipment begins. From there, Xcel Energy will connect the transformer to
their distribution line which runs directly to the substation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have 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.
Motion: Forward Case USR20-0012 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Gene Stille.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard
Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope.
The Chair called a recess at 12:55 pm and called the meeting back to order at 1:41 p.m.
Planning Commissioner Dwaine Barclay left the hearing at 12:55 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0130
APPLICANT: CITY OF THORNTON
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A GREATER THAN 16 -INCH RAW DOMESTIC WATER PIPELINE
(PERMANENT 42 -INCH PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 1 -MILLION GALLON WATER TANK,
TWO PUMP STATIONS, BURIED VALVE ASSEMBLIES, ACCESS
MANWAYS, AND FIBER OPTIC CABLE AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS) IN THE E (ESTATE) ZONE DISTRICT,
THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT, AND THE RUA (REGIONAL
URBANIZED AREA) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTIONS 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32, AND 33, T1N, R67W;
SECTIONS 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 29, 32, AND 33, T2N, R67W; SECTIONS 5, 8,
17, 20, 28, 29, AND 33, T3N, R67W; SECTIONS 6, 19, 20, 29, AND 32, T4N,
R67W; SECTIONS 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, AND 31, T5N, R67W; SECTIONS 6, 7,
AND 18, T6N, R67W; SECTIONS 6, 7, 18, AND 19, T7N, R67W; SECTIONS
3
LOCATION:
19, 30, AND 31, T8N, R67W; ALL LOCATED IN THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO
NORTH OF CR 2, SOUTH OF CR 94, EAST OF CR 13, AND WEST OF CR
19.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0130, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst stated that this pipeline is a water delivery system that will convey
high -quality domestic water that Thornton purchased in the mid -1980's from the Water Supply and Storage
Company in unincorporated Larimer County and bring it through Weld County to the City of Thornton for
municipal use. She added that the pipeline will include approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch diameter
water pipeline capable of conveying 40 million gallons per day as well as the associated appurtenances.
This amount of water is sufficient to meet the municipal and industrial demands of Thornton's water
customers through 2065.
Ms. Aungst said that in 2015 Thornton conducted a series of outreach meetings with local governments
and agencies that could be impacted by the pipeline. During this initial outreach meeting with each local
government and agency, feedback was collected to determine preferences and/or determine potential
problems for the location of the pipeline.
Ms. Aungst stated that Thornton is requesting a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an
additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction. The pipeline is not located within Weld County
right-of-way or future planned right-of-way, except to cross right-of-way.
The fiber optic cable will be installed in close proximity to the pipeline and will allow Thornton to remotely
operate the pipeline. Above ground appurtenances include a one -million -gallon water tank and two (2)
pump stations. The one -million -gallon water tank will be constructed on a site south of the intersection of
County Roads 13 and 92, next to an existing water tank. Pump Station #1 is located approximately one-
half mile east of the intersection of County Roads 13 and 50 on 3.75 acres and will include a 10,000 square
foot pump house building and equipment pads outside of the building. Pump Station #2 is located
approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection of County Roads 17 and 2 and is on approximately 8.4
acres and will include an approximate 15,000 square foot pump house building, bay and equipment pads.
Construction will begin in 2020 and will end in late 2024 or early 2025. The construction of each water
pipeline construction package is anticipated to last two to two and one-half years, not including revegetation.
Construction of the water tank is expected to last one (1) year and construction of the pump stations is
expected to last two (2) years.
Ms. Aungst noted that Staff received multiple phone calls from interested persons and surrounding property
owners who are crossed by the pipeline's easement with concerns regarding the pipeline crossing their
property and negotiations with the City of Thornton. Additionally, 16 letters were received from surrounding
property owners and interested parties. Ms. Aungst stated that the Cities of Dacono, Fort Lupton and the
Towns of Berthoud, Firestone, Frederick, Johnstown, Mead, Milliken, Platteville, Severance, Timnath and
Windsor were notified of the proposal by Staff and provided a Notice of Inquiry Form by the Applicant. Ms.
Aungst read the comments received from the various cities and towns and the applicant's responses into
the record.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the multiple accesses to be used and the crossings of 18 gravel
local roads, one (1) paved local road, seven (7) paved collector roads, one (1) paved arterial road, three
(3) unmaintained section line roads, and 14 roads under the jurisdiction of various municipalities and six
State Highways. Additionally, he provided the requirements for the drainage reports for the pump stations
prior to construction and staging areas along the pipeline alignment during construction.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, Waste Handling Plan and the Air Emissions Permit.
4
Mark Koleber, City of Thornton, 12450 Washington Street, Thornton, Colorado, stated that the City of
Thornton is requesting a Use by Special Review Permit for the construction for the Thornton Water Project
through unincorporated Weld County. Thornton is a growing City and will need additional water supply by
2025. Because the Thornton Water Project isn't subject to as much urban runoff and other pollution
discharges, this will also help address water quality issues with some of their existing water supplies.
Additionally, this will meet municipal demands through 2065.
Mr. Koleber stated that they have acquired 80 easements, which is 58% of the parcels and 51% of the total
length. The Thornton Water Project will move water that Thornton owns in two (2) ditch companies that
divert from the Cache la Poudre River, northwest of Ft. Collins, down to Thornton. The water will come out
of the Water Supply and Storage Company Reservoir #4, northwest of Ft. Collins. He added that Thornton
has taken the steps necessary to make the water legally available for the municipal use by Thornton. They
have a decree from the Water Court and an agreement with the ditch company to allow the water to be
used in Thornton.
Mr. Koleber provided an overview on how they are meeting the eight (8) approval requirements under Weld
County Code Section 23-2-480. Thornton's land services representatives have worked with property
owners along the route to explain pipeline construction, operations, and maintenance activities to determine
a location for the water pipeline that can best meet property owner's preferences. Thornton will continue
to pursue easements through good faith negotiations with property owners and only use eminent domain
as a last resort.
The water pipeline and fiber optic cable will be buried below plow depth and land use effects on agriculture
and other similar use will be temporary during construction and anticipated to be minimal after construction.
Agricultural uses such as farming, grazing or access can continue after construction.
Mr. Koleber said that they proposed over 140 mitigation measures and commitments to ensure that
Thornton Water Project impacts are minimized or prevented. Starting with the initial project planning in the
1980's, Thornton identified that a pipeline would be necessary to deliver the water that they had acquired
in the Water Supply and Storage Company and the Jackson Ditch Company systems. In 2014, Thornton
revisited those delivery options and once again confirmed that a pipeline is necessary to meet the needs
of the city. Thornton implemented a process to identify the route for the pipeline that included input from
governmental agencies and the public. Mr. Koleber provided an overview of the pipeline corridor evaluation
and the potential corridors. They narrowed the corridor to a single proposed corridor to which to start their
public outreach.
Mr. Koleber said that they launched a website to provide information and set up a project email and phone
line to make sure that it was easy for stakeholders to reach them with their questions. Additionally, they
had four (4) open houses along the corridor and have responded to hundreds of phone, email or website
inquiries about the project. They have also consistently reached out to the Greeley Tribune to keep them
apprised of the project. The City of Thornton has hired Western States Land Services to acquire the
property interests needed for the Thornton Water Project. They hired them because they take a respectful
approach with the landowners.
As part of the process to acquire easements, they have had requests from a number of property owners
south of Highway 66 to locate the pipeline in Weld County rights -of -way. He added that they followed the
County Commissioners request to stay out of the right-of-way, but they are willing to use the right-of-way
for construction of the pipeline.
Mr. Koleber respectfully requested a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the crossings will be done through boring or open trench. Mr. Koleber said
it will be bored under state highways, county roads, ditch company crossings, jurisdictional wetlands or
waters. He added that the ditch companies they have met with so far have been very cooperative.
Commissioner Holland asked if the water rights vary based on the supply from the Water Supply and
Storage Company and the Jackson Ditch Company. Mr. Koleber said that they vary quite a bit from year
to year. Mr. Holland asked if the applicant has obtained a maximum water right. Mr. Koleber said that it is
covered in their decree and added that they have volumetric limits which indicate that they can't go over a
5
certain amount. Mr. Koleber said that they manage their water supply to make sure they don't go over
those limits.
Commissioner Stille asked how long it would take for the acquisition of the other 42%. Mr. Koleber said
that they are pretty close on another 10 to 15% with negotiations and thought they would have the remaining
acquisitions wrapped up by the end of the year.
Commissioner Johnson asked how far along the applicant is with getting across Larimer County to tie into
Weld County. Mr. Koleber said that it is going through a court challenge currently and the final briefs in that
case were filed yesterday in Larimer County District Court.
Commissioner Wailes asked if they are any areas that will be co -located with natural gas gathering lines or
any other utilities. Mr. Koleber replied yes and added that they are trying to butt up against it as close as
they can to minimize the impact of people's properties. Mr. Wailes asked if they will be open to co -location
for future utilities. Mr. Koleber said that their easements are nonexclusive so the property owner can grant
another easement as long as there is adequate separation and it doesn't impact their ability to operate and
maintain their pipeline.
Commissioner Wailes asked if there are any cases currently filed for eminent domain. Mr. Koleber replied
that they do and of the cases they filed they have fully settled 8 of those cases, seven (7) stipulations to
possession, and 17 pending cases with three (3) of those cases have already been scheduled for immediate
possession hearings in August.
Commissioner Wailes is concerned with eminent domain when there is no permit from the County. He
asked what happens if this case is denied and you can never complete the pipeline in the way you want
and you have these eminent domain cases. Mr. Koleber believes that they will be successful in obtaining
approval. He added that this is a difficult spot because last year the Board of County Commissioners told
them that they can't get the permit until they obtain enough of the easements. He said that they have
identified a specific route and have Home Rule Authority to go out and acquire those easements if they
have to, although they prefer not to. They believe they meet the criteria of the USR permit and they will
acquire all the easements that they need.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the obstacles have been with negotiating the easements with the
landowners. Mr. Koleber said that the oil and gas companies have paid a lot more than what they believe
is a reasonable price for an easement, so the property owners are challenging that. He added that their
valuations are based on what the statute requires plus an incentive. There are a number of landowners
that they have worked closely with to align the route on their property and it takes a lot of work in negotiating.
Commissioner Hatch referred to the 17 eminent domain hearings and asked what that would put them at
as far as percentage of easements. Mr. Koleber replied that if they were to acquire those it would be about
70% by number and 60% by length. He added that there another 40 or so properties that they are currently
negotiating with and getting close to either getting the deal done or the final offer will expire and may need
to proceed with eminent domain.
The Chair called a recess at 3:17 pm and reconvened at 3:34 pm.
Planning Commissioner Tom Cope left the hearing at 3:17 pm.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Stewart Olive, 1812 South College Avenue, Ft. Collins, stated that he is the attorney for Margaret Schneider
and the Eugene F Schneider Family Trust, and also represents the Diecrest Dairy LLC. He added that
these two cases are headed toward hearing for eminent domain for immediate possession on August 14tH
Mr. Olive said that the main concern for the Schneider Family is that the proposed location of the pipeline
splits the property in two. There is also a Sinclair gas pipeline going through the property as well. Rather
than going up against the property, as required by State law, this is actually separating the property and
there will be two easements which split the property. The eastern portion of the property, where the pipeline
goes, is actually the view corridor and the value of the property goes up. They believe it violates several
6
sections of the Colorado Statutes, including Section 38-1-101.5 which requires utility lines to be put close
to one another. Mr. Olive said that if they would move this proposed line to the Sinclair pipeline or to County
Road 13, they wouldn't have an objection.
Commissioner Beck asked how far it is from the Sinclair pipeline. Mr. Olive replied that it is about one-half
section.
Rebecca Hicks, 32460 Inverness Drive, Evergreen Colorado, stated that her daughter owns a legacy farm
and is located at approximately County Road 17 and Highway 42. Ms. Hicks asked for justice and protection
of private property rights for her daughter's land from the proposed Thornton Water Pipeline Project. She
expressed concern that Thornton is wrongfully robbing private property through government overreach and
threatening tactics. She added that this is of no benefit to anyone in Weld County. Ms. Hicks said that in
February 2019 they were informed that the pipeline's straight alignment was not planned to cross or impact
her daughter's property; however, in February 2020 her daughter began receiving condemnation orders
from Thornton attempting to bully her into signing away valuable property rights. She respectfully asked
for protection of their private property rights.
Kathy Weinmeister 5901 Sacajawea Way, Loveland, Colorado, stated that she was a Zeiler and represents
Zeiler Farms Incorporated on County Road 13 along Highway 34 between County Road 13 and half -way
to County Road 17. Ms. Weinmester requested that the City of Thornton go directly south along County
Road 13 along an oil and gas pipeline that was just granted in 2019 rather than jigging across their property.
Ms. Weinmeister provided a folder which included maps of the proposed water pipeline and the route that
the Zeiler's are wanting them to follow.
Also included in the folder, is a spreadsheet they put together that shows a savings of over $600,000 for
Thornton to follow the route that they have asked. Ms. Weinmeister said that they are requesting to run
this pipeline parallel to the oil and gas line already approved and to be compensated equitably. Additionally,
the Zeiler property has been approved for a commercial and industrial development in 2009 by the City of
Windsor. She added that cutting into the property takes away from the appeal of commercial from Highway
34.
Commissioner Beck asked if they are involved in a lawsuit at this time. Ms. Weinmeister replied that they
are not.
Ted Simmons, 41494 CR 13, stated that they are getting sued for eminent domain. He added that they are
located south of the Schneider property. Mr. Simmons said that the proposed route of the pipeline covers
up their land to such an egregious degree that the future value they have been counting on will be at best
severely damaged or wiped out. Mr. Simmons stated that have also proposed a route change no less than
five (5) times and added that they haven't even received acknowledgment that Thornton has received their
proposed changes. Mr. Simmons provided maps of their property in relation to the proposed pipeline route
and the Sinclair pipeline.
Garrett Varra, Varra Companies Inc., 8120 Gage Street, Frederick, Colorado, stated that Mr. Koleber
discussed the area between Highway 66 and County Road 26, and he controls about 75 to 80 percent of
the land and is encumbered by the proposed pipeline between those two roads. He also talked to the two
neighbors that control the remaining property and both Ready Mix Concrete Company and Jim McClay and
they request the Planning Commission to endorse the alternative of placing the pipeline in the County right-
of-way.
Mr. Varra said that there are two (2) current active mines and this pipeline would go right between them
and there is also a ditch and a 90 -foot Anadarko easement that poses a lot of operational consternation
both for him and for Thornton as well. He said that they are going to submit a permit to mine another gravel
pit and they will probably get a $50,000 to $60,000 offer on the appraisal for the easement and within that
he will probably lose a half -million ton of material (close to $2M) and it does not include lost water storage
in that area. Mr. Varra requested the Planning Commission endorse the idea of going down County Road
17 using the right-of-way between County Road 26 and Highway 66, as it is a much better option for the
landowners in the area.
7
Commissioner Johnson asked if they are in a court case with Thornton. Mr. Varra said that they are not
and added that Thornton has acted in good faith towards his business so far.
Janet Ross, 6248 CR 56, Loveland, Colorado, said that Thornton is proposing to put the pipeline on the
east side of their property and have threatened eminent domain. Ms. Ross said that when she spoke to
Western States, they said that they had proof of notice of delivery; however, it was an unsigned return
receipt. She added that they had never received it. She said that she is scrambling to line up an appraiser
and an attorney to go through the contract. The notice that she received was from the postcard she received
for this Planning Commission hearing. She implored the Commission to allow the pipeline to go along
County Road 13 the entire way in the right-of-way following all the utilities as it is the most beneficial and it
is not cutting across all the properties and farmland.
Abe Sauer, 6715 CR 50, Johnstown, Colorado, stated that the Thornton proposed pipeline causes them
damage and potentially puts an undue liability burden on them that can easily be avoided. He added that
they have presented Thornton various alternatives to utilize their property to complete their project and
greatly mitigate the damage that this Thornton project will forever bring to their property and business. Mr.
Sauer expressed concern of the lack of interest for Thornton to do things right.
Randy Fabrizius, 41637 CR 13, stated that Marge Schneider is his mom and he is part of the trust in the
lawsuit. He appealed to the Commission to give Weld County citizens their rights.
Rick Myers, PO Box 471, Baggs, Wyoming, stated that he owns farmland adjoining Highway 14 and County
Road 13. Mr. Myers said that the proposal that Thornton came up with for a permanent and temporary
easement really doesn't satisfy them for the land. He said that Thornton is proposing a 100 -foot easement
40 -foot -wide that sits in part of an irrigated field. He expressed concern for the lack of feedback on their
communications.
The Chair noted that two emails came in from the public for comments on this case. Bob Choate, County
Attorney, noted that the applicant has not received those emails therefore, Mr. Choate read them into the
record.
The first email was from Philip Benedict, 38568 CR 13. Mr. Benedict expressed concern regarding the low
value offer for their land and the threat to start condemnation hearings if they don't accept the offer. He
questioned why Thornton is allowed to cost Weld County residents significant out of pocket costs by forcing
them to hire an appraiser and attorney to verify the value of land they wish to take and then refusing to pay
for those out of pocket expenses.
The second email was from Attorney Brad Grasmick, 5245 Ronald Reagan Boulevard. He submitted a
letter on the behalf of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company with concern of Thornton's crossing of the
Larimer and Weld Canal, specifically, those related to the potential impacts which can result from an open
cut of the Canal. He added that a proposed crossing agreement was provide to Thornton for their comment
and review earlier today and they are hopeful that an agreement can be recached with Thornton regarding
the crossing. Mr. Grasmick requested that a condition be included requiring Thornton to obtain a crossing
agreement with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company.
Another email was received from Jill Triantaphyllis. This comment is in addition to what her Aunt Kathy
Weinmeister said today. She stated the Zeiler Farms has been negotiating with Thornton for several
months; however, they have received a final notice before Thornton will file eminent domain. She
expressed concern that these are not good faith negotiations while they are currently working with them to
place the pipeline to save the most of their land and save Thornton money. She added that they think that
Thornton will execute the eminent domain in six days according to the final notice.
The Chair asked the Applicant to speak to why Thornton is unable to incorporate the landowners'
suggestions to move this pipeline through their property in a way that would be beneficial to both of you.
Mr. Koleber referred to the Schneider, Diecrest Dairy and Simmons properties and said they have had a lot
of discussions with the property owners. He added that they worked with them extensively to move the
pipeline farther away from some of their building envelopes. They also worked with the landowners to
move it back against some other areas that weren't as buildable to preserve their building lots. Mr. Koleber
8
referred to the Schneider's comments of dividing their property and emphasized that it is currently two
properties. He added that the pipeline will run along a property line; however, the Schneiders consider it
as one property. To go farther east to the Sinclair easement, it would move the pipeline more than one-
half mile out and back. He added that they analyzed that option and added that it is quite a bit more
expensive because they need to end up back at County Road 13 going north. Mr. Koleber said that they
didn't stay along County Road 13 as they can't use the right-of-way and they wanted to stay away from
houses and other things along the road. He stated that they feel this is the least impactful on those property
owners. He added that they understand it does cross their property and they are working with them on
what the impacts are.
Commissioner Beck understands that the applicant was told by the County Commissioners to keep the
pipeline out of the road right-of-way and asked why that direction was given. Mr. Koleber said that he
wouldn't want to speculate on why they asked for them to stay out of the road right-of-way. Mr. Beck asked
if they said anything about rather than eminent domain that maybe the County would consider listening to
the proposal of allowing the pipeline in the easement, which has historically been for utility easements. Mr.
Koleber said that the Commissioners, in their statements, indicated that their preference was to be on
private property because they wanted to have it so the property owners got paid for the impacts that they
were going to see out there and they wanted the property owners to receive compensation for that. He
said that he couldn't come in and propose being in the right-of-way, but if the county says that you should
be in the right-of-way, then he would have to go back and check with engineers to ask if that is feasible in
that location because he doesn't know what other utilities might be there. He added that they analyzed
this, and it is feasible for that road crossing in being on the private property.
Commissioner Beck asked Staff if there is a reason why the County doesn't put more in the county road
right-of-way. Mr. McRoberts said that there could potentially be other utilities in the right-of-way. In
response to Mr. Beck's inquiry, Mr. McRoberts couldn't answer what the Commissioner's reasoning was to
not wanting anything in the right-of-way. Mr. Beck suggested the applicant or the landowners ask this
question at the County Commissioners meeting as to why you can't use the right-of-way. He added that
this is a utility for the public good and it occurs to him that maybe it would alleviate some problems. Mr.
McRoberts said that the County Commissioners do make a distinction between a distribution line and a
transmission line and because this line would not actually be distributing water to the citizens of Weld
County, they kind of look at this differently because it is just transmitting water to the City of Thornton. Mr.
Beck said he understood that and said to an extent it is a public utility and maybe this is a place to avoid
some of these problems that the County needs to bend a little bit. Commissioner Johnson disagreed and
said there are seven different properties that have county road right-of-way and none of the utilities are in
there, but rather on private land. He added that North Weld County Water District and other lines have had
to be on private property and not the county road right-of-way. He added that he thinks the County
Commissioners are consistent in doing that.
Commissioner Ford asked how big of an easement is needed. Mr. Koleber said that the easement they
are acquiring is a 50 -foot permanent easement and the water line will be located somewhere in the middle
of that with a 40 -foot temporary construction easement. Mr. Ford said they can't use the right-of-way
because the county right-of-way is only 60 feet and doesn't think they could put the pipe in there.
Commissioner Beck agreed and added that they might have to close the road, but he goes a lot of places
now where the road is closed for a lot lesser good that he can see.
Commissioner Stille said that 90 feet is a lot of right-of-way. Commissioner Johnson replied that oil
pipelines took more than that. Mr. Koleber asked him to consider the need for the trench construction,
stockpiling pipe and materials and driving the trucks back and forth along the route.
Mr. Koleber noted that the Zeiler Farms property is located in Windsor and he could talk more about that,
but it is not part of this permit application.
Mr. Koleber said that that they have been busy preparing for this meeting and apologized for not replying
to Ms. Ross's emails. He added that they did receive her request to receive extensions on appraisals and
things like that and he hasn't had a chance to look at them, but he said that they will look at that and see if
there is something they can do. Mr. Koleber said that during their weekly land use meetings they talk about
what they are doing with the landowners and they try to reach the landowners multiple ways, through emails,
phone calls, and knocking on doors. He added that he is willing to commit to working with Ms. Ross.
9
With regard to Mr. Saur's comments, they looked at their proposals and what Mr. Saur wanted them to do
was bore a diagonal area where there is a bridge. Mr. Koleber said that they looked at it but because it is
very close to the bridge abutments, they talked to Weld County Public Works and the Public Works Staff
advised against that.
Mr. Koleber stated that they have been working with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company and added
that they will coordinate the design with them to make sure they are protected.
In response to the email from Mr. Benedict, Mr. Koleber said that they establish their values even if they
don't do an appraisal on a piece of property. He added that they had appraisers put together Value Reports
that show what those properties are worth if they were to do an appraisal and then they base those initial
offers on those valuations that are done by appraisers, but aren't from appraisals. He said that their
valuations do have validity and merit and are not just numbers picked out of the air. He added that if they
give a valuation less than $5000 the Statute says they don't have to pay for an appraisal, because
appraisals can sometimes cost twice that much or more.
Commissioner Johnson said that he has done a lot of appraisal work and these appraisals don't do a good
job of getting comparables. He said that maybe there needs to be some consideration as to what the
comparables are. He said that property at Highway 34 is not the same value as it is north of Nunn.
Commissioner Holland said that it seems Thornton has not received final approval from Larimer County
and they are asking for approval from Weld County. The public is telling them they haven't reached an
appropriate definition of the location of the project. Mr. Choate advised them to not wait to see what
happens in Larimer County because they have no jurisdiction in Weld County and it really doesn't matter
what is going on in Larimer County. As far as the boundary within Weld County, what they had presented
is very specifically described and depicted in their application.
Commissioner Hatch referred to Section 23-2-480.A.6 which states "All reasonable alternatives to the
proposal have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of
the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area". He asked for
clarification if the boundary that the applicant has presented is up to the Commission, not necessarily to
identify a different use, but just say yes or no they can do that. Mr. Choate said that item is referring to Mr.
Koleber's statement that these are the alternative routes that they considered. He said that does not mean
that the Planning Commission can choose the route, but you do need to find that they considered alternative
routes and that this route actually meets that criteria.
The Chair referred to changes that the applicant indicated they would like to make to the conditions of
approval and asked if they could present those. A handout of the proposed changes were provided to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Beck asked if they could simplify this by asking Staff if they recommend these changes be
made or if there is still room to debate them. Mr. McRoberts, Public Works, said that he was on the phone
with Jody Henry last Friday and they agreed with language that appears on this handout. Ms. Aungst
referred to the proposed change on Condition of Approval 4 Prior to Construction for any segment of the
pipeline which requests to combine Conditions 4.G, 4.J, and 4.K. She stated that Planning is in support of
this change. Mr. Choate stated that there is enough specificity here that if you are in agreement with all of
the proposed changes that you could approve them in a single motion.
Motion: Accept the changes to the Resolution, as presented by the applicant, Moved by Richard Beck,
Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and amended
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement. Mr. Koleber stated that when they are before the County Commissioners they will request an
extension of the time to file the USR maps because they would like to file the maps in segments.
Commissioner Johnson said that on the benefit of the residents of Weld County, he believes the applicant
needs to be further along and he doesn't like the heavy hammer approach that they are taking.
10
Mr. Choate recommended that the Planning Commission does not consider the eminent domain actions as
it relates to the criteria for approval or denial of the USR.
Mr. Johnson understood that and added that he would like to see a higher percentage of the establishment
of the permanent easement.
Commissioner Holland said that he is uncomfortable where this project is and doesn't think that is the role
of either the Planning Commission or the County Commissioners. He doesn't like that some of the things
that at this stage he would think should be further along. He agreed with Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Choate said that it is very important that you do not try to usurp the authority of the Court in a
condemnation case. The Court is the one that determines what is fair market and what they are required
to pay and whether they have the authority to condemn if they want to condemn.
The Chair asked if they should be looking at Section 23-2-400. Mr. Choate said that the proposed
Resolution outlines the provisions of the Code that you need to be looking at, which is Section 23-2-480.
He added that these are the criteria that the applicant presented upon and that you will need to apply the
facts to the law. The Resolution contains findings based upon Staff's Report and the recommendation is
for approval. If you choose to recommend denial, Mr. Choate advised them to look at these criteria and
determine if the reason to recommend denial fits with any of those criteria. He added that you should only
recommend approval or denial based on facts that are relevant to these criteria.
Commissioner Stille asked if there can be a recommendation from the Planning Commission to postpone
this until several of the concerns that the constituents have are answered and then come back in a
reasonable amount of time. Mr. Choate said that the Planning Commission could postpone it to a date
certain and would also be making that decision on the behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Stille agreed with Commissioners Johnson and Holland that there is not enough data here.
Commissioner Hatch asked if it would also be in their purview to not just extend that date but also request
a certain amount of information be supplied before they come back. Mr. Choate said that if you continued
the matter to a date certain you could tell them what you wanted to see. He also pointed out that because
of the time that this occurs they are very careful not to do this at the end of the year when it comes to Board
of County Commissioner meetings because there is turn over on the County Commissioners as well as
Planning Commissioners so only those persons that were here during this meeting could hear the case
later. Mr. Hatch asked if that includes individuals that have left early today. Mr. Choate replied yes and
added that they would not be able to hear the case since they were not able to hear all of the evidence.
Mr. Hatch pointed out that we would no longer have a quorum then with three Planning Commissioners
leaving as their terms are expired July 31st. Mr. Choate recommended that the Planning Commission make
a recommendation for approval or denial today.
Commissioner Wailes has a hard time getting past eminent domain. He referred to Item 5 in Section 23-2-
480.A regarding the health, safety and welfare for the people of Weld County. Commissioner Hatch
included Item 6 relating to consistency with the best interests of the people of the County. Mr. Wailes said
that they have seen letters in the public comment that was submitted and personally shown to him and
wonders how can anybody have a sense of welfare in their private property when they are being threatened
with condemnation. He said that he takes that into consideration and understands that he won't be here to
do anything with the court, but he doesn't envy the position of the applicant. He added that he doesn't want
to stand in the way of them accessing the water that they have the right to. Mr. Wailes stated that he can't
speak for the Board of County Commissioners, but he doesn't think that their intention for the applicant to
have acquisition of easements included the strong-arm techniques that he has seen and heard today from
the public. He pointed again to Item 5 and stated that it is a welfare issue and the welfare of the people
who own this property.
Commissioner Ford agreed and said that our citizens have lived on their land for 100 years and are told
that they have to give their land away for practically nothing for this pipeline and he doesn't feel it is right
for the people of Weld County.
11
Commissioner Johnson said that it is their responsibility to listen to their constituents and the right to look
at some of these things.
Commissioner Beck agreed that the Planning Commission is the sounding board and because of the way
they are changing the way the Planning Commission operates through zoning and code changes he feels
that some of that sounding board will be lost. He said on this particular issue it may be a good time for
them to be heard.
Commissioner Stille said that ultimately Thornton will get their water, but it has to be done right. He added
that people's property rights can be abused and he doesn't care if they have to go two miles underground
all the way, the applicant needs to make sure that it is done right. Mr. Stille stated that the right thing for
him to do is vote no and let the County Commissioners make that decision. He thinks Thornton will have
to work with constituents.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0130 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Richard Beck.
In Commissioner Johnson's motion he cited Agricultural Goals and Policies Section 22-2-20.A Respect and
encourage the continuation of agricultural land uses and agricultural operations . He said that he is in favor
of what the applicant is doing and it needs to be done and is necessary. He added that he brokered the
first three farms that Thornton purchased and also owns rights in the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company,
Water Supply and Storage Company and the Cache la Poudre so he was involved indirectly through Water
Court. He just thinks that there needs to be a better effort to protect the citizens and the landowners in
Weld County.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Dwaine Barclay, Tom Cope.
Commissioner Ford said that based on what he has heard from the citizens of Weld County he doesn't
believe that all reasonable alternatives have been adequately assessed. He added that he also doesn't
believe this is in the best interests of the people of the County.
Commissioner Hatch cited Section 23-2-480.A.5 and Section 23-2-480.A.6 and added that he doesn't
believe the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of Weld County
Commissioner Holland cited Section 23-2-480.A.3 regarding the design of the proposed pipeline mitigating
negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible.
Commissioner Beck said that this is a matter of just one more time when they get a chance not to trample
on individual rights.
Commissioner Stille cited Sections 23-2-480.A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6 which has to do with constituent's
comments, and he is also concerned about Larimer and Weld Irrigation crossings and the financial concerns
with the Varra request.
Commissioner Wailes cited Sections 23-2-480.A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6 and added that he believes this falls under
health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on welfare of the residents of Weld County.
The Chair called a recess at 5:26 pm and reconvened at 5:35 pm.
The Chair referred to the item under New Business which is to consider amendments to the Planning
Commission Bylaws.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that the Planning Commission Bylaws have not been reviewed or
changed since 2002. The proposed changes included in the handout provided are to clean up and update
it to keep up with the times.
12
Commissioner Holland referred to the Consent Agenda being stricken and said that given the changes in
the Weld County Code would it be appropriate for Staff to inform the Planning Commission of some of the
actions that Staff has taken with regard to the Zoning Permits. Mr. Parko provided an explanation of the
purpose of the Consent Agenda and added that it was decided to do away with the Consent Agenda
because the thought was to make sure that everyone had an opportunity to comment on cases.
Commissioner Johnson agreed that he would like to see what permits have been approved administratively.
Mr. Parko said that they have created some new administrative type cases to be more friendly to the ag
industry.
Commissioner Stille asked if it is ever appropriate for the Planning Commission to go into Executive
Session. Mr. Choate replied that they are able to go into executive session. Mr. Stille noted that it would
have been more comfortable to go into executive session without the public and got some direction or
advice from counsel. Commissioner Beck disagreed and said that he thinks that defeats the purpose of
the Planning Commission. He added that it is perfectly legitimate to ask our attorney a question in front of
the public whether it exposes their ignorance or not and it helps the public know why they made the decision
they made. Commissioner Johnson added that everyone gets the information at the same time.
Motion: Approve the changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws, as presented by Staff, Moved by
Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Richard Beck.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
Absent: Dwaine Barclay, Tom Cope.
Meeting adjourned at 5:46 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
41)\ddE►nt.- A,rt4L4i-L,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
13
Hello