HomeMy WebLinkAbout20203593.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Elijah Hatch, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland, Dwaine Barclay, Butch White, Troy Mellon.
Absent: Gene Stille, Sam Gluck.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Ben Frissell
and Lauren Light, Department of Health; Mike McRoberts and Melissa King, Department of Public Works;
Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Michelle Wall, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the November 17, 2020 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Tom
Cope, Seconded by Butch White. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR20-0029
APPLICANT: BRYAN KUGEL LIVING TRUST, GARY P KUGLE TRUST, KAY KUGEL
SACHS, TROY SKOGMO, PAULA R CARR REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST,
CYNTHIA L WALTERS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, C/O SUNSHARE, LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY (4.0 MEGAWATTS
(ALTERNATING CURRENT) AND 4.826 MEGAWATTS (DIRECT
CURRENT) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 SECTION 17, T3N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 34 AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT
TO CR 29.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR20-0029, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
The Chair referenced the landscape map and asked staff if the proposed Juniper trees are going to be
approximately 25 to 35 feet tall. Staff responded that at the time they are planted, the trees will be
approximately 5 feet tall. Commissioner Hatch asked if the trees are a requirement from staff. Mr. Gathman
said there is a landscaping screening plan condition, and the trees are what the applicant has submitted as
their proposal. Staff explained if the applicant is going to landscape with trees, an irrigation plan will be
required in order to address the maintenance of the trees.
Melissa King, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site. Staff said they have two revisions to the existing resolution. Add Condition of Approval 4.B that
reads, "The approved access shall be constructed prior to the on -site construction. (Department of Public
Works)". Delete Condition of Approval 5.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Commissioner Barclay asked staff if any hand washing stations are required. Staff responded that after
construction, no.
Amanda Mack, SunShare, 1724 Gilpin Street, Denver, Colorado. Ms. Mack explained that they are
requesting a site -specific development plan and use by special review permit for a medium -scale solar
facility. She said it is a 4.000 MW -AC project/4.826 MW -DC. Ms. Mack explained that the project is part
of the XCEL Solar Rewards Community Program. Xcel Energy customers subscribe to a third -party
community solar garden nearly. Once subscribed, customers will begin receiving credits on their monthly
utility bill for the solar energy that their subscriptions contribute to the Xcel Energy grid. She said the
Cot. -t, Comet 7 an,$ 2020-3593
i2/i6/2A
proposed property is zoned Agricultural and is 159.33 acres of dryland. The proposed solar facility will
occupy 32.37 acres of that property. 4.826 MWs (DC) is enough to power 950 homes. Ms. Mack explained
the proposed PV modules will be 144 cell, 400 -Watt BiFacial Mono -crystalline modules that will be mounted
on a single axis tracker system. BiFacial modules collect light on both the front and the back of modules
while also following the sun throughout the day. She said that the rental income from a solar facility provides
the landowner with a long-term income on their land versus variable income from dryland farming.
SunShare feels their proposal meets the alternative energy policies of the Weld County Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner White said he noticed that SunShare is requesting that financial assurance for the
decommissioning of the solar facility be waived. He asked what assurance does the landowner have that
the project will be removed. Ms. Mack explained they will have a decommissioning fund that they will
contribute to. She said it is in their agreement requirements to decommission the site.
Commissioner Ford asked where the modules are manufactured. Ms. Mack said she believes the
manufacture is Canadian Solar.
Commissioner Holland asked the applicant to address their plan to irrigate the trees. Ms. Mack said a third
party will plant the trees and provide irrigation. Mr. Holland asked where the water will come from. Ms.
Mack replied that they have not established a contract for the trees yet, so she is not able to specifically
state where the water will come from. She said it will be from an outside source and trucked in through the
duration of the project. Commissioner Holland asked staff if the landscaping requirement will be on the
recorded map. Staff said Condition of Approval 1.D. reads "A Landscape and Screening Plan shall be
submitted per Section 23-4-1030.C of the Weld County Code. The landscape and screening plan shall be
revised to address irrigation of the proposed landscaping on the west side of the facility." Mr. Gathman said
if the Planning Commission wanted to, they could add an additional sentence reading "The irrigation plan
shall detail irrigation during planting as well as ongoing irrigation for the life of the facility."
Commissioner Cope asked how close the neighbor to the west is from the property. Ms. Mack replied 180
feet.
The Chair asked the applicant why they are choosing to have trees, when trees are not specifically required
in the landscaping plan. He also questioned if the trees would impede your solar production. Ms. Mack
said it would not. The design is created to take shade in effect.
Commissioner Holland asked if the gentleman from SunShare could come up to the podium to discuss
water.
Barney Hammond, Contract Landman with SunShare, 3107 52nd Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Mr.
Hammond said he has studied some of the history from 1985 to present. He said there have been several
attempts made to get water through legal means from the Platte ditch to the north with no success. A verbal
agreement was made with Bella Farms to dryland farm the property for approximately 5 years. They laid a
6 -inch PVC across the County road to service a possible future pivot there. With no luck of getting any
water from the Platte ditch, the pivot was completed.
Mr. Hammond explained their experience in the past with working with landscape contractors. He said he
has seen them purchase municipal or ditch water and haul the water by tank truck to the site.
Commissioner Holland asked if there has been any attempt to acquire water rights to drill a well. Mr.
Hammond said yes but from the landowner's notes, it was denied.
Commissioner Holland asked if they have to use trees as landscaping. Staff explained the project is close
to a residence and the applicant proposed trees to use as a buffer. Mr. Hammond said that in the past,
county commissioners have raised the issue of landscaping and trees.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Ms. King said that Public Works would like to add Condition of Approval 4.B that reads, "The approved
access shall be constructed prior to the on -site construction. And delete Condition of Approval 5.
Motion: Add Conditional of Approval 4.B. and delete Condition of Approval 5. Moved by Tom Cope,
Seconded by Dwaine Barclay. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gathman stated that Commissioner Holland had some questions with the landscaping and screening
plan. He said the Planning Commission could amend Conditional of Approval 1.D. by adding an additional
sentence that reads "The irrigation plan shall detail irrigation during planting as well as ongoing irrigation
for the life of the facility."
Commissioner Mellon said he is in agreeance with Commissioner Holland. Mr. Mellon said he is hesitant
to recommend approval for any landscaping that does not have a permanent water source.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.D. as recommended by staff. Moved by Troy Mellon, Seconded
by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Butch White, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
No: Skip Holland.
Absent: Gene Stille, Sam Gluck.
The Chair said that it is hard to force a company to come up with water when a third party is responsible to
come up with the water.
Commissioner Mellon said he is asking a business that is planning on planting something to have
responsibility in the maintenance, even if a third party is involved. He said they need to have a permanent
plan to maintain the landscape.
Ms. Mack asked if they could possibly lower the number of trees from what they have on the application.
Mr. Gathman explained that solar facilities do have specific requirements for landscaping and screening
under Section 23-4-1030, "Landscaping is extremely important for enhancing the quality of development in
the area. Trees, shrubs and other plantings add greatly to the aesthetic appeal while reducing glare. As no
single landscaping plan can be prescribed for all developments due to differing land features, topography
and soils, these guidelines encourage flexible and creative landscape designs. Landscaping/screening
shall include, at a minimum, decorative fencing, berming, and/or vegetation such that the facility is
aesthetically pleasing as viewed from adjacent properties and rights -of -way."
Commissioner Cope addressed Ms. Mack's question on lowering the number of trees. He explained that
would be up to them to decide and work with staff to amend their landscaping/screening plan. Mr. Gathman
said if the applicant can try to get in touch with the residence owner and discuss options with them.
Commissioner Barclay suggested a decorative fence.
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.
Motion: Forward Case USR20-0029 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 Troy Mellon, Seconded by Dwaine Barclay.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Butch White, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
No: Skip Holland.
The Chair called a recess at 1:25 pm. The meeting reconvened at 1:32 pm.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
USR20-0018
LUCERNE, INC.
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA
LARGER THAN FOUR (4) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA
INCLUDING STRUCTURES FOR THE STORAGE OF AGRICULTURAL
EQUIPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (STORAGE AND
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
DISTRIBUTION OF BAGGED SEED AND GRAIN) LOCATED IN HISTORIC
TOWNSITES IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOTS 14, 16, AND 18, BLOCK 4 NORTH GREELEY; BEING PART OF
SECTION 18, T6N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO ELM STREET, EAST OF AND ADJACENT
TO RAILROAD AVENUE AND THE UPRR MAINLINE TRACK.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR20-0018, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Ford mentioned the Railroad right-of-way is 200 feet from the railroad tracks. He asked staff
if the warehouse is in the right-of-way. Staff responded that this property is in part of a platted townsite; it
is not located in the right-of-way.
Commissioner Holland asked staff how many acres the property was and what size the warehouse is. Staff
responded the property is 0.215 acres and the warehouse is 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Holland
asked staff if they are recommending approval of this project that covers more than 50 percent of the
property. Staff replied that is correct. Mr. Ogle said they received no phone calls or any opposition to this
proposal. Commissioner Holland asked how the applicant will go around the warehouse. Staff explained
the applicant does not need to go around, they will access the property from public right-of-way to Elm
Street and then turn north onto their driveway that leads to roll -up doors on the warehouse.
Mike McRoberts, 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.
Robert Anders, 6363 East County Road 56, Fort Collins, Colorado. The applicant explained that he is
running out of storage space for bagged seed and grain. He said they will have a forklift. There will not be
any outside parking. Mr. Anders Eaton Fire is requesting that the applicant put in a sprinkler system inside
the building.
Commissioner Barclay asked for explanation of the structures located behind the proposed building. Mr.
Anders replied there is one house and some other buildings and that no one opposed the project. He said
there is a 6 -foot privacy fence along the property line.
Commissioner Cope asked the applicant to point out on the map where the building with the restroom is
located. Mr. Anders pointed to the image as to the location of the Lucerne Inc. office located to the
northwest of the proposed building location.
The Chair asked the applicant if they had to go through a similar process with the previous building they
built. The applicant said it was similar. Commissioner Hatch asked if they had any complaints. The
applicant said they did not. Mr. Anders said they work hard to be good neighbors and keep their property
clean.
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 USR20-0018 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 Tom Cope, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Butch White, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
Absent: Gene Stille, Sam Gluck.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
3MJUSR18-07-1604
USR 18-07-1604
HIGH SIERRA WATER SERVICES, LLC, C/O NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ,
LLC
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND 3RD AMENDED USE BY
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE,
SOLIDS PROCESSING FACILITY FOR EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION WASTES, PURSUANT TO COLORADO STATE STATUTE
AND AS DEFINED AND REGULATED BY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, AND OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF
DESIGNATION, PURSUANT TO C.R. S. §30-20-104 AND CONTINUED USE
OF THE FACILITIES TO INCLUDE, CLASS II OILFIELD WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITY - SALTWATER INJECTION FACILITY PARKING AND
MAINTENANCE FOR 18 NGL COMPANY PRODUCED WATER TANKERS
AND OTHER OPERATION SUPPORT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES; FACILITY
OFFICES; OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
ACCESSORY TO AN ALLOWED USE (NEW, USED AND OBSOLETE OIL
FIELD EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING EMPTY FRAC TANKS AND STAGING
FRAC TANKS), AS LONG AS THE MATERIALS ARE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT LOTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY; A COMPANY VEHICLE ONLY
WASH BAY, MAINTENANCE/MECHANIC SHOP, FUELING STATION AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATION OF
THE FACILITY AND UP TO 18 CARGO (CONEX) CONTAINERS OUTSIDE
OF SUBDIVISIONS AND HISTORIC TOWNSITES IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
S2SE4 SECTION 30, T3N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 28 SECTION LINE; WEST OF AND
ADJACENT TO CR 39.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case 3MJUSR18-07-1604, reading the recommendation and
comments 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 existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Mike Guinn, NGL Water Solutions, 8211 W 20th Street, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Guinn said the site is a
Class II Injection facility and a record -approved solid processing plant. He said they take produced solid
wastes as a byproduct of oil and natural gas production which includes tank bottoms, sludge and muds
from production well site or transport it to the site. They then extract the oil and then sell it. He said they
process the solids. Mr. Guinn said the two wells on site are rarely used. He stated that water is transported
to other sites they operate.
Commissioner Cope asked the applicant for the specific changes that are being made on this request. Mr.
Guinn replied they want to use this site to park their water trucks that process their facility solids at their
site. He said they also want to repurpose the use of a building to use for a mechanics bay to maintain their
own internal trucks. Mr. Guinn explained that they have made the decision to remove some below -grade
frac tanks and equipment from the storage obsolete yard.
Commissioner Holland asked if the applicant is repurposing an existing building. Mr. Guinn replied that is
correct. The applicant explained the building was originally designed for a process called water recycling,
but due to economies of recycling, this activity is no longer performed.
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 3MJUSR18-07-1604 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 Skip Holland, Seconded by Dwaine Barclay .
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Butch White, Dwaine Barclay, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
Absent: Gene Stille, Sam Gluck.
CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2020-20
TOM PARKO
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH
AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE
INTEREST AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services, stated that the existing regulations have been in place since
2016. In late November, he received direction from the Board of County Commissioners to modify the Code
and the changes presented today is a product of their discussion with staff. The proposed changes have
generated a lot of correspondence over the last 24 hours. He received a call from the County
Commissioners and met with them this morning and went through all of the comments received. Therefore,
they have made some changes to this proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Parko provided a brief overview of the existing and proposed changes. He referred to the medium
scale solar facilities and said that after meeting with the County Commissioners this morning the rated
capacity of up to five MW, but less than 30 MW was added. Originally, the proposed change was going out
of the agricultural zone district; however we are now putting it back in as long as the following criteria are
met: 1) located outside three (3) miles of existing city limits, 2) meets the definition of "Rangeland" as
defined by the NRCS, and 3) meet all the requirements pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of
this code. Medium scale solar facilities are also allowed in the I-1, 1-2 and 1-3 zone districts through a Site
Plan Review Process.
Mr. Parko said that the three criteria applies to the large scale solar facilities as well. Large scale solar
facilities can be allowed in the agricultural zone as long as they go through the 1041 process in Chapter
21. The only difference here is that I-1 is considered a Light Industrial Zone and so large scale is considered
more commercial in nature so it wouldn't be permitted in I-1 but it would be permitted in 1-2 and 1-3 through
a Site Plan Review process.
Commissioner Mellon said it appears we are cranking the screws pretty tight in the ag zone and is
concerned with the distance from a municipality. He added that it would appear that it would be spot zoning
and he doesn't believe that is the intent on 10 or 20 acres in the middle of agricultural. He added that
restricting it to rangeland is pretty restrictive and it encourages people to get the spot zone. He would argue
that dryland farms do not meet the rangeland definition.
Mr. Parko said that the intent from the County Commissioners is to preserve the prime agricultural farms in
Weld County. Anything outside of three miles of city limits is allowed in the agricultural zone district through
a 1041 process. Within three miles you could find property and zone it to industrial and might run into a
potential issue with spot zoning, but spot zoning is not defined and is a planning concept that we try to
adhere to.
Commissioner Barclay asked what the biggest issue has been with most of the comments received. He
further asked if it is the three-mile issue. Mr. Parko said that most of the comments are that they still want
to site solar facilities in the agricultural zone district.
Commissioner Mellon said he would like to see medium scale facilities reeled into one or one and one-half
miles. He said that he thinks more people are more willing to put up with solar arrays than oil and gas
facilities.
Commissioner White said he doesn't have a problem with three miles and added he doesn't know if it can
be worded that it can go within three miles if it fits within the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Mr. Parko
said that we send the applicant to talk with the municipality about annexation. If the municipality said that
they don't like the proposed project, then Staff will consider those comments and make sure the applicant
understands, but it doesn't mean that the project still can't move through the County process.
Commissioner Barclay liked the change in the definitions to define these systems clearly; however, he
asked what was broken before that needed to be changed. Mr. Parko said that the County Commissioner's
rationale is to preserve prime agricultural land.
Commissioner Hatch said that based on the rangeland definition you can change your property's definition
of rangeland just by tilling it up and planting wheat grass and there is no time frame invested in that.
Commissioner Barclay said that he understands the intent, however he is in support of property rights and
in doing what you want with your property to an extent. Additionally, he doesn't see that there is that much
broken to fix what is wrong. He is not a fan of telling someone they can't lease their property to somebody.
Additionally, he agreed that the three miles seems a little far.
Commissioner Hatch said that you should be able to do what you want with your property to a certain extent.
If you have prime ag land you are more suited to utilize that to the best of its ability and make more money
farming that land than leasing as a solar facility. However, it is isn't prime ag land and is rangeland where
you are not utilizing it then it does make sense to have the opportunity to lease it out to a solar facility that
you will make the income you otherwise would not. He added that you will do what is best as far as the
value for your return on investment.
Commissioner Mellon referred to the previous case today regarding the screening and landscaping and
added that if these projects are on rangeland there is typically little to no water available and it becomes a
real burden to do the landscaping. Mr. Parko said that we try to look at a USR on a case by case basis
where it may make sense to screen or landscape a particular use from another use but yes the issue of
water comes up and if you don't' have the water to maintain landscaping it is a problem.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Scott Douglas Peterson, 15002 County Road 36, stated that he received approval in August for his solar
array. He said that if these changes go through, he cannot put any more facilities in. He added that he
had planned to put additional facilities next to each other on 81 acres and added that his property is blow
sand. He expressed concern that these changes are a government overreach and that these facilities
would provide for 40 years of income for his family. If this is approved, it won't allow them to pursue the
highest and best use of their land and he is tired of being in a political battleground.
Rich Werner, Upstate Colorado Economic Development, 822 7th Street, Greeley, Colorado, stated that the
considerations on these types of code changes are critical in looking at economic development future in
Weld County and added that it is important to get it right. He said that Staff and the Board of County
Commissioners have listened to the correspondence submitted and have made some amendments to the
proposed changes. He said that when he hears about flagpole annexations and the definitions of
rangeland, we need to make sure that we do not prohibit future projects to come to fruition that will have
dramatic effect on property owners and the solar industry. He recommended taking the extra time to make
sure and get it right.
Commissioner Cope asked what sort of recommendations he would make to receive additional input. Mr.
Werner said that they went through this a few years ago and they had allowed the industry to come in and
make recommendations. Mr. Cope said that they were told the same thing when they recently updated the
Comprehensive Plan that it was being rushed and there were a few people that attended but little input was
given on anything new or different. He added that we have received a stack of papers on these proposed
code changes except that it isn't broken so don't change it. Mr. Cope said that he thinks the Commissioners
are concerned with the same thing when the gentlemen just said that he is trying to put two small facilities
adjacent to each other and it seems to circumvent the code and it becomes a medium solar facility. Mr.
Werner agreed and said that those meetings are sparsely attended but the letters before you are from
specific landowners or industry representatives who have had a very short window to respond. Mr. Werner
said that we really need to look at how these projects are affected by the rangeland definitions.
Wayne Howard, 7227 West Canberra Street, Greeley, Colorado, stated that he submitted a letter for the
hearing today and said that with these new amendments today it is a good to hear that we are being heard.
Most people want to do what is right within the rules. He said that this boils down to a lands right issue and
even with these new changes it has raised a lot of new questions. It is obvious that this needs a whole lot
more work and suggested delaying the forwarding of this to the County Commissioners.
Jon Fitzpatrick, Pivot Energy, 1750 15th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that he is opposition to the
ordinance and believes it is a solution in search to a problem. He was involved with the working groups in
the previous code changes for solar facilities. If this ordinance passes there will be a lot of investment in
Weld County that will dry up. He read his letter that he submitted into the record.
Jennifer Berg -Ramsey, 41750 County Road 23, Ault, Colorado, stated that they have 240 acres north of
Severance. She expressed concern regarding the rush of these code change and that this ordinance is
attempting to tell them what they can do on their property. Additionally, if she can't lease this ground to the
highest bidder than what is keeping her from selling it to become 10 acre parcels with a golf course
community and then that means agricultural land is now gone as well. Ms. Berg -Ramsey said that industrial
areas need utilities and there is no water for a mile and no natural gas lines or utilities in that area, so it
doesn't make sense where she lives. She added that Severance is eight miles from where she lives but
within three miles because of flagpole annexations.
The Chair called a recess at 3:29 pm.
Commissioner Barclay left the meeting at 3:29 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:34 pm.
Alvan Shipps, 518 Logan Avenue, Nunn, Colorado, stated that they farm close to 3000 acres and dryland
farming has been tough the last several years and added that solar has allowed them to pay off some debt.
He is concerned that these new regulations are devastating to them.
Amanda Mack, SunShare, 1724 Gilpin Street, Denver, Colorado, cautioned them and said that maybe some
of the calculations are a little inaccurate. She said that you can't fit 5 MW on 20 acres logically and asked
them to take more time to allow more community members to speak.
Haley Sutton, Holland and Hart Law Firm, stated that they don't believe the notice provided for the
amendments meets the State and County Code requirements. She pointed out that the new regulations
amend Chapter 23 but because the changes apply to large scale solar facilities, which are designated as
an activity of state interest, they are still subject to the State law requirements for regulations governing
state activities. State law requires that amendments to regulations governing activities of state interests
have public hearings and that there is at least 30 -day notice. Ms. Sutton stated that notice was provided
on November 21St and so it didn't hit the 30 -day notice. She recommended to stay these discussions to
satisfy the 30 -day notice.
Doug Carter, 1949 South Marion Street, Denver, Colorado, referred to the comment that there was a lot of
correspondence but no solutions. He said that this happened so fast that they haven't been able to discuss
the changes and provide solutions. They need time to figure out what they need to do.
Commissioner Mellon asked counsel about the notice issue. Bob Choate, County Attorney, said that notice
is proper because these are changes to Chapter 23 and the 30 -day requirement in C.R.S. 24-65.1-404(2)(a)
can be legally applied to the Board of County Commissioners hearing. He added that the final hearing is
scheduled at the end of December.
Commissioner Mellon inquired if this case can be continued. Mr. Parko said that if you want to continue
this to the next Planning Commission hearing you can; however, he understands that the County
Commissioners will still move forward with their hearing tomorrow. Mr. Mellon said that he is in a position
where he doesn't think that he can make a judgement on what he has and added that it is a train wreck to
find a solution and doesn't know what the problem is.
Commissioner Cope is concerned on how quick this has come about and it doesn't seem right to him that
notice came out just before the holidays. He understands that there are some issues with the existing code.
However, when we came this morning, we had a draft and it was changed and even during this hearing
there are some things that need to be worked out, so he is not comfortable making a recommendation
unless it is for denial also.
Commissioner Holland said that his position is either to oppose or to reschedule this case so he can become
more familiar with the details.
Commissioner Ford said that the biggest difference is the distance to municipalities. He feels that there
are problems that need to be addressed.
Motion: Commissioner Mellon moved to forward a recommendation of denial of Ordinance 2020-20 for
the following reasons:
1. He does not believe the stakeholder community has been thoroughly engaged in the drafting of the
new regulations.
2. He does not believe the three (3) mile limit from municipalities is a good value.
3. He does not feel that the consideration of rangeland is applicable.
4. The Planning Commission feels that more time is warranted for the proposed changes.
The Motion was seconded by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Skip Holland, Tom Cope, Troy Mellon.
Absent: Dwaine Barclay.
Commissioner Ford said that he sees a problem with definition of rangeland applied to this because
rangeland can be any land in Weld County just by modifying your crop. He agreed that the 3 -mile limit is
not good either.
Commissioner Cope said he is concerned with the distance, not necessarily applied to a specific set city
limit, but with flagpole annexations and adjusting it that way.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 4:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
1Yk n L,1e. c W A
Michelle Wall
Secretary
Hello