HomeMy WebLinkAbout20193042.tiffBEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Skip Holland, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR18-0100
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
CHRIS GATHMAN
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A
MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 10.4 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION
(GRAHAM CREEK) AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA
AULT SUBSTATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS AMENDING THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED UNDER THE SAME CASE NUMBER. THE ORIGINAL
REQUEST READ (ONE (1) 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENDING
APPROXIMATELY 21 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION (GRAHAM CREEK)
AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA SUBSTATION) IN THE
A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
THE TRANSMISSION LINE IS TO BE LOCATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10,
15, 22, 26, 27 AND 35, T7N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
THE TRANSMISSION LINE RUNS FROM THE WAPA AULT SUBSTATION
LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 86 AND EAST OF CR 25 TO THE PROPOSED HUSKY
SUBSTATION (WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS OF AULT). THE HUSKY
SUBSTATION WILL BE LOCATED EAST OF CR 33 AND SOUTH OF CR 86. THE
TRANSMISSION LINE THEN CONTINUES FROM THE HUSKY SUBSTATION TO
THE PROPOSED GRAHAM CREEK SUBSTATION SITE LOCATED EAST OF AND
ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES NORTH OF CR 74.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are not in compliance with the application requirements of Chapter 21 of the
Weld County Code
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not 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 Planning Commission believed the application was incomplete and should have included
the entire route. Additionally, they stated that the 1000 -foot corridor was too wide and created a lot of
uncertainty for the landowners.
Section 21 -3 -340.A.2 -The natural and socio-economic environment of the County will be protected and
enhanced. The Planning Commission believed the application was incomplete and should have
included the entire route. Additionally, they stated that the 1000 -foot corridor was too wide and created
a lot of uncertainty for the landowners.
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
Planning Commission believed the application was incomplete and should have included the entire
route. Additionally, they stated that the 1000 -foot corridor was too wide and created a lot of uncertainty
for the landowners.
RESOLUTION USR18-0100
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PAGE 2
Section 21 -3 -340.A.4 --A satisfactory program to mitigate and minimize adverse impacts has been
presented. The Planning Commission felt that the 1000 -foot corridor is too wide and doesn't believe the
applicant has provided enough detail to mitigate or minimize any impacts. The application lacked the
necessary detail for the Planning Commission to adequately assess the impact.
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. The Planning Commission were not convinced of the placement of the proposed
substations. They felt the application was incomplete and should have included the entire route.
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.
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal, the Planning Commission recommends the
following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the map:
A. A Road Maintenance Agreement is required at this location. Road maintenance includes, but is not
limited to, dust control and damage repair to specified haul routes. (Department of Public Works)
B. A Final Drainage Report and Certification of Compliance stamped and signed by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required for the Graham Creek Substation portion of this
USR. (Department of Public Works)
C. If applicable, the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of any agreement signed by all of the owners of
the property crossed by the access. The access shall be for ingress, egress, utilities and shall be
referenced on the USR map by the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Reception number. (Department
of Public Works)
D. A copy of the signed and recorded (construction and post -construction) easement agreements (orother
acceptable authorization from property owners) shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
E. A copy of signed and recorded ditch crossing agreements (or other acceptable authorization) from ditch
rights -of -way encroached upon by the transmission line towers or construction easements shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
F. A screening plan shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning Services for the
Graham Creek substation site. The Screening Plan shall consist of solid opaque fencing and/or solid
vegetative screening. If landscaping is proposed, an irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The map shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR18-0100. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The map shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The final location of the permanent 100 to 150 -foot transmission line easement with dimension of
RESOLUTION USR18-0100
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PAGE 3
permanent right-of-way, property ownership, parcel number, all easements of record, and all physical
encumbrances. (Department of Planning Services)
5. County Road 27 is an unmaintained section line right-of-way. The applicant shall verify and delineate
on the map the unmaintained right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. All setbacks
shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way. This road is not maintained by Weld County. Any
unmaintained road needs to be located/identified in relationship to the right-of-way. Show and label
the section line Right -of -Way as "CR 27 Section Line Right-of-way, not County maintained".
(Department of Public Works)
6. County Roads 31 and 86 are gravel roads and are designated on the Weld County Functional
Classification Map as local roads which require 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant
shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing rights -of -way. All setbacks shall be measured
from the edge of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
7 County Road 29 in this location is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as
an arterial road which in this location requires 100 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant
shall delineate on the site plan the existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge
of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
8. County Road 33 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map
as a collector road which require 80 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate
on the site plan the existing rights -of -way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-
way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
9. County Road 84 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map
as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on
the site plan the existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way.
This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
10. County Road 78 and 80 are unmaintained section line rights -of -way at the locations impacted by the
project's alignment. The applicant shall verify and delineate on the map the unmaintained rights -of -
way and the documents creating the rights -of -way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of
right-of-way. These roads are not maintained by Weld County. Any unmaintained road needs to be
located/identified in relationship to the right-of-way. Show and label the section line Rights -of -Way as
"CR 78 Section Line Right-of-way, not County maintained" or "CR 80 Section Line Right-of-way, not
County maintained" as appropriate. (Department of Public Works)
11. County Road 39 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map
as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on
the site plan the existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way.
This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
12. Show and label the approved access locations, approved access width and the appropriate turning
radii on the site plan. The applicant must obtain an access permit in the approved location(s) prior to
construction. (Department of Public Works)
13. If applicable, show the approved Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) access(es) on the
site plan and label with the approved access permit number. (Department of Public Works)
14. If applicable, show and label the entrance gate. An access approach that is gated shall be designed
so that the longest vehicle (including trailers) using the access can completely clear the traveled way
when the gate is closed. In no event, shall the distance from the gate to the edge of the traveled
surface be less than 35 feet. (Department of Public Works)
RESOLUTION USR18-0100
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PAGE 4
15. If applicable, show and label a 30 -ft minimum access and utility easement to provide legal access to
the parcel on the site plan. (Department of Public Works)
16. The applicant shall show and label the accepted drainage features and drainage flow arrows.
Stormwater ponds should be labeled as "Stormwater Detention, No -Build or Storage Area and shall
include the calculated volume. (Department of Public Works)
17. Show and label the parking and traffic circulation flow arrows showing how the traffic moves around
the property Graham Creek Substation. (Department of Public Works)
3. Prior to construction:
A. The approved accesses and tracking control shall be constructed prior to construction of the
transmission lines and substations. (Department of Public Works)
B. The applicant shall submit evidence of a right-of-way permit for any work that may be required in the
right-of-way and/or a special transport permit for any oversized or overweight vehicles that may
access the construction sites. (Department of Public Works)
C. If more than one (1) acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required.
(Department of Public Works)
4. Prior to Operation:
A. The applicant shall develop an Emergency Action and Safety Plan with the Office of Emergency
Management and the Fire District. The plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the Facility
operator, the Fire District and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management. Submit evidence of
acceptance to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The applicant shall submit one (1) electronic (.pdf} copy of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Upon completion of Conditions of Approval numbers 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar map along
with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar map shall be recorded in the
office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The map shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-390 of the Weld County Code. The Mylar
map and additional requirements shall be submitted within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of
the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording
fee. (Department of Planning Services)
7. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the map not be
recorded within the required one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the Board of County
Commissioners Resolution was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each
additional 3 -month period.
8. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this Use
by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS
formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The
preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be sent to
maps@co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The Use by Special Review is not perfected until the Conditions of Approval are completed and the map is
recorded. Activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property, until
the Use by Special Review map is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder
or the applicant has been approved for an early release agreement. (Department of Planning Services)
RESOLUTION USR18-0100
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PAGE 5
Motion seconded by Richard Beck.
VOTE:
For Denial
Bruce Johnson
Bruce Sparrow
Michael Wailes
Gene Stille
Lonnie Ford
Richard Beck
Elijah Hatch
Skip Holland
Against Denial Absent
Tom Cope
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, Kristine Ranslem, 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 June 18, 2019.
Dated the18th of June, 2019
41d5V6611--d Arizliteirts.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Public Service Company of Colorado
USR18-0100
1 A Site -Specific Development Plan And Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility -
One (1) 230 kV Transmission line extending approximately 10.4 miles, one (1) new substation
(Graham Creek) and upgrades to an existing substation (WAPA Ault Substation) in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District. (Department of Planning Services)
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. The property owner or operator shall provide written evidence of an approved Emergency Action and
Safety Plan on or before March 15th of any given year signed by representatives for the Fire District
and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. The property owner shall control noxious weeds on the site. (Department of Public Works)
5. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including
damages and/or off -site tracking. (Department of Public Works)
6. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking shall be utilized.
(Department of Public Works)
7 Any work that may occupy and or encroach upon any County rights -of -way or easement shall acquire
an approved Right -of -Way Use Permit prior to commencement. (Department of Public Works)
8. The Property Owner shall comply with all requirements provided in the executed Road Maintenance
Agreement. (Department of Public Works)
9. Access(es) may be along unmaintained County right-of-way and maintenance of the right-of-way will
not be the responsibility of Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
10. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained. (Department of Public
Works)
11. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Department
of Public Works)
12. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S.) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. 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. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The facility
shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
15. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled throughout the duration of
construction of the transmission line and until ground cover is established. Uses on the substation
property shall comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
16. The applicant shall submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit
Application and obtain a permit from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, as applicable. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. During construction, adequate toilet facilities and handwashing units shall be provided. Portable toilets
are acceptable. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County and shall
contain hand sanitizers and shall be screened from residences within one-half mile of the
transmission line easement and high -volume roads in consultation with the Department of Public
Works. Portable toilets utilized in conjunction with construction of the substation shall be screened
from public view and removed when construction is completed. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
18. Environmental Protection Measures for Construction Projects, as identified in the application, shall be
adhered to. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
21. Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the
County -wide Road Impact Fee Program. (Department of Planning Services)
22. Building Permits issued on the proposed lots, will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the
County Facility Fee and Drainage Impact Fee Programs. (Department of Planning Services)
23. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
25. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public Works, and
Public Health and Environment 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 Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of
Planning Services)
26. The Use by 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. (Department of Planning Services)
27. 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. (Department of Planning
Services)
28. RIGHT TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT: Weld County has some of the most
abundant mineral resources, including, but not limited to, sand and gravel, oil, natural gas, and coal.
Under title 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, minerals are vital resources because (a) the state's
commercial mineral deposits are essential to the state's economy; (b) the populous counties of the
state face a critical shortage of such deposits; and (c) such deposits should be extracted according to
a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption
of the ecology and quality of life of the citizens of the populous counties of the state.
Mineral resource locations are widespread throughout the County and person moving into these areas
must recognize the various impacts associated with this development. Often times, mineral resource
sites are fixed to their geographical and geophysical locations. Moreover, these resources are
protected property rights and mineral owners should be afforded the opportunity to extract the mineral
resource.
29. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural
counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market
value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but
they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept
there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower level of
services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to
relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the
rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring farms, those features which attract urban
dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural
practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well -run agricultural
activities will generate off -site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow -moving farm
vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field work, harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal
confinement, silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; hunting and
trapping activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides and
fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural
producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their
agricultural operations. A concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a
visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., provides
that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural
operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably
associated with agricultural production.
Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to
assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development.
When moving to the County, property owners and residents must realize they cannot take water from
irrigation ditches, lakes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water.
Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice
the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of state
and County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches
available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of
the County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses, including
law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must
leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads, no matter how often
they are bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal
priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a
major snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services.
Rural dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers.
People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm
equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center
pivot operations, high speed traffic, sandburs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and livestock, and
open burning present real threats. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their
safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood.
0 p_Dr-1
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
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,
Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Sparrow, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille, Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard
Beck, Elijah Hatch. Skip Holland.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light
and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Mike McRoberts and Elizabeth Relford, Public Works; Karin
McDougal, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR18-0100
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
CHRIS GATHMAN
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION
LINE EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 10.4 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION
(GRAHAM CREEK) AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA
AULT SUBSTATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS AMENDING THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED UNDER THE SAME CASE NUMBER. THE ORIGINAL
REQUEST READ (ONE (1) 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENDING
APPROXIMATELY 21 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION (GRAHAM CREEK)
AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA SUBSTATION) IN
THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
THE TRANSMISSION LINE IS TO BE LOCATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10,
15, 22. 26, 27 AND 35, T7N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
THE TRANSMISSION LINE RUNS FROM THE WAPA AULT SUBSTATION
LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 86 AND EAST OF CR 25 TO THE PROPOSED
HUSKY SUBSTATION (WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS OF AULT). THE HUSKY
SUBSTATION WILL BE LOCATED EAST OF CR 33 AND SOUTH OF CR 86. THE
TRANSMISSION LINE THEN CONTINUES FROM THE HUSKY SUBSTATION
TO THE PROPOSED GRAHAM CREEK SUBSTATION SITE LOCATED EAST
OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES NORTH OF
CR 74.
Chris Gathman Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0100, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman referred to the Town of Eaton's referral and read it into the record.
A letter was received from Fisher, Brown, Bartlett & Gun on behalf of Collins Lateral, Pierce Lateral Ditch,
Larimer County Canal, New Cache La Poudre, and the Greeley #2 Ditch stating that any encroachment
within the ditches and ditch easements not be allowed without the ditch's prior written permission.
Therefore, a condition of approval has been attached requiring an agreement or another acceptable form
of authorization if any transmission structure or construction easements encroach into the ditch rights -of -
way. Mr. Gathman noted that a letter of objection regarding the proposed preferred route from the WAPA
substation to the proposed Husky substation outlining concerns that the transmission line will impact and
potentially disable the existing irrigation system on the property and impact irrigation supply to the Meisner
property to the south. Additionally, another letter was received from Leonard and Doris Trujillo who live
adjacent to the segment between the Husky substation to the Graham Creek substation outlining concerns
of impacts to farm production and impacts due to the change of the pivot and easement that may be
impacted by the transmission lin. Mr. Gathman noted that multiple letters from KUTAKROCK were received
on behalf of multiple property owners in opposition to this case and are part of the exhibits for today's
hearing. Mr. Gathman said that the way the corridor is shown the centerline is identified, however, there is
500 feet on either side to allow the applicant the ability to modify the location of the transmission line within
that area. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
1
Mike McRoberts, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions
for the site. Mr. McRoberts requested an amendment to Condition of Approval 2.17 to replace "property"
with "Graham Creek Substation" for clarity purposes.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Larry Claxton, Public Service Company of Colorado, 1800 Larimer, Denver, Colorado, stated that the
project consists of a new substation, a new terminal at the WAPA Ault substation and two sections of
transmission lines. The primary benefits of the project are increased electric safety and service reliability
for the surrounding community. Additionally, it will replace the existing 44 kV transmission line which is
over 100 years old. Mr. Claxton provided an overview of the route, substation locations and the proposed
structures along the route.
Mr. Claxton said that they have had community outreach from 2017 to 2018. They submitted the original
application in 2018 which triggered several comments and concerns. As a result, to respond and work with
stakeholders and the Town of Eaton they amended the application into two (2) separate segments. He
added that they continue to perform outreach with the community, when requested, as well as work with
landowners on the project.
Mr. Claxton said that they started by defining the project, establishing the siting area and determining the
project scope. He provided a timeline of the process and the criteria that they analyzed from establishing
the siting area and project scope to determine the opportunities and constraints of the area. Additionally,
they held the three (3) open houses to receive input from landowners as well as two (2) public hearings
with the Town of Ault and they continue to have outreach to discuss easement agreements.
Mr. Claxton said that they are looking at having a 1000 -foot wide siting corridor (500 -feet on either side of
the transmission line) to allow them to do micro -siting. He added that the preferred route has the fewest
residences within 200 feet of the potential centerline and the fewest residences within a quarter -mile of the
preferred route. The benefits of following along the edges of property is that they can span the radius of
the center pivot with the transmission line. Essentially there will be a structure on each side so that the
agricultural activities can continue. He added that they will work with the landowners to minimize any
agricultural activities and when avoidance is not possible, appropriate compensation for system
modifications will be provided.
Mr. Claxton said that they will work with the impacted oil and gas companies for certain safety buffers that
they will require. He provided the analysis for siting the Graham Creek Substation within the area of the
Town of Eaton and their projected growth. He noted that the preferred location of the Graham Creek
Substation is better situated for the future growth.
In conclusion, Mr. Claxton stated that this project provides a preferred route that is located best to serve
the current and future electric demand while minimizing impacts to the land uses in the community, including
existing residential.
Commissioner Beck asked how many existing power lines will go away as they are replaced by this
transmission line. Mr. Claxton said that the existing 44 kV line would stay in place as back up to this
proposed transmission line. Once the Graham Creek to Cloverly line is constructed, they will be able to
remove the 44kV line completely. Mr. Beck asked what the timeline is for that. Mr. Claxton said that it
would be removed two to three years after the line is energized.
Commissioner Holland asked him to describe the meetings with the Town of Eaton. Mr. Claxton said that
they have met with Eaton four or five times through this process. They were asked to include an analysis
of a line east of Eaton (from Graham Creek to Cloverly) which they included in the open house. He added
that they have been cordial and productive meetings. He said that they have amended their application to
expand the siting study area between Graham Creek and Cloverly to see if there is a better transmission
line route separate from the preferred route. He feels that that the town has a better understanding of how
the substations are situated for future growth.
2
Commissioner Johnson said he heard the transmission lines can create adverse health issues from the
electromagnetic field and asked if that is true. Mr. Claxton said that studies show that EMF's are in
electrified components whether it is a transmission line or even components within your house. Studies
have shown EMF's associated with transmission lines do not create adverse health effects. Mr. Johnson
asked about the effect it has on crops under the transmission lines. Mr. Claxton said he is not aware of
that and does not have any studies to support that.
Commissioner Wailes asked what the driving factor is of this project and where the demand will be coming
from. Mr. Claxton said that expect to serve residential, oil and gas and commercial growth; however, they
have been told the growth of Eaton will be to the west and oil and gas growth could be all around.
Commercial and industrial loads in the Town of Eaton is in the southeast part of town and the preferred
Graham Creek site will still serve those.
Commissioner Ford asked if the EMF affects the GPS equipment used by farmers. Mr. Claxton said that
he doesn't know about the actual impact, but they will work with the farmers to mitigate it.
The Chair called a recess at 1:46 pm and reconvened the hearing at 1:55 pm
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sara Irby, Fisher, Brown, Bartlett and Gun, 1319 East Prospect Road, Ft Collins, Colorado, stated that she
is here on behalf of Keith Amen and Dixie Meisner as they have land that will be impacted by the
transmission line. Ms. Irby also noted that she is representing the Water Supply and Storage Company,
Pierce Lateral Ditch Company, and the Mead Lateral Ditch Company and have provided comments on
behalf of New Cache Irrigating Ditch Company and the Collins Lateral, however she understands that they
won't be crossing these ditches at this time.
Mr. Irby referred to the Right to Farm Statement and added that it reminds them that agricultural users of
the land should not be expected to change their long established practices to accommodate intrusions of
urban users into a rural area. She said that the applicant's failure to fully analyze the impacts to agriculture
are clear. For Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner, their livelihood is dependent upon ensuring that the applicant
meets the required condition that the benefit of the proposed development outweighs the reduction of
productivity of their farmland. Ms. Irby referred to Table 2 in the applicant's application which is designed
to show how they have complied with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. However, she stated
that this table makes generalized and unsubstantiated conclusions.
Ms. Irby stated that Mr. Amen and Ms. Meisner were not contacted until June 3, 2019. She stated that
according to the application it states that only a small amount of land would be taken out of production,
however, she argued that the applicant appears to be indifferent to or ignorant of how the transmission
lines, towers and other infrastructure actually interfere irrigation operations and productivity.
Ms. Irby stated that the applicants are seeking approval based on an incomplete application and legally and
procedurally you cannot approve an incomplete application.
The Chair said that the claim is that the application is incomplete and asked Ms. Irby to provide specifics.
Ms. Irby said that the applicant has not analyzed the impacts to the agricultural community and they have
the burden of showing the effects and how can they do that without talking to the landowners and farmers.
Keith Amen, 15400 CR 86, Pierce, Colorado, stated that they support the Mayor of Eaton's comments as
well. He said that his property is within 1000 -foot corridor of the preferred route and added that he also is
speaking on behalf of Dixie Meisner in which he farms. Mr. Amen expressed concern regarding the impacts
to irrigation infrastructure (above ground and below ground irrigation system), groundwater wells, potential
interference with today's precision agriculture as John Deere has stated that there is a high potential that it
cause interference with GPS, crop spraying, decrease of property values, and unknown affects from
construction timing, the potential of electrocution with the maintenance of water wells in the corridor.
Commissioner Beck asked if his pumps run from electricity. Mr. Amen said that they are electric and added
that he is served by two electric companies — the Poudre Valley REA and Xcel Energy. He added that
Poudre Valley REA has the most reliable and cheaper power supply.
3
Commissioner Sparrow asked if anyone has discussed with him about placing a tower on their property.
Mr. Amen said that they were approached two weeks ago but they didn't have any pole placements. He
said that they did narrow their corridor and said it would be on Ms. Meisner's property and not his property.
The Chair referred to Ms. Irby who wanted to speak on behalf of the ditch companies. Ms. Irby said that
the Water Supply and Storage, the Pierce Lateral Ditch and the Mead Lateral Ditch has an existing and
valid right-of-way and easement that needs to be recognized during the placement of these transmission
lines and Colorado law requires that the placement of the towers and transmission lines don't unreasonable
interfere with the ditches and the ditch easements. She added that the height of the lines needs to be
considered with the maintenance of the ditches. Ms. Irby stated that the ditch companies have asked Public
Service to provide their plans and specifications for every crossing and enter into a written agreement with
the ditch companies.
Dustin Winter, 41555 CR 33, Ault, Colorado, stated that his property will be influenced by this project and
is concerned with the uncertainty of the transmission lines and structures. He had the understanding that
the structures were going to be built Ms. Meisner and the City of Thornton's properties. He said that he
was approached yesterday for obtaining an easement on his property because it will overhang on his
property. He added that he doesn't know how she can obtain an easement when there is currently an
easement for a gas line on his property. He expressed concern regarding the danger of the placement of
the power line over the top of the gas line that is in his yard as well as a decrease in property values.
Patsy Deines, 41474 CR 33, Ault, Colorado, stated that the Ault substation is 700 feet from her house and
the proposed transmission line will go down the length of her property. She has 5.5 acres and the line will
be 50 to 75 feet from her bedroom window. She is concerned with the power lines and believes it will
devalue their property.
Kevin Ross, Mayor of the Town of Eaton 1500 Falcon Ridge Road, Eaton, Colorado, stated that he
appreciates Public Service Company's continued efforts to find resolution and a solution to the placement
of power substations and transmission lines. The Town of Eaton has some major concerns regarding the
segmentation of this project and how it was filed with the State as it takes routing options off the table and
forces routes to go where they are opposed to in Segment II of this plan. The long-term vision for how the
town will grow will need to be taken into account. He said that the projected growth pattern is headed
towards the west and the south and the placements of the transmission lines and substations do not fit
within the character of their town. The new Ault (Husky) substation is located in their industrial area and
the Town of Eaton wants the subdivision in their industrial area as well. Mr. Ross said that they are also
concerned with the impacts of agricultural ground surrounding Eaton.
Commissioner Stille asked if they have said how many feeder lines there will be into the Town of Eaton.
Mr. Ross couldn't recall but understands that if Segment II were to get approved then the current Eaton
Substation eventually would be removed, and the feeder lines would be rerouted. Mr. Ross said that
Eaton's industrial area is to the east of Eaton and would like the substation located east of Town.
Commissioner Cope said that it seems no matter where the substation is located there will be the same
number of feeder lines and may have a greater impact from the substation than the feeder lines. Mr. Ross
said that electricity flows both ways and doesn't understand why the feeder lines can't go west just as easy
as they can come east. Therefore, he said that proponents of Graham Creek Substation III because of how
it fits with their community.
Commissioner Beck asked how long they have been working with the applicant. Mr. Ross said that they
have been working with them for about two years. Mr. Beck asked if they have been trying to work to move
the substation and lines from the west to the east side of town. Mr. Ross said that they have not waivered
in that sentiment.
Ken Skogg, Kutak Rock LLP, 1801 California Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that he represents a number
of landowners in this corridor including Lynn and Ryan Fagerberg own 1040 acres along the proposed
transmission corridor; Brad and Spencer Keirnes own 250 acres agricultural and residential property within
the Xcel study area; Russ Loeffler and Loeffler Family own approximately 1500 acres of agricultural
property along the proposed corridor and 60 acres of residential development within the Town of Eaton;
4
Arlen Anderson owns 160 acres directly in the proposed route and a total of 380 acres within the study
area; Ted Carlson owns 150 acres along the proposed transmission corridor and they all will be referred to
landowners or his clients. The corridor cuts across or is along all of their properties. The City of Thornton
demonstrates that this is not just a not in my backyard issue and will have more property impacted if the
line were to run to the east and to accept the Town of Eaton's recommendation for a Graham Creek Ill
location of that substation.
Mr. Skogg said that the landowners acknowledge the PSCO's need to upgrade and enhance electric
transmission in northern Colorado. However, they have serious concerns regarding the procedures
followed by PSCO in pursuing this application. Upon filing their 1041 application in August 2018, it was
based on a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) that was obtained from the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The project identified in the CPCN is the Northern Greeley Area
Transmission Plan Project. The project sought and received approval from the WAPA substation to the
Cloverly in Greeley and not just to Eaton. He said that they were told they amended the application so that
PSCO could have an opportunity to try and address some of the objections; however, their contention is
that it is to avoid having to deal with the overall impacts of their project and to ignore the specific issues
related to the running of the transmission corridor from Graham Creek to Cloverly.
Mr. Skogg referred to Weld County Code Section 21-2-200.B stating that a 1041 Application shall not be
accepted or processed until it is complete. The amended application which is only half of the project is in
incomplete and added that on that basis the recommendation should be for denial.
Mr. Skogg referred to a letter they submitted from Thomas Ghidossi who is a professional engineer licensed
in the State of Colorado and his findings of PSCO's design and application. He read the letter into the
record.
Mr. Skogg said that the Fagerbergs have underground drip systems and fear how this will be impacted by
the proposed lines. Mr. Skogg said that PSCO is empowered with the ultimate power of eminent domain
and they can exercise their right to take landowners property. He added that this project threatens this
irrigated prime farmland in Weld County and the growth.
Barney Hammond, PDC Energy, 3107 52nd Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, said that they hope to see this
project approved because of the lack of power capacity for their future plans and current locations. He said
that they would like to add additional power for their battery and facility sites planned for this area through
2025.
Commissioner Stille said that the sites could utilize generators. Mr. Hammond said that they run a third of
their locations off of generators due to lack of power in certain areas. He added that it wouldn't shut them
down, but they prefer to have power for all of their locations.
Commissioner Ford asked where most of their operations are located. Mr. Hammond said that
approximately 60% of their operations are to the east of Ault and Eaton and 40% to the west.
Mr. Claxton referred to the agricultural impacts associated with this project and said that they understand
all forms of irrigation including the underground drip irrigation system. He said that they can go through the
property or on the edge of properties. He added that they try to go on the edge of agricultural property as it
would minimize those impacts.
With regard to the 1000 -foot corridor, Mr. Claxton said they have tried to identify the general corridor that
they feel has the least impacts and it allows them to meet with the landowners and identify specifically
where that line could go. He added that this gives a second level analysis with the property owner to see
where they can adjust within that 1000 -foot corridor to help limit some of the potential impacts. He said that
they will continue to contact and communicate with landowners on how to best identify the final centerline
of the transmission line.
Commissioner Sparrow asked how sure they are of where the centerline will be. Mr. Claxton said that the
centerline allows them to do an analysis and added that it is hard to make that statement because that
means that they won't work with the landowners to see if there is a way to better shift that to accommodate
their concerns.
5
Commissioner Wailes said that he is concerned since they have been asked to essentially approve a
corridor and not a route. He added that 1000 feet is a wide corridor. Mr. Claxton said that the challenge is
finding routes that have the least impact and that is what this siting study did. Mr. Claxton was asked about
how many agreements/easements for the transmission line were in place. Mr. Claxton indicated the majority
of property owners have not signed agreements for the transmission line location. He indicated many were
waiting to see what action the County will take under this application before proceeding in negotiation with
the applicant as to the location of the proposed transmission line.
Commissioner Ford referred to the spraying of crops and the danger of pilots having to spray around
something this tall. He said that there is no detail in this application of where the structures will go and that
is what they would like to see. Mr. Claxton said that they will work with the landowners on the aerial concern.
He said that the advantage of the 1000 -foot corridor allows for shifting of the line to avoid any features.
Mr. Claxton referred to the comments that the application doesn't meet the criteria. He said that they feel
they have met all the criteria in the code. He added that they filed a CPCN with the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) and this doesn't preclude a phased approach or filing multiple 1041 permit applications.
The PUC does not have local authority and added that their role is to determine present or future need and
that the proposed project would be an improvement justifying their costs for the project. He added that the
Colorado Revised Statutes does vest local governments rather than the PUC with its exclusive authority
over siting.
Mr. Claxton said that the locations of the substations are critical because they need to anticipate where the
growth is to best serve the community. He said that they are going to open up the expanded siting study
area for the Graham Creek to Cloverly substation. He added that to work with the community they are
willing to pause on the Graham Creek to Cloverly section to see if there is a less impactful route than
proposed.
Commissioner Beck asked why they haven't looked east of Eaton as suggested. Mr. Claxton said that they
have looked at alternatives east of town; however, their preferred substation location may be closer to their
industrial area and the majority of their total population growth, but just because it is an industrial area
doesn't necessarily mean it is a higher load and added that it depends on what those activities are in that
industrial area.
Commissioner Johnson asked why this line is needed and if it is because of a big demand from Greeley,
Loveland or Ft. Collins. Gilbert Flores, 1121 South Dover, Lakewood, Colorado, stated that this would
serve the entire area and to increase the reliability of the area, increase the load capacity for the 44 kV
system, and to accommodate resources to flow into the much larger grid. They intend to enhance the
whole system of Greeley, Eaton and Ault.
Commissioner Cope asked if they should evaluate just the transmission line or the substation because they
both have separate impacts. Mr. Gathman said that they are both included in the application. Mr. Cope
said that the substation is less compatible with the area over to the west since that will be a higher residential
area rather than somewhere on the east side of Eaton since there are more industrial areas. Mr. Claxton
said that if the substation were to locate at the Town of Eaton's preferred location, they would still highly
likely need a substation somewhere west of Eaton to accommodate that growth. He said that there would
be a substation to the east, but it likely wouldn't be as soon because of the projected population growth.
They will continue to study the Graham to the Cloverly but the preferred site to the west is better to meet
the existing and future needs.
Mr. Claxton said that the existing 44 kV line needs to remain energized until this project is completed. He
added that the right-of-way that they need for this project is wider than what the existing 44 kV needs.
Some of the 44 kV structures are within if not the existing road right-of-way it would be in the expanded
road right-of-way and their lines have to go outside of the projected rights -of -way per County requirements.
That pushes those lines potentially further away from the centerline of the road and further into people's
properties and potentially closer to existing residences. By expanding that right-of-way, it may bring
structures into the easement so there is a lot of challenges with the widened right-of-way.
The Chair called a recess at 4:06 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:22 pm.
6
(Tom Cope left the hearing)
The Chair referred to the proposed amendment to Condition of Approval 2.17. Mr. McRoberts requested
the amendment as recommended.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 2.17 to read "Show and label the parking and traffic circulation flow
arrows showing how the traffic moves around the Graham Creek Substation", Moved by Bruce Johnson,
Seconded by Elijah Hatch. 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.
Commissioner Sparrow said that they are asking for permission to do something before they want to say
exactly where they want to put this so it gives them a lot of authority to instigate eminent domain later.
Commissioner Beck agreed and said that it was not good public relations for the applicant to bring up
eminent domain. As incomplete that he feels the application is, he doesn't think they have completed the
application satisfactorily.
Holland has sympathy for both aspects.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0100 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 Skip Holland, Seconded by Richard Beck.
Commissioner Holland cited compliance with the Comprehensive Goals and Policies and concern over lack
of detail associated with the application. He referred to Table 2 in the application, the intent of the
agricultural goals is to support all forms of agricultural industry and at the same time to protect the rights of
the private property owners to convert their lands to other appropriate uses. Additionally, he quoted Item
C that land use regulations in the County should protect the infrastructure used for the delivery of water
users.
Commissioner Wailes said that historically with these cases they have been presented the route. He
understands that the size of the corridor provides flexibility for each landowner but until it is fully defined it
creates a lot of uncertainty for the landowner. He has reasonable faith that the applicant will be able to
address the concerns, but he can't operate on faith. Mr. Wades cited Section 21-3-340.A.1 and Section
21-3-340.A.4 regarding health, welfare and safety and implementing a program that will satisfactorily
mitigate and minimize adverse impacts. He added that in an area that they don't know specifically where
that impact will be happening, he doesn't know that the applicant has developed a plan to mitigate any
impacts. Mr. Wailes said that we need power, but he would like to have seen a higher detail at that property
line level how this transmission line will work.
Commissioner Beck said that it turned out to be a deception, whether the applicant meant it or not, not to
show this portion of the transmission line in its full scale because their mistake might have been that they
already showed the full transmission line. He said that it should be viewed as a whole, and the applicant
should have told them what their ultimate goals are for the whole transmission line.
Commissioner Johnson agreed with Staffs listing of all the reasons that they were in support of the
application; however, he interprets those regulations differently. He cited Section 21-3-340.A.3 regarding
alternatives and added that they don't know the entire project and that they have negotiated in good faith
or made a diligent attempt to try and make this line compatible with each of the property owners. Mr.
Johnson cited Section 21-3-340.A.4 and added that everything has to have some compensation where it is
mitigating or minimizing in order for it to be dealt with.
Commissioner Sparrow doesn't understand why the applicant can't narrow the corridor down. He doesn't
want to see the point where the County gives up the ability to protect its citizens by passing this on and
giving it a right to do it.
7
Commissioner Ford said that the applicant should have more discussions with the landowners because of
the uncertainty about where this line will be and 1000 feet is just too much.
Commissioner Stille cited Section 21-3-340.A.1 through A.5. Mr. Stille suggested presenting the big picture
to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Hatch agreed with the Commissioner's comments and added that he is concerned that the
applicant has been unable to, according to the placement of the substation, convince this Board and the
Town of Eaton why it needs to be where it is.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck,
Skip Holland.
Absent: Tom Cope.
Commissioner Wailes said that the application lacked the necessary detail for them to adequately assess
the impact and cited Sections 21-3-340.A.1, 21-3-340.A.3 and 21-3-340.A.4.
Meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Y_11.‘ban& 'eteloWru
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
.1)CArr 1n1)
U`b)i9Izol�'1
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
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,
Michael Wailes, at 10:00 am.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stifle, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip
Holland, Tom Cope.
Absent: Bruce Johnson.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Maxwell Nader, Jim Flesher, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning
Services; Lauren Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Hayley Balzano and Mike
McRoberts, Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0100
APPLICANT: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION
LINE EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 21 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION
(GRAHAM CREEK) AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA
AULT SUBSTATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE TRANSMISSION LINE WILL BE LOCATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10,
15. 22, 26, 27 AND 35, T7N R66W; SECTIONS 2, 11 AND 12, T6N R66W;
SECTIONS 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 AND 27, T6N R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: TRANSMISSION LINE IS IN TWO SECTIONS:
SECTION 1 RUNS FROM THE WAPA AULT SUBSTATION LOCATED SOUTH
OF CR 86 AND EAST OF CR 25 TO THE PROPOSED HUSKY SUBSTATION
(WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS OF AULT). THE HUSKY SUBSTATION WILL BE
LOCATED EAST OF CR 33 AND SOUTH OF CR 86.
SECTION 2 RUNS FROM THE HUSKY SUBSTATION SITE (EAST OF CR 33
AND SOUTH OF CR 86) TO A TRANSMISSION LINE THAT SERVES THE
CLOVERLY SUBSTATION LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 66 AND EAST OF CR 43.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a continuance to the June 18,
2019 Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Gathman noted that the applicants are proposing to apply for two
separate applications. The first application for June 18th would be the northern segment of the line, which
is from Ault south to the Grand Creek substation between County Roads 74 and 76. He added that at a
later date the applicants would submit a separate application for the southern segment which would be from
the Grand Creek substation south to the Clover Leaf substation, which is in proximity to the Greeley -Weld
Airport.
Commissioner Sparrow asked which section of the line is receiving the most resistance. Mr. Gathman said
that the southern segment has the most opposition and added that the applicant has had a lot of
conversations with the Town of Eaton. Mr. Gathman said that there is some opposition with the northern
segment as well, however the majority of the opposition is for the southern segment of this application.
Commissioner Wailes recalled that there were some issues with deadlines that they had to meet and asked
if these continued dates will meet those deadlines. Bob Choate, County Attorney, stated that there is a
state statute which requires the County to act by a certain time and generally it is ninety days from the day
that the application is deemed complete. Mr. Choate added that the County can agree with the applicants
to waive that time frame and the applicants have agreed in this circumstance to do that.
(Bruce Johnson arrived at 10:08 am)
Commissioner Stifle asked if there is a limit on the number of continuances. Mr. Choate replied no and
added that he recommended the separate applications in order to give them an opportunity to move forward
1
with one portion of the line while addressing the Town of Eaton's concerns. He said that the applicants are
very interested in moving forward as quickly as possible and statutorily we are required to do that. He
added that the applicant wanted to update their siting study for the southern segment at the request of the
Town of Eaton.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of this application. No one wished to speak.
Motion: Continue USR18-0100 to the June 18, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, Moved by Bruce
Sparrow, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
Meeting adjourned at 3:04 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
4:6-ithnt‘14tilartuvu
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
2
D2 ioq 2_,-b) �I
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
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,
Michael Wailes, at 10:05 am.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip
Holland, Tom Cope.
Absent/Excused: Bruce Johnson.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Michael Hall, Angela Snyder, Department of Planning Services;
Lauren Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Hayley Balzano and Mike McRoberts, Public Works;
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0100
APPLICANT: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION
LINE EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 21 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION
(GRAHAM CREEK) AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA
AULT SUBSTATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE TRANSMISSION LINE WILL BE LOCATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10,
15, 22, 26, 27 AND 35 T7N R66W; SECTIONS 2, 11 AND 12 T6N R66W;
SECTIONS 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 AND 27 T6N R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: TRANSMISSION LINE IS IN TWO SECTIONS:
SECTION 1 RUNS FROM THE WAPA AULT SUBSTATION LOCATED SOUTH
OF CR 86 AND EAST OF CR 25 TO THE PROPOSED HUSKY SUBSTATION
(WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS OF AULT). THE HUSKY SUBSTATION WILL BE
LOCATED EAST OF CR 33 AND SOUTH OF CR 86.
SECTION 2 RUNS FROM THE HUSKY SUBSTATION SITE (EAST OF CR 33
AND SOUTH OF CR 86) TO A TRANSMISSION LINE THAT SERVES THE
CLOVERLY SUBSTATION LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 66 AND EAST OF CR 43.
Chris Gathman. Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a continuance of this case to
the March 19, 2019 Planning Commission hearing to work with stakeholders and address concerns from
the Town of Eaton in their referral.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of this application. No one wished to speak.
Motion: Continue USR18-0100 to the March 19, 2019 Planning Commission hearing at 10:00 am, Moved
by Tom Cope, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
41-Siebbit---191anditivu
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
1
PCAry-Inv BPS
tk 18IZolR
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
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,
Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Michael Wailes, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Tom Cope, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Elijah Hatch.
Absent: Bruce Johnson, Skip Holland.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Angela Snyder, Department of Planning Services; Lauren
Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Hayley Balzano, and Mike McRoberts, Public
Works; Frank Haug, County Attorney, and Michelle Wall, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0100
APPLICANT: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION
LINE EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 21 MILES, ONE (1) NEW SUBSTATION
(GRAHAM CREEK) AND UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING SUBSTATION (WAPA
AULT SUBSTATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE TRANSMISSION LINE WILL BE LOCATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10,
15, 22, 26, 27 AND 35 T7N R66W; SECTIONS 2, 11 AND 12 T6N R66W;
SECTIONS 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 AND 27 T6N R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: TRANSMISSION LINE IS IN TWO SECTIONS:
SECTION 1 RUNS FROM THE WAPA AULT SUBSTATION LOCATED SOUTH
OF CR 86 AND EAST OF CR 25 TO THE PROPOSED HUSKY SUBSTATION
(WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS OF AULT). THE HUSKY SUBSTATION WILL BE
LOCATED EAST OF CR 33 AND SOUTH OF CR 86.
SECTION 2 RUNS FROM THE HUSKY SUBSTATION SITE (EAST OF CR 33
AND SOUTH OF CR 86) TO A TRANSMISSION LINE THAT SERVES THE
CLOVERLY SUBSTATION LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 66 AND EAST OF CR 43.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated the applicant has requested the case be continued to the
February 5, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing. Mr. Gathman stated that because this will be a rather
large case, staff is requesting the Planning Commission hearing begin at 10:00 a.m. A hearing is scheduled
with the Board of County Commissioners on February 27, 2019. Mr. Gathman explained that surrounding
property owners were mailed updated information regarding the case.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of this application. No one wished to speak.
Motion: Continue Case USR18-0100 to the February 5, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing. Moved by
Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes. Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
Meeting adjourned at 4:16 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
of &Otte -
Michelle Wall
Secretary
ATTENDANCE RECORD
EMAIL
NAME
-
PLEASE
PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
John
Doe
123 Nowhere Street, City, State,
Zip
k 1.4)
. Co Ot
ow cit.
_
•
_ (
if) ceo1 i t__Ken
e
oh(
'fbites.Zis
St
/
- art Cat
1,,,,rfratiesLo.f
\le"1.1--
• „la
.�+
c
tie voiivi
L
±-ILLoYei
t;.teic-
,
eh
k
Tovi--
,
otatia,
47.4_,ii
_Q
to
......se
rtcMe 1`5 P` _
r cit.,-
rAvvv)y fflene r 1
to I ,;...4 1 7 71k eel Aftike
,!` .I ' Ti.
Saelskiet.
7ta#ASiIC
Pc0L4C
LC O M 3 TAitelb'4
41 OCitt 4fr 4IQL€J
`
..
e - . ��Cee
'
3 n
(
. -
.,
/Imo
/ mo
C d ME e7 ` cc 3
1
Tif
l "+- F
."' l'r r'
`
rte_
r•:- sr '•�_
, '' Y .
'�-:� I - L/ -... L•14,,
t
„
. _.-.. �
-.L -..y:f•
1 r L
ea
+ea H t - r . -= -
' - y
r
Thrt
I �"�'
1\11
tLi
~'�i Y
c". 73/
s ,Th
t
.eF 1• .
4
l -a
I ! ~r
._
L 1 'rte r y
tiL
r
(01.1
Cicce
1,
2,O_- M'or Pis IL) ileAtech o ii
_ at•
tel . ..
..
a
•
f
'
"II7
-�°
'tit?
Xv'/W
`
-
Os
1 '` eleic,74
r
I r'
`..� i ■ •, 14/e
fJf
frs!
?' 1.
'
rr "1 "yr\ 1,, -1 �
•
�-
"k
S
(
�''
la
..ii., 1
Cs., r
\\;l
� Ci:
�
L
�
Yl �''Crff�l,��'�
�
:
y� � r7T.
� � � �� `
•�J}1
!l. a.'�....1 - -
1-'�jyt!"
'`ii��
i
Y -
_ '.- -
it
L�� f �
Iksv .% riks. ..\
Litt \ S1/43es'f1
__r
Ck-- ) 3 \EA. \10 ?... N
ti rte`
1
1
/
. ‘ i 7-
/l i ad
err Sf./,'�I IS
L7 1 JL_(i:) 8
`- 1 . f e. 4a""r
r .�r ''•�„''T .� .e •:�;'�a�' ..�.; ti „ .1 f
r?'Srr
r
ti ■
..
i
'�
,r
- _ rev I { j1
/o,,,i/4t?t'(44'f '(/j
Jam}
L
�' L. �'7•'•
5 JJ�f
1� {. . ~`
!1 (
- • �'�`
.. j _
..-..�
/ %,
Vithritexe2i1 rceitcLa)ifi-Ji4.7.5%frirei
C A Is. St'S t kr
_.
�`y���
�(A-t J •
T ... :.
.. � 1u � f�� s%
� .'-
t. d\/�./��.'.�Ir�-j-fItac'�4
��,�y'/J�/j..if�.J�r 1 r
(�_1',��j � I}y ,
-
t • &OsHO,
bit_ f
rl �n ,.
��� �.,(�fy/Jrf7�jtte
��,
� �
f
�.r+,
'DI�
+
Ie)
i ‘00441.
Celt,
1 cc t 4La_ fry'
go? IY- Cr a ay (Ai El)
_ _
M
�CAvAtuA
r
op
tCPElbeCO
�
1 f0
.,
6 Pit i1/41N8
Lel 'NE'S
(DS9_____LRiOsei
t e gas° - OS,
e44
ELLOCioSirie_Mthatoe
_51 ...Ealg4e
•
1� q
.
-17e,
.
c L
•--"'"
,.
._.i
ran
f
i
t
�� rte`
rii I � 1R •—�'^'
r
xi
1 I
�•
r
_
-
ai�rlY:
s� t
/r
2
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME - PLEASE
PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
EMAIL
John Doe
123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
l i` . t 4 ' - ,a _ 1 o�� 45 fin
.. z:Y 7./'..' -
'
% ("--we
I
:+
A A arl-st itte
e� r' •
��.4Sjr— J �—
—
_
r ----Ipt'
e
I 10
-�1,
r.
f
a r •
•
Matta -
•
`Si 'ad
_ pr�uar. 11 Aai
. #
,.-
.-� �. rX CLL.
-
IMPAlialla
k
MIN
Mg 1111 Ma la Mil ii 11 al i i A vst.
Ma=
as..„-quitaailf
as r
�
r ti
Inralref h
yam'
V.
,jjyY►fj
ff►' Jhe ) 4 IT
P : -r ffc 2 7 JI�#.4iff..! �+1"�°y
-
�'
�}��j•�y �{+j.!' �f}��
. 1 f f ,•
C{�rIF }, �%{` ff{0r6:::1 ry
"�- , -,` '- •.aX- _ i•� . a 4 ' 5 e t I-�•
a
�,.
P 4 4
� • -41{
`
�r�
ITO
_4 T. C� k. cf _ . ( it.:,> cf 5 ; '4&
ic,\\\I\
.�-� -e r
k•
4 ¢ k \
• `, 1
1 -
-r'
jl
•�.�
L A
14i,-7� j teke-it,
F •. k &�
: }i
ti:.
7`J ,'
'
`r.r y4.�
1 el
U
� ( l�},Sf tfl , _
7 P
�
�•I�
C\i/LLiciL
{
111 � i
nAiscAvesea
`
�!% Iff +•• ii.r
'+,r
fir? a ,� lr't
c_ .1 ,/r *, ! c
r r} -j ,F ,6
�+
/ •�+
-� 11,Ct;epi:,1x � ! �•1•
_
r
‘41.1S ( 1._ c+ +! ! ..+"
f
'�j
J — oi e ir)
CC' IS 0
r
L
s,.� �r ,.,...5/
tiro m .P
4
1 I J ' o ' r r
/ � # '.r. Calif V e lecr. C %
' - I' I J ,/ 4r r ' YY L L• , 4Y,
'M 4 C C {°1'
SmEalL)
et
r
� 1
/
/Cd1e'ca?4
1 S 7
t�•^
2
•a.
•
5k " k c.) 1 • 47
AC\ Et7 C
i �f 5`
r
1. 1 �� r 1. /{� • I �y
1i ter= 1
n Wj �e
1.
Cr
4
a:ft
i).<4.4
1
.1'\.
l4
Si ' kr
-
kJ .,,, i ci iikt. le,
i h. . 5
kitThs.
Co 4
cr- Cii3D
're
C eie0 5-
&z
der 32
AN.
t -
•
a�
.F•
f r.'a•l -
a
f J
/ [f/f�yy, {+ a b a
f I %-_,_ '� AI Ii�J r
i 41 Zr/+ r sf
♦ V
;,)e7e—C
_ o ■■LL
fix,.
e %
/ --‘
! / / / e.7&- ;
'. (4474
0 4?) ig
f
(... i 4ii ,z,
!
*t
e�
118,r," :67;(4) Cit? in
Lek/✓
J it
I ef.r
I
� I, co
sir' '°
flAt c
nth w1
f\ar.,
)
.
f
6 e1
D
1
r
it
I
9
t
I)
0
c ei
6,ear, weir
t. ac 60 —I'
li...
d )- : C.4:
/
.
( ,CT<
k
d 9
damn
1
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME -
PLEASE
PRINT LEGIBLY
[ADDRESS
EMAIL
123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
John Doe
��F
p1/'
f /0 /.
C : ��'i 1 ,��.�[
d41R('L1wcrn
41.-
YtLs)f,/� f
,� � �,✓"+.�f,�+' d' (if,.
` f7fl?aFYfe
�s r— �"
' -e
��
� (nth
1` ` �
u i dk_._
�
e_O -t Le_-r_t
�+ -
- tw
• 1 V
, -- 1
- '
`�C!!!t
C
3r ty- Ftc-I c-
�
r � �
-krk.
-`_
iii+'
Hello