Posted by a friend on Facebook, wanted to share here:
Agenda: Weld County Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 1, 2026, 10:00 a.m.
Public Meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission, Weld County Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado.
(I’m only including this portion of the agenda in this post.)
C. Case Number: USR26-0019
Applicant: GlobalAI (Colorado), LLC
Planner: Angela Snyder
Request: Use by Special Review Permit for a Data Center in the I-1 (Light Industrial)
Zone District (amendment to Site Plan Review 3AMSPR19-99-293)
Legal Description: A Tract of land situated in the W1/2 of Section 26, and the E1/2 of Section 27, all in Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
Location: East of and adjacent to Howard Smith Avenue W; west of and adjacent to
Howard Smith Avenue E; approximately 0.33 miles south of Eastman Park
Drive; approximately 0.8 miles east of State Highway 257.
*There will be public comment allowed.
Tuesday, September 1, the Weld County Planning Commission holds its public hearing on USR26-0019, the Global AI data center permit on the old Kodak site. It's at the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Greeley (also live-streamed on the county's website). A second hearing before the Board of County Commissioners follows on September 9.
A few things from the county's own draft approval documents worth knowing beforehand::
Staff is recommending approval. The draft resolution proposes only two real conditions, both about proving water supply before building permits are released NOT before USR approval.
On water:: the county's own paperwork says Greeley's willingness to keep serving this site is contingent on a Greeley City Council vote on their pre-annexation agreement scheduled for the SAME DAY as tomorrow's hearing, September 1.
The Draft Findings and Resolution document by Weld County staff states, "Correspondence received from the Greeley City Attorney's Office on August 27, 2026, stated, 'the pre-annexation agreement has been signed, that there is an annexation petition deadline of March 31, 2027, and that Council will be considering approval of the pre-annexation agreement on September 1, 2026.' The Attorney's Office correspondence indicated a commitment to serve water contingent upon the results of the council meeting September 1, 2026."
(So far this Pre-Annexation Agreement is not on Greeley’s agenda for the Sept. 1 meeting. Let’s see if it pops up at the last minute)
Does the application demonstrate adequate water supply under C.R.S. § 29-20-301? This is a state-law prerequisite for approving a development permit, not a discretionary preference. The Greeley letter (short-term, expiring, now conditioned on an unsigned 438-acre annexation agreement) does not appear to meet the statute's quantity/quality/dependability/availability-through-build-out test.
Looking at the statute's own language, a commitment contingent on a future, not-yet-started annexation conflicts with at least two of the four factors that define "adequate" under § 29-20-302(1):
Dependability. The definition requires the supply be sufficient "in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability." A commitment that only takes effect if a separate, multi-step legal process (annexation) is completed by some future date is, by definition, not yet dependable. Annexation isn't a formality; in Colorado it requires a petition, contiguity findings, a public hearing process, and potentially a council vote, any of which could fail, stall, or be legally challenged. Until that process concludes, the "commitment" is really a conditional promise to make.
I think the county will build a condition into the USR approval tying the permit to Greeley’s water service commitment.
On noise: the draft resolution doesn't hold Global AI to the county's own 65 dB(C) property-line limit. Instead it proposes the facility only has to avoid making noise worse than whatever the already-loud ambient level is nearby. That's a significant loosening of the standard the county adopted just months ago.
The county's own findings put an "isolated residence" about 2,000 feet (.38 of a mile) from the site, closer than the "approximately one mile" the applicant stated in their application. That feels like they are saying it’s only one home so what’s the big deal?
Any future large-scale on-site power plant isn't part of tomorrow's approval. But the draft also doesn't say what kind of review it will get down the road. So they don’t seem to be addressing questions like:
Can a single "Phase 1" segment of a reportedly 100 MW, multi-phase project be evaluated as a one complete application?
How many phases are required to complete a full build-out of the contemplated data center?
Which of the applicant’s materials provided show the impacts of Phase 1 versus Phase 2 and the ultimate data-center project, if any?
How can any project be properly assessed under the Use by Special Review process if only a portion of the project detail is made available to the County and public?
The USR process exists specifically to assess cumulative impact of a more-intensive use. If the Commission can't see the full build-out, how can it make the compatibility findings the code requires?
If this affects you, showing up or submitting written comment to Weld County Planning Services before the hearing is how it gets on the record.
Submit a comment link: https://www.weld.gov/Government/Departments/Planning-and-Development-Services/Planning-and-Zoning/Submit-a-Planning-Question-or-Comment?fbclid=IwY2xjawUCiGpwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMW9oUmRYV2UwNG1KRlNaMldzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeldXtcIAnXTWUlWCevHDTYU096YgXlZA1oBpDOpKlLUl1lqsi3dAwXyoCBJ0_aem_e2kyXCdYwMPPiugLnetosQ