HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101606.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll and Heidi
Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the June 1, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-64
APPLICANT: The General Assembly and Church of the First Born
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review for a
Church in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 29,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately 1,100 feet east of State
Hwy 85.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that the Department of Planning Services is recommending
an indefinite continuance for this case as the applicants are still working on meeting mineral notice
requirements. In addition, after conversation with their representative Mr. Gathman said that he is not sure of
what time frame they are planning on proceeding with this application. He added that he will continue to keep
in contact with the applicants.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case AmUSR-64 be continued indefinitely, seconded by Ehrlich. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1741
APPLICANT: Roswell& Kerry Checketts
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,
animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including
a Livestock Confinement Operation (expansion of an existing dairy to a total of
;
� -aO(�oi 2010-1606
`u-�h .7—o2/
1,400 animals, including milking cows, dry cows, heifers, and calves) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A&B of RE-3556; located in Part of the S2 NW4 of Section 15,T4N,
R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and approximately'A mile north of CR 44.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented this application is for a dairy expansion up to a total of 1,400
animals. This is presently a zoning violation (ZCV09-00247) issued due to the number of animal units
exceeding the amount allowed as a use by right in the agricultural zone district. This case was heard by the
Board of County Commissioners on December 8, 2009 and legal action was delayed until February 8, 2010.
Since then a complete Use by Special Review Permit Application has been submitted. This application, if
approved, will correct the zoning violation.
The site is located in an agricultural area. The site is within one-quarter mile of four (4) single family
residences to the west and south. Two additional single family residences are located to the north. The
Latham View Subdivision is located approximately one-quarter to one-half mile further to the north of the site.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring a Landscape and Screening Plan as well as a Lighting Plan
be submitted to address impacts from the expansion of the feedlot to the surrounding area. In addition
Department of Planning Services is also requiring that the applicant adhere to specific development standards
imposed by the County as well as Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations. This is to help ensure that
the facility is operating in compliance with numerous conditions that would not be required for a facility
operating as a use by right.
Fourteen referrals were sent out for review; eight referrals have been received and either indicated no conflicts
with their interests or have been addressed through conditions of approval and/or development standards.
Two letters of opposition from neighboring landowners have been received listing the following concerns:
• Groundwater impacts
• Concerns with excessive flies
• Impacts on property values
• Substantial expansion of the facility would create compatibility issues with existing residential
development in the area
• Inadequate buffering and landscaping between uses
• There are existing larger dairies that are more appropriate for expansion in more rural areas than this
dairy
• Proximity to the LaSalle secondary growth boundary
• Located within the boundary of the Town of LaSalle Transportation Plan
The Town of LaSalle did provide a referral response in regard to this case. They indicated that the proposed
facility expansion is located within the three-mile referral area of the Town of LaSalle but is not within the
Urban Growth Boundary as delineated in the LaSalle/Weld County Coordinated Planning Agreement adopted
by Weld County and codified under Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code.
This site is located one-quarter mile to the south of the edge of the existing secondary growth boundary for the
Town of LaSalle. The Town of LaSalle in their referral response dated June 24, 2010 indicated that the dairy
expansion could lessen the desirability for estate residential development in the primary and secondary growth
boundaries for the Town of LaSalle. Additionally, concerns were expressed that it may be difficult to
determine if odor nuisances are caused by this operation given the number of other feedlots and dairies within
a two-mile radius of this site. It was also mentioned that the dairy expansion could impact the Town of LaSalle
Transportation Plan which is expected to be completed in July. The Town of LaSalle encourages the County
to require deadlines for the applicant to demonstrate the conditions of approval for this Use by Special Review
Permit. Mr. Gathman indicated that a condition of approval is attached which requires the applicant to attempt
to address the conditions of the Town of LaSalle. He reiterated that this site is not located within the Urban
Growth Boundary of LaSalle so the provisions in the IGA in regard to non-urban development in an urban area
do not apply in this location.
2
The Department of Planning Services is requiring that conditions of approval be addressed and the plat be
submitted for recording no later than sixty(60)days after the Board of County Commissioners hearing,should
it be approved. Should these conditions not be addressed and completed within sixty (60) days, the
Department of Planning Services recommends that this case proceed through the violation process.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, noted the conditions of approval with regard to design construction of the
facility and development standards regarding the operations of the facility.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works,commented that the applicants will be utilizing the existing accesses onto County
Road 43 which is classified as a collector roadway. The most recent count from June 6, 2010 indicates 544
vehicles per day on that road. Tracking control is requested on the main and secondary accesses to prevent
tracking onto County Road 43. Because the applicants are required to comply with the Colorado Confined
Animal Feeding Operations, the State will be dictating the stormwater drainage and detention requirements.
Tim Naylor, AGPROfessionals, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont CO, commented that he is representing Marcellina
Dairy owned by Roswell and Kerry Checketts. He stated that this request is to approve a Special Use Permit
for an existing dairy to continue milking 600-700 cows and allow 1,400 total animals including milking cows,
dry cows, heifers, and calves on an 80 acre parcel.
The facility activities include milking dairy cows,feeding, housing and raising replacement stock, storing and
processing feed, storing and maintaining dairy and farm equipment and farming. The facility includes a dairy
parlor, equipment storage buildings, corrals, waste management structures, maintenance equipment, and
employee housing.
The proposed changes to the existing facility include a new entrance location on the north side of the pens.
Currently they are using an entrance at the south end and are proposing to move it to the north. Historically
there have been concerns with the neighbors about the traffic entering at the south entrance; therefore this
north entrance will eliminate dairy traffic that is currently using the south entrance.
The dairy will continue to milk the same number of cows. The applicants are proposing to move the pens for
the young animals and comply with the regulations. The new regulations require that the existing sediment
basin and wastewater pond be designed and constructed to engineered specifications to comply with the latest
environmental regulations. Manure storage in the southeast corner will be moved and all manure storage will
typically remain inside the corrals or upgradiant to the pond. All other buildings will remain in use and no
additional buildings will be built at this time.
The dairy is located in a historically agricultural area. The surrounding area includes hay, corn and other
production farm ground.
The intent of the agricultural zone seems obvious but the specific language is important. The ag zone is
established to promote agriculture as an essential feature of the County. It is specifically intended to provide
areas for the conduct of agricultural activities and production without the interference of other incompatible
land uses. The ag zone is specifically set up for these operations as an area where these operations can be
protective of the public health, safety and welfare of the present and future residents.
The applicant's plans have been submitted and reviewed by staff and numerous referral agencies and found
adequate for the recommendation of approval.
Mr. Naylor reminded the Planning Commission that this facility is not starting from scratch. The facility
currently exists and is allowed to have 640 head of cattle as a use by right facility. Granting this Special Use
Permit versus a use by right allows control for the County, more security for the community, certainty for the
Checketts family, and it also gives controlled impact to a localized operation in an area where the impacts and
awareness already exist in the ag zone district.
3
Commissioner Maxey asked how long the dairy has been in operation. Mr. Naylor said it started operation in
2004. Mr. Maxey clarified if they are currently approved for 640 head of cattle. Mr. Naylor said that as a use
by right they are allowed to have 640 head of cattle on 160 contiguous acres; however there is currently 1000
head of cattle.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Beverly Orr indicated that she lives next door to the dairy. She stated that they do not want an expansion of
this facility in no way, not one cow or calf more. This is not an industry. They have lived in their home for
almost 30 years and never dreamed of anyone being able to move in next to them and do nothing but take
away from them. There have always been fields of corn, potatoes, alfalfa or just pasture there and they
always thought this was what would always be there. Ms. Orr indicated that property values have plummeted
already because of the facility. She stated that the problem you have dealing with flies and odor begins at the
dairy and should end there. Since the dairy has enlarged the pens they haven't been kept as clean as they
were. Ms. Orr stated that the noise early in the morning wakes them up and the applicant's don't consider that
other people are sleeping. She added that she is also worried that their well will be contaminated.
Ms. Orr commented that the truck traffic is a big problem at times. She added that the delivery vendors seem
to run down their posts at least once a year and if they think that they cannot make it into the dairy's entrance
they drive on her property.
In Ms. Orr's opinion, dairies should always have, without exception, a unanimous permission to plop a dairy
down in a close established neighborhood. There is plenty of dryland acreage where your neighbors are few
and far between.
Vladimir Boiko, 21876 CR 43, LaSalle, CO, commented that when he bought his property in 2000 there was
no dairy there. He purchased 78 acres and has subdivided it into the 50 acres where he resides, one
residence on 25 acres and another residence on 2 acres. His intention was to sell the 2 acre lot and use that
as fee money to develop the 25 acres. The development of the area since he has been there has been
residential. There is an existing PUD (5 acre lots) '/ to 1/2 mile to the north
Lowell Roberts, 22014 CR 43, commented that he lives'/.mile north of the dairy. Mr. Roberts stated that he
also has the smell and fly problems. When they purchased the property in 2001, they researched it quite a bit
to make sure there wasn't a facility like this in the area. This facility has come in since they purchased the
property and understands that in Weld County there is a Right to Farm; however he believed that the right to
farm is the number of permitted cattle on a use by right.
Mike Sigg, 22350 Latham View Drive, wished to echo the prior comments and pointed out that the Latham
View Estates, which includes 4 residences, is located north of this site.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Lawley asked Mr. Naylor if he anticipates the pest and odor problems to decrease with the new
management plan to be put in place. Mr. Naylor said yes and believes that the new storm waste pond should
be better and management of the cleanliness will be beneficial to that facility.
Commissioner Holton asked about the south entrance. Mr. Naylor said they recognized the problem with the
south entrance; therefore they designed the facility with the main entrance on the north side of the pens which
will eliminate driving on Ms. Orr's property.
The Chair asked the applicant if they 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.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1741, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Alexander Zauder.
4
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes with comment; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill Hall,absent;Alexander
Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes with comment; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton,yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Robert Grand commented that these are tough issues but we need to respect the property owners and their
right to farm in Weld County in the agricultural areas. He added that he hopes that the dairy will continue to
maintain a process of good management to minimize the impact on the neighbors.
Commissioner Spitzer commented that as we see more residential development in these areas the
management of these facilities will need to be better done to ensure that the neighbors don't have to fight with
the flies and odor.
The Chair read the next case into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1739
APPLICANT: Carma Bayshore, LLC do Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP
PLANNER: Tom Parko
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Production Facility in a PUD with E (Estate), C-1, C-2 (Commercial),
and R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 (Residential)Zone Districts.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B AmRE-1140 being part of the E2NW4/NW4NW4 and Part N2NE4 of
Section 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28;west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, commented that the this application is a request to allow the use of two
existing drill sites to directional drill nine (9) wells and augment the existing production facility utilizing low
profile tanks for water and oil storage, three separators, meter house, one emission control device and one
vapor recover unit.
Kerr McGee Onshore and the developer, Carma, have executed a Memorandum of Understanding for all wells
placed within this approved PUD.
The existing site is located within the three-mile referral area for the Towns of Firestone and Mead and the
City of Longmont.
The City of Longmont responded and indicated in their referral dated March 23, 2010 that they have reviewed
the request and find no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Mead in their referral dated March 29,2010
stated concerns with the truck route. The Town of Mead also had concerns with transportation infrastructure,
the maintenance of roads, culverts and bridges. No comments were received from the Town of Firestone.
The surrounding property to the west, north and east is currently in agricultural production and is part of the St.
Vrain Lakes PUD. To the south are platted estate lots for the Pelican Shores PUD.
The conditions of approval and development standards ensure that there are adequate provisions in place to
address the concerns of adjacent and surrounding property owners.
Fourteen referral agencies have reviewed the case and five offered comments; some with specific conditions
that have been incorporated into this recommendation. No letters or telephone calls have been received
concerning this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Commissioner Holton noticed that there were no hours of operation listed in the development standards. He
added that if this will be surrounded by several residences he suggested that after the wells are completed the
5
hours of operation should be restricted to daylight hours.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that permanent water and sewer are not required as there
will be no employees on site. Dust control will be provided by watering or applying a dust suppressant. The
applicant is required to submit evidence of an Air Emissions Permit 45 days after production starts.
Ms. Light pointed out that Development Standards#10 and#27 are duplicated;therefore one may be deleted.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standard #10, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that the access will be off of County Road 28 which is a collector
roadway with 80 feet of right-of-way at full build-out; presently there is 60 feet. Weld County does perform
maintenance on this road. The applicant is proposing two accesses to the drilling sites. Vehicle tracking pads
are requested on both accesses onto County Road 28. A Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted
by the applicant and is adequate.
Kim Cooke, Kerr McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP, 1099 18`" St, Denver CO, commented that they are
proposing the drilling of nine (9) oil and gas wells from two locations. One pad will consist of a 6-well pad.
The other pad will consist of a 3-well pad.
Ms. Cooke indicated that they have reviewed the comments from the referral agencies. In reference to the
Town of Mead's comments for access, as Public Works mentioned, the access that they are currently
proposing is on a Weld County Road;therefore they have routed the drilling access to come in from the north
off of County Road 13 and go west on County Road 28 versus coming off of 1-25 and going through Mead's
section of County Road 28.
There is a Surface Use Agreement with Carma Bayshore in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding.
In response to Commissioner Holton's question regarding hours of operation, Ms. Cooke indicated that they
are proposing to drill these wells in September;therefore they will be in and out well before the construction of
residences in this area starts. Mr. Holton said that he is not very concerned right now as there are no
residences and understands that during the drilling it is a 24 hour operation. However after the residences are
built he would like to have the hours of operation restricted to daylight hours only. Ms. Cooke agreed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved to add a Development Standard #32 to read "Hours of operation will be restricted to
daylight hours only, after the completion of the wells", seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried
The Chair asked the applicant if they 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.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1739 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a recess at 2:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:46 p.m.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1704
APPLICANT: Heartland Renewable Energy, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
6
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a solid
waste disposal site and facility(including Class I composting, an animal waste
recycling or processing facility(an anaerobic digester-based renewable energy
plant-gas) along with a concrete batch plant to be used for construction of the
facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 of Section 25,T4N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile south of CR 42 and 1/2 mile east of CR 47
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that the original description mentioned the location from
County Road 47; it is also%mile south of County Road 42 and 1/4 mile west of County Road 49. This facility is
proposed to encompass a portion of a parcel presently owned by Shelton Land and Cattle. The access is
proposed to be directly off of County Road 49 and will run approximately% mile to the west before entering
the improved area of the proposed facility.
The Department of Planning Services has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to incorporate
the road and, at a minimum, lands to the south of the road into the boundaries of the USR and also to
incorporate the boundaries of the USR under a single deed.
The proposed facility is located on an existing parcel with six(6)existing gas wells and two(2)tank batteries.
The site is located in a rural area consisting of dryland parcels, rural residential parcels and irrigated
agricultural land to the west of the site. The two nearest residences are located approximately 1/4 mile to the
west and approximately 1/3 mile to the east of the site. The applicant is proposing to place the facility in the
interior of the existing parcel to allow additional distance from these properties. Proposed conditions of
approval and development standards include a Lighting Plan and Screening Plan to mitigate the impacts of the
use to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses in the area.
Fourteen referrals were sent out for review and nine referrals were received with comments. One phone call
was received from a surrounding property owner in regard to this case concerning site distance at the
entrance to County Road 49 due to the topography in the area. Additionally, there were some questions
regarding odor, management, and lighting.
This facility does require a Certificate of Designation through the State of Colorado. As part of this review it
was reviewed by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and they did submit a
final agency action letter with conditions dated April 7, 2010.
The application indicates that the facility will operate 24 hours a day; however the majority of the hauling would
occur during daytime hours. A condition of approval is attached which reflects this.
Additionally, there is a condition of approval in regard to a Surface Use Agreement with mineral interests. The
applicant has been meeting with the mineral interests (Noble Energy, Anadarko, and Kerr-McGee) and Mr.
Gathman indicated that he understands that there may be some proposed language for a condition in regard
to a Surface Use Agreement. Presently under Condition of Approval 1.H,there is a standard condition which
includes language that the applicant shall submit a copy of the agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operator stipulating that oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of this
site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral
owner/operator.
Commissioner Berryman asked Mr. Gathman what he envisions for screening because of the elevation
difference from County Road 49. Mr. Gathman said screening may or may not be necessary from County
Road 49 but there are properties to the west that may need screening. He added that staff will work with the
applicants.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that they reviewed the design and operations plan along with
the application materials. Prior to recording the plat conditions have been included along with development
standards which incorporate the State Department of Health conditions. Mr. Swain stated that they would like
to amend Development Standard 17 by deleting the word "impermeable" from the first sentence because a
low impermeability design for the secondary containment has been submitted and approved in the Design and
Operation Plan.
7
Mark Lawley moved to delete "impermeable" in Development Standard 17 as recommended by staff,
seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that the access will be off of County Road 49 which is an arterial
roadway with a future right-of-way of 140 feet; presently there is 80 feet. A Traffic Study was supplied by the
applicant. A Drainage Report has been submitted as well and has been amended. The applicant has
requested a variance to install a retention pond that will meet the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment requirements for a composting facility.
Mr. Carroll commented that they have requested an Improvements Agreement and collateral to be posted for
improvements associated with the facility under"Prior to recording the plat" conditions. In addition, they are
asking for collateral to be posted for any improvements entering onto County Road 49. A Final Drainage
Report is required prior to recording the plat. Prior to construction a grading permit is requested. A tracking
pad combination is requested prior to commencement of operation. Lastly,final construction drawings for off-
site and onsite is required.
Janet Carter, Public Works, commented that County Road 49 is an arterial roadway. In August 2009 the
traffic count was 3,979 ADT. The traffic count on County Road 40 in August 2008 was 146 ADT. The
applicant has indicated that their site will produce 205 trips per day. The applicant has been requested to
install 60 foot radius curves at the access to accommodate truck traffic. There is a requirement to make a left
acceleration and deceleration lanes for the site access to account for public safety. The 85th percentile for
County Road 49 was 71 mph and there have been five (5) accidents in the last three (3) years; one with an
injury accident and four(4) property damage only accidents. This area is where heavy truck traffic will occur
and with trucks they take a longer time to accelerate and decelerate. Public Works is requiring that final
construction drawings be submitted by the applicant and reviewed and approved by Public Works prior to
construction activities. In addition, Public Works is requesting that in the Improvements Agreement collateral
be placed to allow for improvements of a right acceleration and deceleration lane when those reach the
warrants of the right deceleration of 25 vehicles per hour during the peak hour and 50 vehicles per hour in the
peak hour for acceleration.
Commissioner Holton wished to clarify if this is a right in/right out facility only. Ms.Carter replied no and added
that this is open degree and can turn left or right.
Commissioner Grand expressed concern on the traffic on County Road 49 and stated that he feels both sets
of accel/decel lanes should be required now. Ms. Carter stated that at this time the warrants do not meet the
criteria for both accel/decel lanes; however the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
have the option of requiring the right accel/decel in addition to the left accel/decel lanes.
Tom Haren, AGPROfessionals, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont CO, commented that the request is to operate an
anaerobic digester based renewable energy plant. The primary purpose of this plant is to produce pipeline
grade natural gas from cattle manure and other organic waste streams. In addition, the request is for a
temporary concrete batch plant to be used primarily to minimize traffic and nuisance conditions and increase
efficiencies during construction.
The visual appearance will be similar to ag bags for silage. This plant uses anaerobic digestion technology
converting organic wastes, primarily cattle manure, food waste, livestock processing waste,and packing plant
waste into a methane rich gas that will be scrubbed and injected into an interstate natural gas pipeline. The
organic material is placed in an air-tight vessel where naturally occurring microbes digest and decompose the
material and create methane and carbon dioxide,which is then captured and processed. Anaerobic digestion
is the most common method of treating sanitary waste as seen in most municipal wastewater plants. In
addition to generating the gas, high grade compost material will be produced. The solids that will come out of
this are very similar to the animal manures that they compost through static or aerated pile windrowing. It
looks like potting soil and will be used for golf courses, landscaping, agriculture, etc. Mr. Haren said that they
will be capturing the carbon dioxide,which is a major greenhouse gas, and will be using that in medical fields,
welding, refrigeration, and those types of industries. Cattle manure, food waste, and organic waste will be
used for feed stocks for the digester facility so that it will help preclude release of any of those pollutants to the
8
environment.
Mr. Haren commented that they believe this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
and supports agricultural activities by offering farm related services that are not currently available. It is
directly related and dependent upon agriculture through the procurement, conversion and redistribution of
organic waste material to a renewable energy source.
They believe this plan is compatible with future development as permitted by the existing zone and projected
by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This type of facility is heavily regulated through the Solid Waste
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
There is proposed to be 24 digesters at full build-out. The size of the one of the digesters would be compared
to the size of an Olympic sized swimming pool with a cover over the top.
Site selection was critical on this project because they needed to be near a large metropolitan area for cattle
manure, transportation, and adjacent to a gas pipeline. The pipeline runs along the east boundary of the site.
They also looked for places that had little to no groundwater or deep groundwater, proper soil types, prevailing
winds and a site that would fit into the topography to where some of the adjoining homes in the area will not be
able to see the site.
Mr. Haren said that they are visually inspecting the material and know the sources of where this material is
coming from. He expressed that this will not be a dump or landfill which is open to the public. He added that
every load that comes to the facility is an entity that Heartland has contracts with to bring material to the site.
Mr. Haren said that the traffic studies provided by them as well as Weld County both said that just in pure
mathematical reasons, the improvements are not needed. He stated that they have talked with staff and
believe that they have a plan regarding turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes, collateral and road
improvements agreements that have an eye towards safety even though the traffic studies did not warrant it.
Operations will occur primarily during the day; however the facility is operated with 3 shifts 24 hours a day.
Since all the material coming to the site is under contract with Heartland they can schedule the times of trucks
coming to the facility. He offered for consideration that they have substantial control over the scheduling of
vehicles coming to the facility; therefore they could avoid traveling during the peak hour of the day.
Commissioner Grand asked how absolute the control on scheduling the vehicles is. Mr. Haren said that they
have significant control over scheduling the traffic accessing the site. Mr. Grand recommended that we
provide a delivery plan that excludes traffic at peak hours. Ms. Carter said that it would be great if they could
control the times that their trucks are coming in; however the actual volumes that when is the peak hour on
roadways is variable. One year it could be at 7 am and an operation like this could open up and that would
fluctuate what the peak hour is by their facility or any other facility that would come along there. Therefore,
although it would be really nice to have that control over their traffic it won't contribute to the overall safety on
that roadway because it is all of the other traffic that is contributing. During the peak hour it is only about 20%
of the traffic so you are still accounting for the other 80% of the traffic that is distributed. Mr. Grand asked if
there is a mechanism that can be developed. Ms. Carter said that she doesn't believe that by controlling their
in or out traffic it is going to account for the safety that would be equivalent to them installing turning lanes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Barry Myhr, Noble Energy, 1625 Broadway, Ste, 200, Denver CO, commented that he is here on behalf of
Noble Energy to point out the operations on the site and also express the concerns that Noble Energy has in
relationship to the existing operations on the ground. Currently in the southeast quarter, Noble Energy
operates six (6)well locations and two (2) production facilities.
The major concerns associated with those existing operations have to do with existing flow lines where the
applicant has presumed relocation of flow lines for these improvements to go in. Other concerns are if the
traffic control plan does go through to the extent that it widens the road, there would be concerns on Noble
Energy's behalf for the facility located on the east side of the property as to how far it is set back from those
turn lanes. He noted that the State Oil and Gas Commission provide that they need to be at least 75 feet off of
9
the right-of-way. Other concerns relate to the center well location. Being located in the center of the
southeast quarter there is an existing road that did not show up on the application that would require
realignment. Without that realignment it actually crosses a fence boundary three times where it would be very
impractical to place three separate gates through that fence. Other improvements within the oil and gas
operations areas not meeting the safety setback provided by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission of 150
feet. These are the physical setbacks that Noble needs in order to reasonably operate these wells which
amount to the 200 foot setback. He appreciated that the applicant has made attempts to place that 200 foot
setback around these wells; however any improvements within those areas that may preclude them to
reasonably operate such as fencing, fire lanes, paved lanes or changes in grading that would not allow a level
surface they would want to at least codify some of these things within an agreement with the applicant.
Therefore Mr. Myhr requested an amendment to the land use application under Condition of Approval 1.H to
read"The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the oil and gas companies that oil and gas
activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site prior to the recording of a final plat.
The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites." Mr. Myhr commented that in
discussions with the applicant they have indicated that they are agreeable to that.
Commissioner Holton clarified if they have been having discussions with the applicant. Mr.Myhr said that they
recently have been talking with the applicant. An objection letter was filed on June 22, 2010 by Noble Energy
in relationship to this application. He added that there have been a couple of discussions more recently.
When the applicant was in the preliminary stages of the design there were some discussions but detailed
discussions have not gone forward beyond the timeline of just in the last week.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Myhr when they were notified of the detailed plans. Mr. Myhr said that they originally had
been notified a couple of years ago as to the plans, had a meeting with the applicant and discussed generally
some of the concerns and tried to make several contacts after that but had not been able to do that. He
understands that applicants have a lot of hoops to jump through but they are a very important part of the
checklist, considering that they do have real property rights here that do need to be accommodated.
Mr. Holton commented that he would be unwilling to make the amendment because this is language that has
been used for a lot of years. Mr. Myhr commented that some of the problems that oil and gas has especially
with language like that is that there is an assumption that the applicant knows their business and that they
know the applicant's business and what is adequate could be problematic to the extent that their real property
rights are damaged after the fact. In this instance they are saying that if there is an agreement there,
especially with some of these existing uses, it is going to allow the applicant to work with them for relocation of
those flow lines. Mr. Myhr strongly urged the Planning Commission to reconsider the amendment to the
condition of approval.
Terry Enright, Kerry McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP, 1099 18th St, Denver CO, commented that they
normally prefer not to come at this point before the Planning Commission to discuss these types of things
because they fairly aggressively try to get repeatedly information from the applicant and their representative.
He indicated that they were continually not given that information. He expressed that they understand the
importance of this getting done and the importance of the Planning Commission's time,and the importance of
things being done in a right and fashionable way. He believes that they have reached an agreement with the
applicant and believes that it is something that can be resolved very quickly.
Molly Buchanan, 1580 Lincoln St, Ste 700, Denver CO, is an attorney representing Anadarko EMP Company
LP, Anadarko Land Corp and Kerr McGee. An objection letter was submitted dated May 10, 2010 and have
asked that it be a part of the record. Anadarko EMP and Anadarko Land Corp. own the minerals that underlie
the southeast quarter of Section 25. Anadarko EMP has granted oil and gas leases for the property, interests
which are now owned by Kerr McGee and Noble Energy. As Mr. Myhr indicated there are existing production
facilities and access roads that are impacted by the site plan as it is proposed and as it has been presented to
the Planning Commission. In addition, Kerr McGee has rights to drill additional wells on the property they own
so they want to make sure that those interests are also adequately addressed. The oil companies have
traditionally worked with surface developers to reach Surface Use Agreements that will provide for the
compatible development of the oil and gas and they have been trying to do that with respect to this applicant.
They did have meetings in September 2009 and have been trying to get the applicant's attention so that they
can continue to have those discussions in anticipation of this hearing. Last week they had a conference call
10
and as part of that conference call the parties agreed that they would enter into an agreement which would be
for a Surface Use Agreement among Noble Energy, Anadarko, Kerr McGee and Heartland and that
agreement would be entered into prior to recording a plat for the property. She added that they would stipulate
to that on the record and ask that you include that condition. She indicated that it is similar to what Mr. Myhr
had identified and she has also run it by Mr. Haren and he has agreed to that; however it seems to her that the
current language is great as far as a default position. She read the proposed considered language into record
"As stipulated by the parties, the applicant shall submit a copy of an agreement with Anadarko, Kerr McGee,
and Noble Energy that oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site prior
to the recording of a final plat. The plat may need to be amended to include any possible future drilling sites."
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated that it is good language as long as the applicant is agreeable to it.
Janet Timko, 24868 CR 40, commented that she lives .8 of a mile from the proposed facility. She stated that
she is very concerned with the traffic on that road. She believed that the main entrance was going to be at
County Road 40 and felt that the accel/decel lanes would have been okay but she now understands that it is
going between two other major roads. She stated that there is no site distance on County Road 49. She is
very concerned with the smell from this place as well as bugs.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Haren commented that the smell and standing water in the ponds, because of the pH and salt, are not
conducive to mosquito breeding and they are required to have an odor mitigation plan along with all of the air
permits. They have designed very little storage on site so you won't have the odor and smell. He commented
that when they were designing this site, they went around to the surrounding neighbors and tried to meet with
them as well as sent out letters beyond the 500 foot requirement
Mr. Haren said that they called and initiated the first meeting with the oil and gas interests on May 28, 2009.
He added that the communications stopped when the request was to include oil and gas agreements on
property outside of the USR. He stated that they are in agreement with the language that Ms. Buchanan
proposed. He added that he believes that they are close to a reasonable agreement.
Mr. Haren said that they would like to request 180 days for recording the plat because of the additional
provisions for permits and approvals are considerable.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 2 to allow submittal of the plat 180 days from the Board
of County Commissioners resolution, seconded by Alexander Zauder. Motion carried.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Haren if he is in agreement with Ms. Buchanan's language. Mr. Haren
replied yes.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.H to read"As stipulated by the parties, the applicant
shall submit a copy of an agreement with Anadarko, Kerr McGee, and Noble Energy that oil and gas activities
have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site prior to the recording of a final plat. The plat
may need to be amended to include any possible future drilling sites", seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion
carried.
Ms. Carter said that these warrants are based off of PASHTO which is a national standard where thousands of
studies have been done to determine why these warrants are viable. When Public Works makes these
recommendations it is based off of those documents that are general engineering practices and unless the
applicant presents something that is measureable and repeatable or that is verified by using engineering
judgments it is very difficult for Public Works to make recommendations that diverge from the established
standards. She added that if we create our own procedure for coming up with necessary improvements,
which will not necessarily take into account the methodology developed by PASHTO, the method is not
defensible. We become vulnerable in a sense that they can't defend why we chose to do one thing over
another. It makes it inconsistent with the way that we currently practice; therefore although they would love to
work with the applicant on this type of method she would prefer to work with them on something that is a
sound engineering judgment that will provide for safety measures versus coming up with a method on the fly
11
that may not prove to be very safe and can open them to further troubles in the future by being inconsistent.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Barker if we have a liability issue in our attempt to mitigate the exposure
given what Ms. Carter just said. Mr. Barker replied no however, our responsibility to the public is to use
standards that balance the need for improvements with a justifiable nexus to the applicant's proposed use.
The AASHTO methodology does that. Mr. Barker added that anytime you exact something as part of a land
use application whether it is traffic or health standards you have to make certain that you are taking what is
considered to be the nexus. If you are exacting something which is beyond the nexus and the nexus is that
measure be done appropriately to deal with the situation at hand then you are subjecting the County to a risk
of a taking by the applicant. The AASHTO standards provide a national standard that everyone can use,
these methodology procedures and standards are typical and it provides you the nexus so that you can then
defend against someone say that is a taking because in essence you have used the standards and the
standard methodology that has been provided tried tested throughout. He understands the concerns of
people using the roadway and creating traffic problems but what we have to balance is being fair to the
applicant and fair to the public and the AASHTO standards do that. Mr. Grand said that County Road 49 is not
a national standard and added that we should work with the applicant to mitigate the traffic risks.
Mr. Grand suggested adding a condition that says the applicant and staff will coordinate to minimize the
impact of additional traffic entering and exiting County Road 49. Ms.Carter recommended adding a Condition
of Approval 1.D.3 to read "The applicant and Public Works staff will work together to establish safe
engineering practices, where applicable."
Robert Grand moved to add Condition of Approval 1.D.3 as recommended by Staff, seconded by Erich
Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Commissioner Maxey wished to discuss the acceleration lanes. He commented that County Road 40 is pretty
close to the crest of a hill and he can envision trucks that are going to be turning into the facility coming
southbound using the shoulder as their decel lane. He asked for any thoughts. The Planning Commission
members agreed.
Jason Maxey moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.D.2 to read "Public Works will require a right
acceleration lane be constructed on WCR 49 when traffic volumes meet the triggers of 50vph during right
out of the facility during the peak hour. This requirement will be included in the Improvements Agreement.
Prior to the start of construction of the auxiliary lanes, final construction drawings will be required to be
reviewed and accepted by Public Works." In addition, Mr. Maxey moved to amend Condition of Approval
6.6.2 to state "Public Works requires a left acceleration lane, left deceleration lane and right deceleration
lane to mitigate for:.....". The motion was seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they 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.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1704, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, absent;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would rather have not deleted the right deceleration lane from the
Improvements Agreement instead of adding it to the project in the beginning.
The Chair called a recess at 4:37 p.m. and reconvened at 4:48 p.m.
The Chair read the next case into record.
12
CASE NUMBER: Code Change Amendments
PLANNER: Tom Parko
REQUEST: Additional amendments to Chapter 21, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 26
and Chapter 27 Zoning and Chapter 29 Building of the Weld County Code
Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that following the last meeting regarding code changes a few additions
and minor changes have been made and staff wished to bring those before the Planning Commission again.
Mr. Parko commented that they have met with two residents in Weld County that are Ham Radio operators.
The original language reference was to"Amateur Radio Towers"; however staff would like to change that to
"Non-Commercial Towers".
In addition, there is a proposed change to the Appendix 23-F Chart to change the provision in the Residential
Zone District from 30 feet to 40 feet in height according to a federal regulation. These gentlemen would like to
see the height go up to 40 feet in the residential zone district.
Larry Benko stated that he is not a resident in Weld County at the moment; however he has been looking to
purchase property in Weld County. He said that he is an amateur radio operator and added that Federal
Statute PRB-1 says that nothing should be legislated less than 35 feet. He commented that it would be nice to
see it at 40 feet because the tower sections generally come in 10 foot increments.
Robert Grand moved to amend Appendix 23-F Chart Residential Zoning District to 40 feet rather than 30 feet
as well as a universal change throughout Chapter 23, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
(Erich Ehrlich left the meeting at 4:57 pm)
In Section 23-1-90 under Class II Home Occupations there is an amendment to change the commercial
vehicles to vehicles with two axles. He said that there was discussion with the Board of County
Commissioners because commercial vehicles are loosely defined and they wanted to limit the amount of
impact with bigger trucks.
Robert Grand moved to amend Section 23-1-90 under Class II Home Occupations from "Commercial
Vehicles" to "vehicles with two axles", seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Mr. Parko continued to Section 23-3-20 and commented that staff is proposing to amend E to read
"Temporary storage and sorting of, in transit, of crops,vegetables, plants,flowers and nursery stock not raised
on the premises and not for sale on said premises". The reason is because staff recently ran into a situation
where a property owner has 80 acres and grows his vegetables and crops and stores them. However he also
leases property that are not contiguous with his 80 acre parcel and he brings the similar products onto his
property storing it and then sorting it on the property. He is not engaging in any commercial activity so rather
than having this person go through the USR process it is called out as a use by right.
Nick Berryman moved to amend Section 23-3-20.E and 23-3-20.0 as proposed, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
Motion carried.
Mr. Parko stated that the breweries, brewpubs, distilleries, and wineries were added to the appropriate zone
districts where before definitions were only provided.
Alexander Zauder moved to amend Chapter 23 to include the breweries, brewpubs, distilleries,wineries and
non-commercial towers in the appropriate zone districts as proposed by staff, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
Under Section 23-4-610, Mr. Parko said that this proposal came out of discussion with the Board of County
Commissioners to prohibit a second single family dwelling in County approved subdivisions or platted
townsites. Most of the county approved subdivisions are about 10 acres or less; therefore it doesn't meet the
intent to start allowing second single family homes in these areas.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Section 23-4-610 as proposed by staff, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion
carried.
13
Commissioner Holton expressed concern over 23-4-895.F.4.A and 23-4-895.F.4.C in regard to placing non-
commercial towers in prime soils and floodplains. He felt that it was extreme to not allow a 40 foot tower in the
floodplain.
Mr. Benko commented that if a house is allowed in a floodplain than a tower should be allowed as well. A
tower does not damage soil.
Mr. Holton expressed desire to delete Section 23-4-895.F.4.A and amend F.4.C by deleting "100 year
Floodplains and".
Robert Grand moved to delete Section 23-4-895.F.4.A and amend F.4.C by deleting "100 year Floodplains
and", seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
(Nick Berryman left the meeting at 5:17 pm)
Mr. Parko indicated that a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners came up on a clarification with
the second single family home whether or not it should be restricted to stick-built or manufactured housing and
then prohibit mobile homes. The Planning Commission felt that the intent should be that the second single
family homes should be restricted to stick-built and manufactured homes and that the definitions already cover
this in the Weld County Code.
Mr. Parko addressed Section 21-4-420 and pointed out that arterial roadways are proposed to have multi-
modal features such as bicycle, mass transit and pedestrian modes.
Jason Maxey moved to include Section 21-4-420.B regarding multi-modal features,seconded by Roy Spitzer.
Motion carried.
Rob Sherwood, 32987 Hwy 14, commented that under 23-4-895.G.2 it lists that a copy of the approved and
valid Federal Communications Commission license is required. He added that since the non-commercial use
includes many things he doesn't understand the need for providing a copy of the amateur radio license.
Commissioner Spitzer recommended adding the language "if applicable" to the statement. Robert Grand
moved to amend Section 23-4-895.G.2 to read "A copy of the approved and valid Federal Communications
Commission license, if applicable", seconded by Alexander Zauder. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello