HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092068.tiffBEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Robert Grand, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 3RD AmUSR-1282
APPLICANT: John & Dorothy Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: 3r° AmUSR-1282- A Site Specific Development Plan and Third Amended 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 Livestock Confinement Operations ( a livestock feeding
operation for a total of 11,240 head of cattle including a dairy operation and 20
horses, an additional milk parlor, office/scale house, additional pens, and removing
the limit of 2,000 dairy cattle (out of the 11,240 head total) associated with the
operation amended to include a new stormwater pond and effluent storage, a new
sediment basin, commodity area and expansion of the compost area) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-499, Lot B of RE -3535, Lot A of AmRE-3535, and Lot A of RE -3705;
located in the NW4, the SW4NE4 and the N2SE4 of Section 1, T6N, R65W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 47 and South of and adjacent to CR 74.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Section 22-2-20A. A.Goal 1. states: "Respect and encourage the continuation of agricultural
land uses and agricultural operations for purposes which enhance the economic health and
sustainability of agriculture."
Section 22-2-20.8 A.Policy 2.3. states: "Encourage development of agriculture and
agriculturally related businesses and industries in underdeveloped areas where existing
resources can support a higher level of economic activity. Agricultural businesses and
industries include those related to ranching, confined animal production, farming, greenhouse
industries, landscape production and agri-tainment or agri-tourism uses."
This application is to address proposed changes (expansion of the composting area to the
south and east and the construction of an additional waste water pond) to an existing 11,240
head dairy operation.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A (Agricultural)
Zone District. Section 23-3-40 B.16 of the Weld County Code provides for livestock
confinement operations (dairies) as a Use by Special Review in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The site is agricultural in character with existing residences located in
close proximity to the east and south of the site. There are three existing residences located
within 500 -feet east of the site (across the Greeley No. 2 Canal), there is also an existing
residence located west of and adjacent to and across the street from the feed storage area
and composting area for the dairy. There is another existing residence located approximately
650 -feet from the edge of the new pond. Three (3) other residences are located
approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet to the south and southeast of the proposed expanded
2009-2068
Resolution 3rd AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 2
•
•
•
composting area and pond. The applicant is required to submit a Landscape and Screening
Plan demonstrating how they have mitigated the impact to the neighboring residences to the
south. This requirement is consistent with the requirements of the previous amendment (2n°
AMUSR-1282) which also permitted the applicant to expand the facility to the south and west.
The applicant will also be required to demonstrate that existing lighting on -site is downcast
and shielded in compliance with Section 23-2-250.D of the Weld County Code. The applicant
will be required to adhere to specific Development Standards imposed by the County as well
as Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations. This will ensure the facility is
operating in compliance with numerous conditions which would not be required for a facility
operating as a use -by -right. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure
that the operation is compatible with existing surrounding land uses.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The site is not located within the three-mile referral area of any municipalities.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 -- The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The majority of the site is
designated "Prime" with a portion of the site designated as "irrigated non -prime" according to
the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Map, dated 1979. The majority of the site is covered with
existing improvements related to the dairy.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
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.
The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. Each sheet of the plat shall be labeled 3rd AMUSR-1282. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a Landscape/Screening Plan to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval. The applicant shall place "plant material" or other
acceptable screening material to mitigate the impacts of the facility from adjacent properties
to the south and east of the site. Upon approval, the Landscape Plan shall be placed on the
plat.
This condition was approved for the previous amendment to this dairy facility (under 2n°
AMUSR-1282). (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution 3r° AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 3
•
•
•
C. A Lighting Plan, including cut sheets of the intended lights, shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The applicant shall demonstrate
that the existing lighting onsite complies with the lighting standards, in accordance with
Section 23-3-360.F and Section 23-2-250.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
D. There is an existing road system east of the concrete ditch this is being utilized for feed alley
access at many locations. The applicant shall work with the Weld County Department of
Public Works to minimize access points that are not crucial to the operation. Any access
points not required shall be removed and not be indicated on the plat. Written evidence of
such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public
Works)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the Galeton Fire Protection
District (Chief Tom Moore) as stated in their (undated) referral response. Evidence of such
shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Galeton Fire Protection District)
F. The applicant has not delineated any on -site sign(s). If on -site sign(s) are desired the signs
shall adhere to Article IV Division 2 of the Weld County Code as it related to signs in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District. Further, the location of the sign, if applicable shall be delineated
on the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall provide documentation, prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer, that all wastewater impoundments for the confined animal feeding operation
(CAFO) meet seepage rate standards of Colorado Water Quality Control Commission
Regulation 81. (Department of Public Health)
H. Provide evidence that a Standard Operating Procedure for sludge and manure removal
(cleaning of impoundments to maintain capacity) has been submitted for approval to the
Colorado Water Quality Control Division required by Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission Regulation Number 81. Written evidence of approval shall be provided to the
Departments of Planning Services and Health. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
Applicant must amend the Management Plan for Nuisance Control to include a specific
commitment to water and/or treat the internal haul roads for dust control. The applicant shall
commit to additional and ongoing efforts to minimize stormwater run-on from adjacent
property. Evidence of such shall be provided to the Departments of Public Health and
Environment and Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated
into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to
mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can be delineated on
the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all required materials
(landscaping/screening improvements). The agreement and form of collateral shall be
reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to
recording the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution 3rd AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 4
•
•
•
2. County Roads 47 and 74 are designated on the Weld County Road Classification
Plan as major arterial roads, which require 140 feet of right-of-way at full build out
(70 -feet from the centerline of County Road 47 and 74). A total of 70 -feet from the
centerlines of County Roads 47 and 74 shall be delineated on the plat as future
County Road 47 and 74 right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-
way and the documents creating the right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured
from the edge of future right-of-way. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it shall be
dedicated. These roads are maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public
Works)
3. The approved Lighting Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The approved Landscape/Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Any approved signs. (Department of Planning Services)
6. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall submit three (3) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat
and additional requirements shall be submitted within One Hundred Eighty (180) 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)
3. 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 dhuerter(o,co.weld.co.us (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to Release of Building Permits:
A. A building permit application must be completed and two complete sets of plans including
engineered foundation plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or
engineer must be submitted for review. A geotechnical engineering report performed by a
registered State of Colorado engineer shall be required. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. A plan review shall be approved and a permit must be issued prior to the start of
construction. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. A letter from the Galeton Fire District shall be provided to the Department of Building
Inspection indicating whether or not a Fire District permit is required. (Department of Building
Inspection)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Nick Berryman.
Resolution 3r° AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 5
•
•
•
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent Abstain
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Erich Ehrlich
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Doug Ochsner
Roy Spitzer
Tom Holton
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 August 4, 2009.
Dated the 4th of ,Au)gust, 2009.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(Johnson) JF Cattle
3rd AMUSR-1282
A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended 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 Livestock Confinement Operations (a livestock feeding operation
for a total of 11,240 head of cattle including a dairy operation and 20 horses, an additional milk parlor,
office/scale house, additional pens, and removing the limit of 2,000 dairy cattle (out of the 11,240
head total) associated with the operation amended to include a new pond for stormwater and effluent
storage, new sediment basin, commodity area and expansion of the compost area) 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. Historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
4. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County Roads. Utilize on -site parking.
(Department of Public Works)
•
•
5. The off-street parking spaces including access drive shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete
or the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. Each space shall be equipped
with wheel guards or curb stops where needed to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the
boundaries of the space and coming into contact with other vehicles, walls, fences, or plantings.
(Department of Public Works)
6. Employees shall utilize the existing parking locations adjacent to the existing milking parlors and scale
house area. (Department of Public Works)
7. Dust suppressant chemical shall be applied to County Road 47 no less than twice a year or more
often as determined by the Weld County Public Works Motor Grader Supervisor. (Department of
Public Works)
8. The operation shall be limited to a total of one -hundred (100) employees. (Department of Planning
Services)
9. Semi tractor -trailers picking up milk shall be limited to 15 per 24 -hour period and semi -trailer
commodity trucks (feed/compost) shall be limited to 15 per day from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
(Department of Planning Services)
10. The hours of operation in the milking parlors and related facilities will be 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. Equipment operations, trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities other than
emergencies will occur primarily during daylight hours as stated in the application. (Department of
Planning Services)
11. The facility shall operate in compliance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation
Number 81. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
12. The facility shall maintain CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit coverage and operate in compliance with
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 61. There shall be no discharge of
manure or process wastewater, except as provided in the facilities CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
Resolution 3rd AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 7
13. The facility shall comply with the Notice of Violation/Cease & Desist Order/Clean-up Order Number
CO -051014-1 (dated October 14, 2005) and any subsequent orders issued by the Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
14. Land application of manure and wastewater shall be made at agronomic rates using practices and
procedures, which are protective of ground and surface waters. Land applications shall be in
accordance with the facilities Manure and Wastewater Management Plan, Facility Management Plan,
or Nutrient Management Plan. There shall be no discharge from land application areas except for
agricultural stormwater. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
15. The facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner to prevent nuisance conditions.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
16. The facility shall control fugitive dust on this site and operate in accordance with their current
approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
17. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control pests. The facility shall be operated in
accordance, at all times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control.
Additional control measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment in the event that rodents (which can be determined to be associated
with the facility) are in such a number to be considered a nuisance condition. (Department of Public
Health & Environment)
•
•
18. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. The facility shall be operated in accordance,
at all times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. Additional fly control
measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment in the event that flies (which can be determined to be associated with the facility) are in
such a number to be considered a nuisance condition. Additional controls shall also be implemented
in the event the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment receives a significant
number of fly (associated with facility) complaints, and in the judgment of the Weld County Health
Officer, there exists a fly condition requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
19. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved nuisance control plan. Odors detected
off site shall not equal or exceed the level of fifteen -to -one dilution threshold, as measured using
methods set forth in Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. Additional
controls shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment in the event odor levels detected off site of the facility meet or exceed the level of fifteen -
to -one dilution threshold, or in the judgment of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor
condition requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
20. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a manner that
will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a
condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The surface beneath
the manure storage areas shall be of materials which are protective of State waters. These areas
shall be constructed to minimize seepage or percolation of manure contaminated water. In no event
shall the facility impact or degrade waters of the State in violation of Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission Regulation Number 81. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
21. An individual sewage disposal system (I.S.D.S.) is required for the proposed facility and must be
designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and in accordance with Weld County
Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. Any I.S.D.S. on the property shall be permitted, installed,
maintained and operated in compliance with Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
•
Resolution 3rd AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 8
22. The facility shall operate in compliance with applicable Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
Regulations. There shall be no open burning except "agricultural open burning" as defined by
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation 9. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
23. There shall be no permanent disposal of solid wastes, as defined in the Regulations Pertaining to
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2), at this site. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
24. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Light Industrial Zone
as delineated in Section 25-12-103 C.R.S, as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
25. Waste materials, not specifically addressed by other development standards, shall be handled,
stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential
nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
26. If required, a stormwater discharge permit shall be obtained from the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division for construction activities. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
27. Prior to use, provide certification by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer that the proposed
wastewater impoundment meets the liner seepage rate, separation from seasonal high groundwater,
and water well setback requirements for new open lot wastewater impoundments, found in Colorado
Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
28. The composting operation shall comply with Section 14 of the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste
Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
• 29. A building permit application must be completed and two complete sets of plans including engineered
foundation plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer must be
submitted for review. A geotechnical engineering report performed by a registered State of Colorado
engineer shall be required. (Department of Building Inspection)
30. A plan review shall be approved and a permit must be issued prior to the start of construction.
(Department of Building Inspection)
31. A letter from the Galeton Fire District shall be provided to the Department of Building Inspection
indicating whether or not a Fire District permit is required. (Department of Building Inspection)
32. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed site will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
33. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
34. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code, as amended.
35. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code, as amended.
• 36. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Livestock Confinement
Operation standards of Section 23-4-350 of the Weld County Code, as amended.
•
•
•
Resolution 3rd AmUSR-1282
John & Dorothy Johnson
Page 9
37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Livestock feeding
performance standards of Section 23-4-710 of the Weld County Code, as amended.
38. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code, as amended.
39. Personnel from the Weld County Departments of Public Health and Environment, Planning Services
and Public Works 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 Development Standards stated herein and all
applicable Weld County regulations.
40. The 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.
41. 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.
c;:.,'t% Ixce7
•
•
•
Traffic counts taken in February 2009 between County Roads 11 and 13 are 1077 ADT with 85th percentile
speed of 62 mph and truck traffic account for approximately 17% of the total ADT.
The applicant has indicated that the existing access will be utilized; therefore no offsite road improvements
or traffic studies were required with this unmanned site.
The site is not in a FEMA designated flood plain. The applicant has submitted a preliminary drainage
report which indicated that a detention pond is planned and staff is awaiting responses back to the
comments they submitted. The Colorado Geological Survey was consulted to determine if the site was in
a geologic hazard area and they have responded that there are no geological related hazards that would
preclude the development on this site.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation.
Mark Murray, Permitting and Land Rights Manager for Tri-State Generation and Transmission, 1100 W
116'" Av, Westminster CO 80234. Mr. Murray stated that Mr. Ogle did a very good job in explaining the
need for the substation. He added that he is available to answer questions.
Mr. Murray requested that Condition I on page 6 be changed to read that Ken Anderson has the authority,
rather than Mark Murray, to sign for Tri-State Generation and Transmission because he is the Executive
Vice President and General Manager.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval I as requested, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the 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 to approve Case USR-1702 along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
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, yes; Mark Lawley, ; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom
Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a recess at 2:15 pm and reconvened the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
Commission Holton recused himself from this next case because he has property very close to the site.
Vice Chair Lawley read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: 3R° AmUSR-1282
APPLICANT: John & Dorothy Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: 3r° AmUSR-1282- A Site Specific Development Plan and Third Amended 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 Livestock Confinement Operations ( a
livestock feeding operation for a total of 11,240 head of cattle including a dairy
operation and 20 horses, an additional milk parlor, office/scale house, additional
pens, and removing the limit of 2,000 dairy cattle (out of the 11,240 head total)
associated with the operation amended to include a new stormwater pond and
effluent storage, a new sediment basin, commodity area and expansion of the
compost area) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-499, Lot B of RE -3535, Lot A of AmRE-3535, and Lot A of RE -
3705; located in the NW4, the SW4NE4 and the N2SE4 of Section 1, T6N,
•
•
•
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 47 and South of and adjacent to CR 74.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this amendment addresses a new pond for stormwater and
effluent storage, new sediment basin, commodity area and expansion of the compost area beyond what
was approved under 2nd AmUSR-1282.
The site is located south of and adjacent to County Road 74 and east of and adjacent to County Road 47.
The site is agricultural in character with existing residences located in close proximity to the east and
south of the site. There are three existing residences located within 500 -feet east of the site (across the
Greeley No. 2 Canal), there is also an existing residence located west of and adjacent to the feed storage
area and composting area for the dairy. There is another existing residence located approximately 650
feet from the edge of the new pond. Three (3) other residences are located approximately 1,000 to 1,200
feet to the south and southeast of the proposed expanded composting area and pond. Properties to the
north consist of cropland and an existing feedlot (Booth feedlot).
This proposed third amended USR application is to address changes to the Johnson Dairy facility since
2n° AMUSR-1282 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in December of 2006. Under this
proposal the applicant is proposing to expand the composting area approximately 700 feet to the south
and approximately 1,000 feet to the southeast of the previously approved composting/manure storage
area. The applicant is also proposing to add a 1,150 x 300 foot pond and sediment basin to increase
stormwater/effluent storage on site. The applicant has also purchased an adjacent property along the
southwestern border of the existing USR and is incorporating this into the boundaries of this third
amended USR. This will increase the area of the USR by approximately 11 acres beyond the last
approved amendment.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case. Seven referral agencies responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. Four
referral agencies responded with no comments or concerns and two referral agencies (Division of Wildlife
& Division of Water Resources) did not respond to the referral request.
Two e -mails of opposition were received from a neighboring property owner (Debbie Warehime) on July 2,
2009 and July 30, 2009. The major concern expressed was that the application addressed expansions to
the dairy that have already occurred after the god Amended USR was approved in December 2006.
In 2007 there was discussion between the applicants and Weld County Planning regarding the expansion
of the composting area. There was a lot of debate with staff on whether or not this was a substantial
change to the USR. At this time, the pond facility was not on site; therefore it was not an issue of
discussion. After a lot of discussion, also involving the County Attorney, the Department of Planning
Services did determine that expanding the composting area to the south and east of that area, even
though it is within the boundaries of the USR, would be considered to be a substantial change and would
require an amended USR.
The applicant's representative did have a meeting with the Department of Planning Services in the spring
of 2008. At that time, the applicant was proposing to do a further expansion of the dairy facility to
potentially have additional cattle up to 18,000 head as well as possibly putting in a digester facility which
would potentially reduce the amount of composting needed to be stored on site. That application never
occurred.
In summer 2008 a preliminary application was submitted to the Department of Planning Services
Staff proposing essentially the same amendments that are shown here. Staff did a completeness
review and provided comments back to the applicant. Staff received an application on April 1,
2009 similar to the application initially reviewed by staff in summer of 2008.
The number of cattle associated with this operation has not increased. Neither have the number of
employees associated with this dairy operation. The number of employees will remain at 100 employees.
8
•
•
•
Mr. Gathman handed out a letter from Petro -Canada. There is a letter of response from the applicant
where they attempt to address the issues brought up by Petro -Canada in regard to their existing wellheads
on the site.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring a landscaping/screening plan to mitigate the impacts of
the encroachment of the dairy operation on properties to the south and east as a condition of approval.
Additionally, a lighting plan is required as a condition of approval to verify that the lighting on -site is
downcast and shielded.
These standards and conditions of approval are consistent with the standards and conditions placed on
this operation under 2n° AMUSR-1282.
The applicant will be required to adhere to specific Development Standards imposed by the county as well
as Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulations. This will 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.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has determined that the Special Use Permit,
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will make the proposal consistent with the Weld
County Code and recommends approval of this application.
Commissioner Berryman asked what the basis of the objections were for this application. Mr. Gathman said
that the primary objection is that this application is addressing expansions to the site that have already
occurred.
Commissioner Hall stated that the there are three parcels to the south and asked to clarify if they are taking
one or all three. Mr. Gathman said that one parcel will be incorporated into the boundary which consists of 11
acres.
Commissioner Grand said it gives them additional acreage but clarified that the pond and composting area are
in the original USR. Mr. Gathman said that they are within the original boundary of the USR; they were just not
shown on the second amended USR Plat. Mr. Grand asked if these were contemplated. Mr. Gathman said it
wasn't shown on the plat and at the time of the hearing if it was contemplated it wasn't made very clear that
that was the intent.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, stated that right now the discharge permit issued by CDPHE is suspended.
He added that the applicant is on a compliance schedule right now that has some deadlines in October and
one of those deadlines includes the constructing and lining of the pond. Mr. Swain said that one of the
requirements included in this USR is that they maintain permit coverage.
In July 2008 Mr. Swain went out to the site in response to a complaint and also took State Health Department
staff with him. The complaint was that the pond was receiving wastewater and there was some debate of
whether or not it was. As a result, the sample from the pond was something that they didn't want to have in
contact with groundwater; therefore staff has been working in conjunction with the State and the applicant
trying to get this pond built. As Mr. Gathman stated, there were a bunch of false starts with amendments to
the application but hopefully with where we are at now this is approved and the applicant will get the pond
completed and get the permit coverage back.
Mr. Swain noted some discharge complaints, pond complaints and nuisance complaints. He added that an Air
Quality Specialist has been out there a lot on nights and weekends making odor observations. There is an
odor standard that is in the development standards for the facility. He added that there are no State rules on
odor or dust or any kind of air emissions from agricultural operations. These standards are addressed in
Development Standards 15-19.
Mr. Swain said that up until now the runoff from the composting area was controlled by berms. The applicant
has had some difficulty with the berms and some difficulty with run-on water. Typically, the run-on water is
diverted so you don't have to deal with it. However, due to the way the drainage is out there and the capacity
of the ditches there is some difficulty controlling run-on. Therefore it looks like the pond will help them with
controlling the run-on.
9
•
•
Commissioner Lawley asked if the sediment basin is pumped out and applied to the fields. Mr. Swain said
that the sediment basin is used to settle the solids to keep the solids out of the pond.
Don Dunker, Public Works, commented that County Roads 74 and 47 are both classified as strategic
roadways which require 140 foot of right-of-way at full build -out. Presently there is 60 feet. The most recent
traffic counts taken in 2006 indicate that there is 160 ADT on County Road 47 and 1300 ADT on County Road
74.
There is one access from County Road 74 and several accesses from County Road 47. The applicants shall
work with Public Works to minimize the access points to the site. There are approximately 12 accesses from
County Road 47. There shall be no staging of vehicles on county roadways. The onsite parking spaces and
drives shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete or equivalent. Each space shall be equipped with wheel
guards or curb stop blocks next to buildings, other vehicles, walls, fences and plantings.
The additional semi -tractor traffic and employees trigger the existing proposed traffic count to exceed 200
vehicles per day threshold which will require dust suppression on County Road 47. Per the second amended
USR the dust abatement program was to dust abate County Road 47 adjacent to the USR boundary.
The site is not located within a FEMA regulated 100 -year floodplain.
According to the applicant, there will be about 60 trips of semi -tractors and 140 daily trips of passenger
pickups and cars. There are 100 employees over three shifts. There will be additional traffic during silage
cutting season and rendering on the as needed basis.
The applicant was asked to make a presentation.
Tom Haren, AgProfessionals, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont, CO. Mr. Haren stated that Johnson Dairy is
requesting to amend their current permit for this property to include a stormwater pond, the expansion of the
composting area and relocation of the feed area.
The dairy is located approximately 4 miles east of the Town of Eaton. There is substantial livestock production
in the area.
The total number of cattle remains the same since 2002. The amount of manure and intensity of the operation
are not changing with this application. For safety reasons and as a condition from the previous permit the
applicant was asked to limit as many accesses as possible. They recognized this as well as county staff that
the access on County Road 74 for the feed area was potentially a dangerous access and was therefore
relocated to County Road 47 and the feed area was relocated to the southwest corner.
New State and Federal Law required changes to the stormwater containment requirements. Mr. Haren
pointed out that the property to the west of the facility drains onto this site and according to the rules they have
to either divert it or catch it.
There is no additional manure proposed on site under this amendment. They are requesting the use of an
additional compost area to further improve the activities. The composting piles are shorter and more spread
out than the original layout. It is operated by a third party composter (A-1 Organics) and complies with Section
14 of the Solid Waste Regulations.
The commodity area was relocated from the northeast corner to the southwest corner in conjunction with
some of the things that they were working on with Weld County and limiting the accesses. The commodity
area has the same footprint and handles the same amount of feed.
The access to Johnson Dairy is primarily from County Road 47. Johnson Dairy has entered into a Road
Maintenance and Improvements Agreement with Public Works for the dust supprecent.
As a condition of approval on all the previous applications, as well as this one, lighting is shielded and directed
down toward the facility.
10
•
Mr. Haren pointed out Development Standard #40 which states that substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment and that any other
changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. He said that it is not uncommon at
all that they have minor amendments to these USRs and in and among themselves the feed area or the
lagoon or the compost area probably would have been a minor amendment. He added that they applied for an
amendment to the Special Use Permit in August of 2008 to make some substantial changes to the facility to
put an energy project on the site. The project was an anaerobic digester from a third party company. On
January 8, 2009 Johnson Dairy filed for financial protection. They then met with the County and withdrew the
application to remove the energy project. It was decided among staff, and the applicant concurred, that the
application proceed with these minor amendments.
Commissioner Hall asked if the lighting plan is to keep more of the lighting on site than what it currently is. Mr.
Haren commented that in lighting you don't want it to be directed on someone else's property. That does not
mean that there won't be light visible from someone else's property or light that reaches someone else's
property. But in the conditions of approval and development standards and in the landscape/lighting plan that
they submitted these lights are shielded and are directed internally to the property. Occassionally, wind storms
knock them out of alignment and they need readjustment; however that is included in the plan which was
submitted. Mr. Hall commented that he lives in the area and noted that it is visible 4 miles away.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Doug Selby, 23605 CR 70, wished to express his opposition to the approval of this expansion based on their
quality of life issues. He lives approximately one (1) mile from Johnson Dairy. He is a senior water holder in
the McKelvey Seep Ditch which runs directly by Johnson's Dairy and he has experienced the runoff. He has a
small herd of cattle and they drink from the ditch when they can. He expressed that he thought approval was
needed before doing something but this is kind of the cart ahead of the horse.
Mr. Selby is concerned that the further south the Dairy comes the more odor they can smell and the more flies
they have and more of the dust. He referred to the comment of the lighting being cut and added that he can
see the Johnson Dairy from the Kersey cutoff which is quite a few miles away.
Mr. Selby's wife and teen boys do not take County Road 47 because there is traffic stopped and it is treated
like a parking lot sometimes. He is a country guy and sees conversations in the middle of the road but this is
consistently how this road is used. His opposition is based on quality of life issues and his concerns with what
ends up in his ditch and his water.
John Connell, 23465 CR 72, stated that he has been a resident in the neighborhood for 6 years. There was a
small feedlot on the corner seven years ago when they moved in but over time the site has increased in
quantity. The small dairy went in first and they were milking 70 head at the time with 35 on each side and now
they have the largest dairy in the state. All of this came about simply by encroachment and this is what has
bothered him so much. Again, the work has been done but has not been approved. He asked if they can
expect that to continue on.
Mr. Connell said that as it continues to encroach upon his property he continues to become more concerned
about the issues at hand with the dust, flies, odor, etc. He feels as though he has been na�ve and hasn't
addressed these in the past as he should have. He also expressed that he doesn't know that he has been
informed enough because he is 1000 feet away from the property.
Mr. Connell asked that the Planning Commissioners learn as much as they can about this entire operation.
He stated that there are many things that are very commendable with the Johnson Dairy and the way the
operation has ensued. He said that he has talked to John about some of these issues as well. The lighting at
the moment has subdued. It has been turned down and makes him wonder why it was just done in the past 6
weeks. He urged them to get deep into these issues because there are many legal items that need to be
addressed.
Dr. Eileen Connell, 23465 CR 72. Mrs. Connell commented that that according to the map it shows the
boundary of the USR but his fence extends further south. A lot of things said today were frightening because
there were a lot of mistruths in them. She indicated that there are some tiny trees on the southern property
11
•
•
line and along the eastern boundary but she cannot see them.
Mrs. Connell echoed the previous comments with regard to quality of life. She has never had issues with her
sinuses until the last few years. She has been so sick and can't breathe because the stench is so bad. They
have called Phil Brewer several times and she asked him how he measures this odor and he indicated by
pointing to his nose. That is not a scientific measurement to her. The flies are excessive and seem to be
mutating because they have the oddest looking bugs.
Mrs. Connell commented that with regard to the lights, their bedroom was in the back of the house and they
have had to move it to the front of the house because it was daylight in their house. She stated that ifs not
just the ambient light that travels because there are lights; the lights do not have shields and are pointed
straight out and not down.
Mrs. Connell stated that the holding ponds are full all the time. She indicated that when it does rain it goes
down Johnson Dairy because it is sloped, which is true, but to blame it all on the field across the street is not
exactly accurate.
Mrs. Connell indicated that when the wind blows you cannot see outside. They are not looking to sell their
home but the chances of ever selling their home now is just very difficult.
Mrs. Connell urged the Planning Commissioners to take great consideration on their quality of life.
Debbie Warehime, 23523 CR 72, has lived in the neighborhood for 23 years. She said that she is an
agricultural person and doesn't have trouble with odor but has trouble with people not following the rules.
In 2006 when the Dairy requested a second expansion she addressed her concerns before the Planning
Commission and County Commissioners which included environmental violations, noxious odors, dust,
manure blow off, poor management that would affect their lives and she was dismissed at that time. All of her
worries were condensed into an odor issue.
It has been 2 % years since that expansion and all of their concerns and a lot more have come to light. Now
they are requesting an expansion which was done over one (1) year ago. That expansion which is being
asked to be approved has adversely affected them even more. The blow off from that area into their homes is
so disgusting.
When the 2006 expansion was approved there were over 40 conditions that the Dairy was supposed to have
met. They have not met most of those conditions and are being reiterated into the approval for this new
expansion which has already happened. Ms. Warehime asked when these conditions that are required for
them to operate will be met.
Ms. Warehime expressed that they don't make provisions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood. There is no screen to mitigate the dust. She indicated that there was a hay berm which was
great but now they have taken it down. She added that there are small trees spaced 6 foot apart which do
nothing to mitigate the dust.
Ms. Warehime stated that the lighting, until a few weeks ago, was invasive and obnoxious. They assumed
that they turned them off for economic reasons and added that this is the first time that they have seen stars in
2 % years.
She stated that the number of accesses to the property were not reduced but simply fenced with open gates.
The employees have no regard for traffic.
She is an agricultural person and expects flies, dust, and odors but she also expects to have a good quality of
life that is controlled.
Ms. Warehime stated that they have been cited numerous times for different environmental concerns. The
delays on solving those violations are 2 to 3 years out. They are constantly monitoring their creek and knows
that there have been further violations but because they don't have the resources and is aware that the County
12
•
•
doesn't have the resources to continually test those waters they can't prove anything but everyone knows that
it is happening. She has lost animals from secondary infections from the runoff that they have had.
Ms. Warehime said that this pond was completed in May 2008. She contacted the Environmental Health
Department and the Planning Department in both July and August of 2008 and reported what was going on.
The original holding pond was being piped into the new pond at that time and she indicated that she has
photographs of that. She expressed that the point is that all of this is not new and has been done now for a
year. She further asked where the county was when all of this was happening.
Ms. Warehime recognized that the county staff has tried to respond but they are too far away and it takes too
long and they cannot monitor the odor at the exact time when it is at its worst and they understand that. They
could file complaints daily but that is pointless. The biggest problem is that the Dairy has been operating
without complying with conditions that were set forth by the County Commissioners. She is asking that these
referral agencies reevaluate these facts and investigate what is really going on. Ms. Warehime stated that
their biggest concern now is the financial status of Dairy. She indicated that there are acres and acres of
manure and the ponds are at max. There is some real impact and if this Dairy goes out of business what
happens with all that, are they all left with that to have sediment and waste. She urged the Planning
Commission to consider what will happen in the future to the neighborhood and that land.
Tom Karlberg, 36037 CR 49, stated that Weld County is a right to farm county and agriculture is important.
The Dairy industry is important to Weld County. He said that there are issues that the County hasn't
addressed. He asked why truck traffic is restricted. He mentioned that there are restrictions on the Dairy on
the truck traffic instead of addressing the problem which is that there is not an adequate road system there.
He asked why not have the County step up and put in turn lanes and places for acceleration lanes and make it
safe. He expressed that safety is an issue and added that there was one fatality which already occurred at
this location.
Mr. Karlberg commented that he likes the Johnson family and wishes them success. He said that the
representative was doing a good job until he started talking about lighting and then he lost his credibility. In
recent weeks the lighting has been off but it has not been addressed.
Mr. Karlberg stated that if the Dairy needs the employees to manage the ground why is the County limiting
them to 100 employees.
Mike Faulkner, 6271 37th Street, has a dairy east of the site. He said that John Johnson has been a long time
friend and he is trying to do things right. With regard to the lagoons being full, he reminded the group that this
has been a record year of rainfall. On his operation he has a similar situation to the Johnson Dairy and he has
had to dewater three or four times this year. In many years, evaporation will take care of it. He added that
with regard to dust from the compost he doesn't know what rules have been set up to mitigate that but it is an
unusual year in not being able to get rid of the manure because the fields are also wet and you can't get it
back on the fields either.
Commissioner Hall asked what he is doing for dust mitigation. Mr. Faulkner said that they have a different
operation on that side of it because most of his cows are housed in a free stall barn so the manure is in a
liquid form for a great deal of it. He doesn't believe that the Johnson Dairy has that availability.
(Cyndy Giauque replaced Bruce Barker)
Mr. Haren mentioned that there was a comment of a 70 head dairy. He stated that it was actually a 2000 head
dairy on a 11,000 head feedlot. It was amended to include the dairy on June 25, 2003. It was a double 35
parlor but milked 2000 of the 11,000 head. On a facility such as this they have been in constant contact with
the Planning and Health Department and to some extent Public Works on all of the activities, conditions of
approval, reviews, site inspections, etc. because this is somewhat of a high profile facility. He said that as far
as encroachment this is no expansion of the USR boundary. He added that there have been no expansions of
the USR boundary outside of the permit process.
Mr. Haren said that they monitor a lot of facilities across the state and he finds that Weld County is probably
one of the most aggressive counties that they deal with. Out of the 30 complaints, which he has found on
13
•
record, three came up with detection and none found violations for odor, dust or flies. Mr. Haren pointed out
that the method for detecting odor is syntometry. He added that an individual has to actually go to school and
be trained and not everybody qualifies.
Mr. Haren indicated that several of the accesses are also for oil and gas or easements owned by other people.
The change in lighting which was mentioned was done in February in response from county staff. If there is
anything out there with the lights that need to be redirected or maintained they will take care of that. He noted
that he can see the lights from the racetrack in Erie or from the ballpark in Denver miles before you reach
them. He said that that those lights are directed inward of the stadium, but you can see a bright light from a
long distance. They are willing to continue to address that issue and work with staff to see what can be done.
Mr. Haren stated that there was a violation which was corrected and settled with the State in 2003 or 2004.
Out of frustration of trying to solve it many other ways, Mr. Johnson said that he will put a lagoon in to catch
the stormwater and then that will solve the issue. He added that there is a plan with the Department of Public
Health and Environment for this and a schedule in which they have met to date.
Commissioner Grand said that it is difficult to monitor driving skills, ability and procedures of the employees
and asked if there is a formal process that tells people what they can and should do to have access to the
facility and a process that says if you don't do that then there are penalties involved. Mr. Haren said that they
have had looked at ways of strengthening that not only with signage but in the contracts especially with the
third parties. He added that they can also do that with employees that if they do not follow the rules as far as
driving, access, speeds, or trash that there are repercussions of that. Mr. Haren stated that they have tried to
address some of the safety issues through design and fencing but if they could address it more through that
idea then they could look at incorporating something along those lines.
Commissioner Berryman said that there was an assertion made that there may have been some ditch
contamination and would like to have a response to that. Mr. Haren commented that there was an issue
where he had met Mr. Swain on site and they took split samples and analyzed them. They analyzed both the
irrigation water that was coming onto the property and the water in the stormwater pond and the irrigation
water was considerably dirtier and more contaminated and the water in the stormwater pond. He stated that
there are some issues with offsite water and he feels that they have been addressing those.
Mr. Swain confirmed that there was a parameter which was worse in the irrigation water but regardless of what
was in the pond staff felt that it shouldn't be in contact with the groundwater and that is why the ponds are
lined. Mr. Swain stated that something happened in July of 2007 where there might have been a berm breach.
There was no citation for that issue. Mr. Swain added that there was a settlement for the 2005 violation which
was a discharge to the waters of the US.
Commissioner Berryman asked staff if they are sufficiently assured that contamination won't be occurring with
the development standards in place. Mr. Swain commented that at any time the residents feels that the facility •
is discharging wastewater they need to call our department and staff will go out to inspect and take samples
as soon as possible.
Commissioner Berryman referred to the comment of acceleration and deceleration lanes on County Road 74
and asked staff's opinion on making these improvements. Mr. Dunker said that accel/decel lanes would not
be required on County Road 74 because of the number of trips for the facility and because the actual access
is off of County Road 47. He added that County Road 47 is a gravel road at this time; however it will
eventually be a strategic corridor at which time it will be paved but that is many years in the future. According
to the County Code, traffic counts are taken on roadways every three years. We have about 1500 miles of
segments which are split up in those three years to come up with the current data.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if this boundary for this third amendment is the same as the second amendment
back in 2006. Mr. Haren said yes and reiterated that this is not a request for a change in the boundaries of the
USR.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked why the berms were removed. Mr. Haren said that the berm was used to
redirect stormwater not for screening. That berm was removed because the run-on water that kept coming
14
•
•
onto the facility, which they were trying to control, blew out in 2007. The blow out resulted from a storm even
that exceed the 25-year/24-hour storm event. This was a concern with them as well as staff and the State
Health Department and that is why they said if they can't control it they will catch it. Therefore that is the
purpose of the big pond.
Mr. Haren indicated that Mr. Johnson has tried to place hay bales on the southern side of the property but that
inventory goes up and down. He added that there is an Improvements Agreement that was signed with the
County Attorney for all of the onsite and offsite improvements. Commissioner Ehrlich asked what the timeline
of that agreement is. Mr. Haren said that everything in that agreement that was required according to the
landscape plan has been put in place. Mr. Gathman said that the landscape and the trees are in as proposed
under 2nd AmUSR-1282. The landscaping has been placed on site and there is fencing.
Commissioner Lawley asked if all of the conditions of approval have been met from the last amendment of this
USR. Mr. Gathman said yes. Mr. Haren added that one of the conditions of approval was a Confined Animal
Feeding Operation Permit from the State Health Department which was obtained. The permit has been
suspended not revoked. Since the site has been changing the State has had to suspend it until those site
improvements are complete and certified and the permit reissued. Mr. Haren requested that in the conditions
of approval that the timeline given for recording the plat be changed from 60 days to 180 days to match the
State timeline.
Commissioner Hall referred to the height reduction of the berms and asked if there is any possibility of putting
cornstalk bales or something for screening until the trees get to a height to help restrict flow of material. Mr.
Haren said that the physical barrier is important and that with the exception of inventory going up and down
that it is a practice that they should continue. Composting requires a certain amount of moisture to be done
effectively and he has made notes to look at the composting and talk with A-1 Organics about their moisture
mixture and also to look at their plans with the State Health Department for Regulation 14. Between those
things he believes that they can tackle the concern of the neighbors.
Commissioner Hall agreed that there has been a tremendous amount of runoff and asked staff if they feel the
new changes with the pond are adequate to take care of this. Mr. Swain said that they have received a trial
pond of what the expected dimensions are in capacity and as mentioned before it is difficult to get a handle on
run-on but this pond should be able to handle it.
Mr. Ehrlich asked staff to elaborate on the number of employees. Mr. Gathman said that staff looks at the
number of employees for the amount of traffic impacting the county road as well as design parameters for
septic systems.
Commissioner Ehrlich referred to Development Standard 13 and asked if the Cease & Desist Order in October
2005 was still ongoing or if it has been resolved. Mr. Swain said that this standard was a carry-over from the
last amendment because it wasn't settled at the time of the last hearing. They were still negotiating a
settlement and that 2005 discharge was settled in October 2007. At the time of the hearing for the second
amendment they didn't have a settlement agreement so that's why it was included. Mr. Haren stated that the
Cease & Desist Order has been complied with and closed and that is a carry-over from the previous hearing.
Mr. Ehrlich said that he brought it up for Ms. Warehime's concern.
Erich Ehrlich moved to amend Condition of Approval 2 from 60 days to 180 days as requested, seconded by
Robert Grand. Motion carried.
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.
Mr. Gathman wished to clarify that there is a condition of approval that the applicant must submit an updated
landscaping plan because there have been some changes on site. The composing area has moved closer to
neighboring areas and there is no berm separation as originally proposed under 2n° AmUSR-1282.
Robert Grand moved that Case 3r° AmUSR-1282 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 Nick Berryman.
15
•
I
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, yes; Mark Lawley,
yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, abstain; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grand commented that originally having read Ms. Warehime's note he was concerned with
the increased utilization of the USR but he is now fairly convinced between staff and the presentation of
the historical background that it is not an expansion but actually a cleaning up and improvement kind of
effort. He stated that we have always promulgated a good neighbors policy and suggested that everyone
work together.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Section 22-2-20.A Goal 1 which talks about economic health. He said that he
felt that it was a good dialogue today by the citizens of the county. The biggest issue is that we all need to
play by the rules and there were probably some gaps and some communication that wasn't done very
well. Obviously this is an ongoing task and this board has to look at the existing application at hand. He
encouraged the citizens as well as the applicant and county to take a step forward and get this all cleaned
up so that everyone can abide by that section of the code.
Commissioner Lawley echoed Mr. Ehrlich's comments.
Mr. Gathman announced that this case will be heard August 19, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. before the Board of
County Commissioners.
Tom Holton resumed the Chair position.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
16
7-7-,2007
•
dyyti-
?Ay/-i
•
•
VELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
ty Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
18 101h Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
ABSENT
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Brad Mueller, and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning
Services; Don Carroll, Don Dunker, and Janet Carter, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department
of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the June 2, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Bill Hall. Motion carried.
O
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1694
APPLICANT: Keith Thoene
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (storage of construction materials -
steel doors and frames) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE -3050 being part of E2 NE4 in Section 25, Ti N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 49 and south of and adjacent to CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting that this case be continued to the
October 6, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant is requesting to have this case continued to
allow him the time to finish the construction of his home on the property. He is currently in violation; however
he has removed all items from his property and understands that he cannot store or operate any commercial
business activity on the site until his USR is approved and recorded.
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 that Case USR-1694 be continued to the October 6, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
CASE NUMBER: 3R° AmUSR-1282
APPLICANT: John & Dorothy Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: 3" AmUSR-1282- A Site Specific Development Plan and Third Amended 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 Livestock Confinement Operations ( a
livestock feeding operation for a total of 11,240 head of cattle including a dairy
operation and 20 horses, an additional milk parlor, office/scale house, additional
1
7-.2O-,Q<<l
pens, and removing the limit of 2,000 dairy cattle (out of the 11,240 head total)
associated with the operation amended to include a new stormwater pond and
effluent storage, a new sediment basin, commodity area and expansion of the
compost area) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-499, Lot B of RE -3535, Lot A of AmRE-3535, and Lot A of RE -
3705; located in the NW4, the SW4NE4 and the N2SE4 of Section 1, T6N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 47 and South of and adjacent to CR 74.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, requested a continuance of this case to the August 4, 2009 Planning
Commission hearing to address newspaper notification. He added that staff submitted an amended legal
notice however it did not get published in the paper. In order to meet notification requirements, staff is
requesting a continuance until August 4, 2009.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case 3r° AmUSR-1282 be continued to the August 4, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Tom Holton.
Bill Hall stated that he is an acquaintance with the applicants for USR-1701 but feels that he can make a fair
judgment in their case. In addition, he has been friends with the applicants for a number of years for USR-
1651 and feels that he can make an impartial judgment with this case as well.
Robert Grand disclosed that he has a business relationship will Mr. Balderas and added that he has no
interest in this piece of property. He stated that he feels that he can make a fair recommendation with regard
to this case.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners or any members of the public if they feel that these two
Commissioners could not make a fair judgment in any of these cases. There was no comment.
The Chair read the first case on the consent agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1696
APPLICANT: Manuel & Anita Balderas
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (auto sales, salvage, services, and
repair) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE -2012 being part of E2 NE4 being in Section 30, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to State Highway 85 and approximately 1/8 mile south of
CR 18.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, commented that staff is in support of this application remaining on
the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicants indicated
yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish for this case to be heard. No one wished to
speak.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1701
APPLICANT: Hadley Barrett & Lee Brenner -Barrett
2
Hello