HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092283.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
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
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker,
Clay Kimmi, and Janet Carter, Department of Public Works; Troy Swain and Lauren Light, Department of
Health; Bruce Barker, and Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the July 7, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair opened up the nominations for Chair of the Planning Commission. Erich Ehrlich nominated Tom
Holton for Chair, seconded by Robert Grand. Mr. Holton accepted the position.
Erich Ehrlich nominated Mark Lawley for Vice -Chair, seconded by Nick Berryman. Mr. Lawley accepted the
nomination as Vice -Chair.
The Chair read the first case into the record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR-1683
Highland Ditch Company
Michelle Martin/Kim Ogle
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
Expansion of a Non -conforming use (water ski club) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
Highland Reservoir #1 being part of Section 22, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
Approximately 700 feet south of CR 32 and approximately 1,200 feet east of CR
7.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicants in their email dated July 27, 2009 and letter
dated July 28, 2009 are requesting an indefinite continuance until legal matters have been resolved.
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 USR-1683 be continued indefinitely, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion
carried.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1699
APPLICANT: Dennis & Denise Coyne
PLANNER: Michelle Martin/Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
t'e Du. Ylwl l till., 3 C/2&/L
1
2009-2283
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (dog agility and dog obedience training
for 35 dogs) and a Kennel for five (5) dogs in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot A of RE -1796 being part of the W2 of Section 27, T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to CR 19 and south of CR 18.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that she has spoken with the applicants and they wish for this
item to remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR-1698
Matthew & Kristina Green
Kim Ogle
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a child
care center (daycare up to 12 children) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot A RE -3524 located in Part of the SW4 of Section 16, T6N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and approximately % miles east of
CR 29.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicants wish for this case to remain on the consent agenda.
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 approve the Consent Agenda which includes cases USR-1698 and USR-1699 and
that they 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 Bill Hall.
Motion carried.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR-1691
Marcos Sanchez
Chris Gathman
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (recreational vehicle storage) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Part NW4SW4 of Section 23, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
East of and adjacent to CR 35 and approximately 1/2 mile south of State Hwy 34.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this application is for a recreational vehicle storage ranging
from small boats and trailers to larger RVs.
The storage area is located in the eastern half of the parcel. The proposed keyed/gated entry to the site would
allow for 24 hour availability for customer access. An on -site manager will be on the property and will be
staying in the existing single family residence.
The site is currently in violation (ZCV-08-00223). If this Use by Special Review application is approved
and the plat is recorded the property will be in compliance. If approved, this will correct the violation. If
denied, the violation case will proceed accordingly through a violation hearing and possibly district court.
The use borders two residential subdivisions located within the City of Greeley and the City of Evans to the
north and to the east. A vacant parcel is located immediately to the north of the site and single-family
residences are located immediately to the east of the site. A single-family residence is located across 47'"
Avenue. Two existing Use by Special Review Permits for storage of recreational vehicles and a daycare
2
facility (approved under USR-988 in 1993) and a kennel facility (approved under USR-1080 in 1995) are
located on the two properties immediately to the south of the site.
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure compatibility with existing surrounding
land uses. Attached conditions of approval require landscaping and screening of the storage area along
with a lighting plan to verify and ensure that impacts upon adjacent properties due to lighting are mitigated.
Eleven referrals were sent out. Eleven Referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or are
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The applicant has indicated that they have an existing City of Greeley water tap which serves the existing
residence on the property along with a domestic well. The Division of Water Resources has indicated that
they can find no record of a well permit and that expansion of use of any well located on the property
would typically require an augmentation plan to be submitted and approved.
No letters from surrounding property owners were received. One phone message was left regarding
questions on the details of the proposal, however no return phone number was provided in the message.
This site is located within the urban growth boundary of the City of Greeley and the City of Evans. The City
of Greeley, in their referral received March 11, 2009, stated that the subject site is located within the City
of Evans Long Term Growth Area and that any development should be completed within the City of
Evans, or constructed in accordance with the City of Evan's development standards. The City of Greeley
also requested additional information regarding the retention pond, the number of daily trips and the
maximum number of RVs to be stored on site.
The City of Evans, in their referral received March 31, 2009, indicated the proper method for the
development of the property was through annexation to the City of Evans and approval of a Use by
Special Review by the City of Evans. The City of Evans requested the following conditions should this
proposal be approved: 1) provide a 10 -foot landscaped buffer along the eastern property line to screen
from the existing residential subdivision to the east consisting of one (1) tree and five (5) shrubs per 500
square feet of area plus groundcover; 2) Provide and maintain a 6 -foot high privacy fence along the east
property line; and 3) Connect to City of Evans sewer. A subsequent e-mail from the City of Evans received
April 30, 2009 stated that the site is located 150 feet from the nearest sewer connection. It is a policy of
the Weld County Environmental Health Department to require connection to public sewer if a septic
system needs to be upgraded, replaced, or a new system installed. Because of the location of the parcel
bordered by the City of Greeley and City of Evans on two sides and the fact that the City of Evans has also
annexed the right-of-way for 471h Avenue adjacent to this site, the Department of Planning Services has
attached a condition of approval requiring the applicant to address the requirements and requests of the
City of Greeley and City of Evans.
Mr. Gathman commented that Lauren Light passed out a memo and map which outlines the sewer issue
as this is a similar case to the last hearing.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that potable water to the site will be from a commercial well if
they re -permit it or from the City of Greeley. She added that it states in the conditions of approval prior to
recording the plat, the applicant needs to provide proof of what they will use for the commercial aspect of
the business.
Ms. Light stated that there will not be a RV wash site or dump site. Staff is requesting a Dust Abatement
and Waste Handling Plan.
There is an existing septic system for the house located on the property. This system was sized for two
bedrooms or four people; therefore if they use that septic system an engineer will need to evaluate it for
the employees and customers coming to the site.
The memo which was handed out is similar to what happened at the last hearing in July. The map
attached is from the City of Evans and the red lines indicate how far the sewer line is from the property
line. The map shows that it is 150 feet from the property line, but from the structure on the property it is
3
over 400 feet. Ms. Light added that she attached to the memo the Weld County Regulations regarding the
400 foot rule as well as the State Regulations. Ms. Light deferred to the County Attorney for any further
guidance.
Commissioner Holton commented that at the last meeting the Planning Commissioners determined that
the distance is measured from the structure and not the property line.
Don Dunker, Public Works, commented that County Road 33 or 47th Avenue is designated as an arterial
roadway. The City of Greeley is identifying it as 130 foot of right-of-way and it appears that the City of
Evans has a similar requirement. The County does not have any current traffic counts on the roadway
since the City of Evans and Greeley have annexed all the roadways around the site.
Access is off of County Road 33 or 47th Avenue. The applicant will make improvements to the access by
extending the culvert under the drive and increasing the width and radii. The County's minimum turning
radius for these types of vehicles is 40 feet. The applicant will need to demonstrate the turning radii are
adequate in their design. The applicant shall show the parking layout for the RV, boat and trailer parking
and indicate the traffic onsite circulation.
A water quality capture feature is proposed at the southeast corner of the property. This site is not located
in a FEMA 100 -year regulated floodplain.
Commissioner Holton asked to clarify if Weld County is requiring the same right-of-way as the City of
Greeley and the City of Evans. Mr. Dunker replied yes and added that they are asking for an additional 35
feet.
The Chair asked the applicant if he wishes to make a presentation.
Mark Taylor, Freeze Engineering, commented that he has some information on the sewer system which
they want to tie into. They have received a conceptual bid for using the short route of 150 feet. Mr. Taylor
handed out the bid to the Planning Commissioners.
Mr. Taylor said that the conceptual bid of using the shortest route of 150 feet is $42,000. He added that
they can't guarantee the system would work because it is a 6 -inch pipe and the amount of flow from the
septic system wouldn't be enough to cleanse the pipe. They have explored other routes and indicated that
none of them are cheap. He said that going down 47th Avenue would be the most economical way and
also the way that more people could tie into that system as their septic fields fail. He stated that the
amount would be about the same.
Commissioner Holton clarified that the 150 feet is from the property line. Mr. Taylor stated that the 150
feet is from the property line and not the structure. He added that the bid covers from the house to the
manhole in the cul de sac. Ms. Light added that is approximately 493 feet to the structure.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sheryl Trent, City of Evans, 1100 37th St, Evans CO. Ms. Trent wished to share the City of Evan's thoughts
regarding developments like this. She said that they are neither for nor against the development as they are
happy to have a business try to locate and expand in the area.
The issue is that as the City of Evans continues to grow within Weld County sometimes their development
standards conflict to the point where a situation is created long term for both the city and the eventual
residents of the City.
This site is in their long term growth area. They have an adopted intergovernmental agreement with the City
of Greeley where this will annex to Evans and not to Greeley in the future. Ms. Trent added that they realize
that this will shortly become part of the City of Evans.
Ms. Trent thanked the Planning Commission and staff for suggesting that the applicant follow some of the
standards that the City of Evans has. One of the biggest issues is water and sewer and as was mentioned it is
4
due to the cost. She said that they suggested to Mr. Sanchez that he may want to consider annexing into the
City of Evans and after a brief discussion he declined the opportunity mostly as a result of the costs. Ms.
Trent commented that the City of Evans does not have any plans to put sewer down 47th Avenue in the near
future. However they are willing to wait, should Mr. Sanchez want to annex, for a suitable period of time prior
to requiring that from the applicant and to sign a reimbursement agreement which is a standard development
issue. They are not interested in forcing any type of annexation; they just want to make sure that when they
do annex it in the short term future that they don't create a new problem because the applicant will then need
to conform to their standards should anything new happen on that property. Should the Planning Commission
decide to approve this application the long term consequences for the City of Evans would be more
detrimental than positive in their opinion.
Commissioner Hall commented that according to the map there are two storage areas already. He asked how
the City of Evans finds that this would be different than what is already there. Ms. Trent said that those RV
storage areas are in Weld County and thinks that the City has a different approach to land use and a different
vision for how they want these major arterial corridors to develop. This is very close to some major residential
development. If we could go back in time and that would have been in the City of Evans she doesn't know if
the City would have approved an RV storage park in the place it is currently. She added that they have
concerns of a new one going in.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if there are any difficulties crossing properties to install the sewer line. Mr.
Gathman commented that there is a utility easement between the applicant's property and the subdivision
located in Evans which would allow the sewer line to be installed.
Mr. Gathman noted Condition of Approval 1.H on page 6 and indicated that one of the conditions from the City
of Evans was that the applicant shall be required to connect to the City of Evans sewer line. At the time the
letter was written it said it was approximately 710 feet south of the property line. He asked if Planning
Commission remains comfortable with that or if it should be amended.
Commissioner Holton said it should be amended because the Planning Commission's intent is hook up to the
line only if the structure is within 400 feet from the sewer main.
Mr. Gathman recommended that the phrase "with the exception of condition #3" be inserted into Condition of
Approval 1.H.
The Chair asked the applicant if he has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1691 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 Bill Hall.
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, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1702
APPLICANT: Tri-State Generation and Transmission
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility (expansion of an existing substation and 185 foot
communication tower) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE -4852 being part of NW4 of Section 25, T1 N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 11.
The Chair commented that because this is a major facility of a public utility the Planning Commission has
the final vote.
5
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that the applicants are Tri-State Generation and Transmission
and are represented by Mark Murray of Tri-State and Sarah Jensen consultant.
This site is located south of and adjacent to County Road 6 and approximately % mile east of County Road 11.
The site is located within the three mile referral areas of the Cities of Dacono and Northglenn, the Town of
Erie, Adams County and the City and County of Broomfield. No comments were received from the City of
Northglenn. The Town of Erie and the City of Dacono responded to the referral, dated May 20, 2009 and May
27, 2009 respectively, stating that they find no conflicts with their interests.
The City and County of Broomfield stated in the referral dated June 18, 2009 that the area is designated in
their comprehensive plan as an "employment" area with an open space corridor surrounding the Big Dry Creek
and Bull Canal. The City and County of Broomfield also requests that additional information about the
construction routes of the vehicles and the responsibility to repair roads damaged during the construction
process be submitted for review.
As a Condition of Approval the applicant will attempt to address the concerns of the City and County of
Broomfield. It is important to state that the City and County of Broomfield is located approximately 500 feet to
the west of the site.
The surrounding property is zoned agricultural with a variety of Use by Special Reviews (USR) in the
immediate area. The facility is serviced by USR-1392 for a 115 -kV transmission line and the substation is
delineated on the plat for USR-1392 approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2002. The property
to the north consists of a construction equipment storage area (USR-1445). The property to the south
consists of a salvage yard (USR-1351) and gravel mining (USR-1341). The property to the east consists of a
RV and boat storage facility (USR-1607). Currently USR-117 for a 3000 head turkey farm and NCU-75 for a
mobile home which has been demolished are on record. As a Condition of Approval USR-117 and NCU-75
will need to be vacated and/or withdrawn. There are seven property owners within 500 feet of the property.
This application proposes to upgrade the existing 115 -kV switchyard by adding a 230 -kV switchyard to
improve electric service to consumers. The on -site 185 foot communication tower provides metering, system
protection, and supervisory control and data acquisition controls between the control center and various
substation facilities within the Tri-State/ United Power network.
The site will be an unmanned facility when constructed and operational; therefore no permanent water or
sanitation services will be located on site.
Primary access is from County Road 6 which is a paved road. Internal roads and the facility yard are
graveled and graded. The existing improvements consist of a switch station and a 115kV transmission
line
The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by staff and is evidenced by
photograph.
Fifteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and eleven offered comments, some with specific
conditions. There have been no letters, telephone calls or review of the application by interested parties.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the concerns from the Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company
regarding the easement and also the drainage flow of the canal have been met. Mr. Ogle said that staff
had received a faxed letter from the Ditch Company which indicated that their concerns have been
addressed and that they intend to withdraw their comments.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that since there are no employees on site staff is
requesting that portable toilets, handwashing units and bottled water be provided during construction of
this site. She added that there are no concerns with this application.
Clay Kimmi, Public Works, commented that the property is located south of County Road 6 which is a
paved collector road and requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build -out. Currently there is 60 feet of right-
of-way.
6
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
116th 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: 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,
7
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 2n° 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
2nd 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 2nd 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 it's 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 371h 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 2nd AmUSR-1282.
Robert Grand moved that Case 3rd 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
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,
Plik(r fariv. !iL1 1 Ga-ti
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
16
Hello