HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081669.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Moved by Mark Lawley, 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: USR-1654
APPLICANT: Western Sugar Cooperative Go Mike Otto
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2NE4 Section 28,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and 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 Sorting,
Grading and Packing fruits and vegetables for the grower(handling and storage
of sugar beets)in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 43; South of and adjacent to CR 66.
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 ordinances in effect. Section 22-2-60 A.Policy 1.3 states
"Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to, or dependent upon
agriculture, to locate within the A(Agricultural)Zone District when the impact to
surrounding properties is minimal, and where adequate services are currently available
and reasonably obtainable. Agricultural businesses and industries will be encouraged to
• locate in areas that minimize the removal of agricultural land from production." A beet
piling and storage facility is considered agricultural related use.
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.1, Agricultural Service establishment
primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or horticultural services on
a fee or contract basis, including Sorting, Grading and Packing fruits and vegetables for
the grower(handling and storage of sugar beets) in the 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. Lands adjacent to this development are predominately
agricultural. Five single family residences are in the near vicinity, one is on the property
and not associated with this facility. Four single family residences are to the north-
northwest of the proposed facility, north of County Road 66. DCP Midstream operates
the Lucerne gas processing facility to the south of this property(2nd AmUSR-552). A
letter dated February 14, 2008 from DCP indicates no objections to this proposal.
Southeast of this proposal is a confined animal feeding operation (SUP-172). Adjacent
roads paved with adjacent borrow ditches. Development standards and conditions of
approval will ensure that this operation is compatible with the existing surrounding land
uses.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 --The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the 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 proposed USR is located within the 3-mile referral area of the
City of Greeley. The City, in their referral received 5-22-2008, indicated no objections to
• this application.
2008-1669
Resolution USR-1654
Western Sugar Cooperative
Page 2
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5—The site is not located within the floodplain overlay district as
•
delineated and defined by the FIRM Community Panel map 080266-0850C, dated
September 28, 1982.
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 property is
designated as "Prime" according to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Map, dated 1979.
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.
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant has not indicated that there will be any lighting on site. If lighting is
intended, a Lighting Plan, including cut sheets of the proposed light fixtures, shall be
• provided to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The Lighting
Plan shall adhere to the lighting requirements for off-street parking spaces per Section
23-4-30.E of the Weld County Code and shall adhere to the lighting standards, in
accordance with Section 23-3-360.F and Section 23-2-250.D of the Weld County Code.
Furthermore, the approved Lighting Plan shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of
Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and
Emissions Permit application (for dust emissions)from the Air Pollution Control Division,
Colorado Department of Health and Environment, if applicable. Alternately, the applicant
can provide evidence from the APCD that they are not subject to these requirements.
Written evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
C. The applicant shall address the recommendations of the North Weld County Water District as
stated in their referral received May 8, 2008.Written evidence of such shall be submitted to
the Department of Planning Services. (North Weld County Water District)
D. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer as stated in their referral
received May 19, 2008. Written evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (Office of the State Engineer)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of Public
Works as stated in their referral received May 2, 2008. Written evidence of such shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1654
Western Sugar Cooperative
Page 3
F. If a sign is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Department
•
of Planning Services, including location and size. Signs shall be in compliance with Article
VI, Division II and Appendices 23 C through E of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
G. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Each sheet of the plat shall be labeled USR-1654. (Department of Planning
Services)
4. The applicant shall obtain a written agreement with either the Cache La Poudre
Reservoir Company, the Pleasant Valley Lateral Company, the New Cache La
Poudre Irrigation Company or their successors for two or more points for ingress
and egress crossing of the ditch south of and adjacent to County Road 66 onto
lands associated with the Western Sugar Cooperative sugar beet facility.
(Department of Planning Services)
5. County Roads 66 and 43 are designated on the Weld County Road Classification
Plan as Collector roads, which require 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. 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)
6. The single point of ingress and single point of egress shall have a minimum
turning radius of forty(40)feet to accommodate semi-type truck traffic.
(Department of Public Works)
7. The single point of ingress shall have an additional one hundred (100)feet of
pavement south of County Road 66 into the site where at the end of this apron
two cattle guards are located on the one way circulation road to the scale house.
(Department of Public Works)
8. The single point of egress shall place two cattle guards then an additional one
hundred (100)feet of pavement north to County Road 66 where a stop sign shall
be located at the approach to County Road 66. (Department of Public Works)
9. The internal circulation pattern based on the Geo-Tech Report and the employee
parking areas identified within the circulation pattern. (Department of Public
Works)
10. Any approved signs, as applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
11. The approved Lighting Plan, if applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
12. The 200-foot setback radii for existing oil and gas tank batteries and the 150-foot
setback radii for oil and gas wellheads located on the site shall be indicated.
(Department of Planning Services)
• 13. The location of the future shop/office. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1654
Western Sugar Cooperative
Page 4
14. The location of the septic envelope(s) associated with the future shop/office.
• (Department of Planning Services)
15. All parking and screened outdoor storage area(s). (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. 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 and
Twenty(120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. 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 mapsgco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to Release of Building Permits (for to any current of future construction)
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)
6. Prior to the construction of any structure:
A. A letter of approval shall be provided from the Eaton Fire Protection District. (Department
of Building Inspection)
7. 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)
411
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Western Sugar Cooperative
• USR-1654
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and 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 Sorting, Grading and Packing fruits and vegetables for the grower
(handling and storage of sugar beets) in the Agricultural Zone District, and subject to the
Development Standards stated hereon. (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. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the
property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner
shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. (Department of Public Works/Planning
Services)
4. The operation shall be limited to a total of thirty(30)employees. (Department of Planning Services)
5. On site activities will occur September 1 to February 28 of any given year. (Department of Planning
Services).
6. Semi tractor-trailers will typically deliver sugar beets September 1 to October 31, but under certain
circumstances may extend until November 20 of any given year due to weather conditions.
(Department of Planning Services)
7. Semi tractor-trailers will haul out the sugar beets September 1 to February 28 of any given year.
(Department of Planning Services).
• 8. The hours of operation for delivery of sugar beets will be 12 hours a day, 7 days a week and shall
occur primarily during daylight hours generally between the time period of September 1 to October 31
of any given year. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The hours of operation for re-hauling of sugar beets will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and will
generally occur primarily during the months of September through February of any given year.
(Department of Planning Services)
10. Local growers will haul to this facility from all directions in the immediate area. There is not a
specified haul route for incoming (delivery) of product utilizing semi tractor-trailer traffic. There
shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on any County Road, County Road right-of-way or
adjacent property not associated with this application.(Department of Public Works)
11. During and after the campaign, the sugar beets will be hauled to Fort Morgan for processing
utilizing County Road 66 east to County Road 47 then south to State Highway 263 as the
designated heavy haul route for beet transport from and to the facility. (Department of Public
Works)
12. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking and hand washing during seasonal use of the facility.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
13. Adequate toilet facilities (portable toilets) shall be provided during the seasonal use of the facility.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
14. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes when
• the office/shop is constructed on-site. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
Resolution USR-1654
Western Sugar Cooperative
Page 6
• 15. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed office/shop and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
16. Any vehicle or equipment washing area(s)shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges from
drum washing and the washing of vehicles in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
17. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
18. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include
those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes
Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health
& Environment)
19. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
20. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions.
(Department of Public Health & Environment)
• 21. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved "dust abatement plan" at all times. The facility shall
have sufficient equipment available to implement dust control as required by the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
22. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone
as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
23. Well permit 8697-R may not be used for dust suppression. (Office of the State Engineer)
24. The facility shall operate with a Substitute Water Supply Plan or a Division 1 Water Court
approved plan for augmentation that includes depletions associated with dust suppression at all
times. (Office of the State Engineer)
25. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall bear the
wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required
when applying for each permit. Include a Code Analysis Data sheet which is provided by the Weld
County Building Department with each Building permit application. . (Department of Building
Inspection)
26. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2006 International Building
Code; 2006 International Mechanical Code; 2006 International Plumbing Code; 2006 International
Fuel Gas Code; and the 2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
27. All structures will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an
• open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be
designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1654
Western Sugar Cooperative
Page 7
28. The office will be classified as B (Office). Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction
• requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review.The
office building shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. The maintenance building will be
classified as S-1 (repair garage, complying with the maximum allowable quantities of hazardous
materials listed in table 307.1(1). (Department of Building Inspection)
29. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County
Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring
buildings to determine offset and setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest
projection from the building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be
staked prior to the first site inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
30. Provide letter of approval from Eaton Fire protection District prior to construction of any structure.
Department of Building Inspection)
31. The applicant or their successors will be required to comply with the approved Lighting Plan at all
times. (Department of Planning Services)
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 acknowledges that mineral owners and lessees have real property interests that
entitle them to surface use in accordance with Colorado State Statutes and applicable Colorado oil
and Gas Conservation Commission regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
35. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
36. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
37. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
Resolution USR-1654
Western Sugar Cooperative
Page 8
• Motion seconded by Robert Grand.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on June 3, 2008.
• Dated the 3r° of June, 2008.
I1FCl i' 1l'1SE lY
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
le -3-t20
October 7, 2008.
• 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-1651 be continued to the September 2, 2008 Planning Commission
hearing, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1654
APPLICANT: Western Sugar Cooperative Go Mike Otto
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2NE4 Section 28,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and 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 Sorting,
Grading and Packing fruits and vegetables for the grower(handling and storage
of sugar beets)in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 43; South of and adjacent to CR 66.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated that Mike Otto is the representative for Western Sugar
Cooperative. They are seeking approval of the current application for a Site Specific Development Plan and
Special Review Permit for a beet piling and storage operation.
The current facility is located in the east part of Greeley,and due to economic considerations sugar beets are
no longer processed at this location and therefore the property has been marketed for re-development. It is
the desire of the Cooperative to locate the beet piling and storage operations outside of the City of Greeley to
this proposed location.
The site is located west of and adjacent to County Road 43; South of and adjacent to County Road 66.
• The site is located in the influence area of the Greeley-Weld County Airport, and also within the
Comprehensive Planning Area for the City of Greeley. The City of Greeley, in their referral comment
received May 22, 2008, indicated no objections to this application.
The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Lands adjacent to
this development are predominately agricultural. Five single family residences are in the near vicinity,one is
on the property and not associated with this facility. Four single family residences are to the north/northwest of
the proposed facility, north of County Road 66. DCP Midstream operates the Lucerne gas processing facility
to the south of this property (2n° AmUSR-552). A letter dated February 14, 2008 from DCP indicates no
objections to this proposal. Southeast of this proposal is a confined animal feeding operation (SUP-172).
Adjacent roads are paved with adjacent borrow ditches. At stated in the application materials, there are ten
property owners within 500 feet of this application.
The site consists of irrigated agricultural land historically planted in crops. This year the western half of
the property is planted in wheat and the eastern half planted in row crop. There are no improvements on
the site, however, there are numerous oil and gas encumbrances managed by Noble Energy. The
applicant has placed the beet pilers on the land; however the equipment has not been positioned or set
up. Property has two points of ingress and egress recently cut into the property, the one to the west
aligns itself with a farm access across the road. The single family residence and driveway are to the west
of this alignment. The easternmost access for the piler aligns itself with open fields in production. Oil and
gas access roads are to the east and west of each drive respectively. Overhead electric is to the south of
County Road 66 on wood poles. Underground electric and Atmos gas are located to the North of County
Road 66. DCP Midstream has a gas line south of County Road 66. Adjacent to the borrow ditch is a
concrete lined ditch for irrigation water. Oil and gas encumbrances are present on site; i.e.,two pumper
jacks and 3-tank battery's are present on site [Noble Energy(Swanson 4-28)], more so to the east of the
proposed facility.
• The applicant, Western Sugar Cooperative, has indicated that the initial set up is for the beet pilers and
storage of crop, with future development to include a shop/office structure for piler equipment
maintenance and offices for support staff(Agriculturists, Accountants, and Engineers). On site f;;
a s
s
employees will be a limited to 20 persons working predominately 12 hours, 7 days a week for delivery of
• sugar beets, and shall occur primarily during daylight hours.
Local growers will haul to this facility from all directions in the immediate area. There is not a specified
haul route for incoming (delivery) of product utilizing semi tractor-trailer traffic and that is addressed under
Development Standard 10.
During and after the campaign, the sugar beets will be hauled to Fort Morgan for processing utilizing
County Roads 66 and 43; State Highway 263, and State Highway 37 to U.S. Highway 34 as the
designated heavy haul route for beet transport from and to the facility.
The applicant has contacted the transportation division for the school district to determine if a school bus
route will be affected by locating this facility at this location. Mr. Otto indicates that verbal discussion and
correspondence with these individuals presents no issues.
Sixteen (16) referral agencies reviewed this case; ten (10) agencies provided comments with the
remaining agencies not responding.
There has been one electronic mailing received from a surrounding property owner; Staff has received
three telephone inquiry's from an adjacent property owner concerning traffic, headlight pollution onto
property and hours of operation impacts. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no physical
review of the case file in the Greeley Planning office.
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed case number USR-1654 and recommends approval
to the Planning Commission, with the attached Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Prior to Mr. Ogle's remarks, he handed out a packet of information which includes a memorandum with
• some changes that are proposed to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Also
included in the packet are electronic mailings from the School Districts and Mr. Stewart, a surrounding
property owner.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that since this is a temporary seasonal use, it is permitted to use
the bottled water and portable toilets. However, when the office/shop is built they will have to have a
permanent water source as well as a septic system for that building. They may need an air pollution emission
permit from the State for dust on the site, which is covered under Condition of Approval 1.b. Ms. Light
requested that Development Standards 18 and 19 be deleted since they reiterate some of the previous
Development Standards. She commented that they would like to add "or equipment" after "vehicle" in
Development Standard 16 so that if the applicant washes any kind of piling equipment the discharge does not
go onto the ground.
Don Dunker, Public Works, commented that County Road 43 and 66 are 2—two-lane paved collector roads
and will require an 80 foot right-of-way at full build out. The average daily traffic counts on County Road 43,'/
mile north of the intersection,was 1,101 and about 1 mile south of the intersection was 1,408 taken in 2006.
The traffic counts on County Road 66, less than % mile west, were 219 and east 3/4 mile were 179 taken in
2005.
Public Works is requiring a forty foot minimum turning radius into the site. There will also be improvements on
site that will consist of additional pavement from County Road 66-100 feet south into the site where they will
be installing dual cattle guards to help reduce the mud. Existing approaches to County Road 66 will have stop
signs. The site is not in a FEMA regulated flood plain. No additional storm water detention or features will be
required.
Mike Otto, representative for Western Sugar Cooperative. Mr.Otto stated that their current facility in the City
of Greeley has been under contract to be sold. They no longer process the sugar beets in Greeley, however
• they do still have growers that grow beets in this area. They will stockpile them here and then transport them
to the Ft. Morgan factory for processing into domestic sugar. With the Greeley factory being sold,they need a
facility close by to where they currently haul in the sugar beets to this area. Currently they have approximately
135 growers in the entire Front Range area and approximately 50-80 growers utilize this receiving station in
3
this area. Mr. Otto indicated that Weld County beet payments from the last five years range from $8 to$14
• million dollars which has a very big economic impact to their shareholders.
Mr. Otto commented that currently their plans are to establish the oilers on site and get those ready for harvest
time. They would run two pieces of receiving equipment with a possible third one when needed. They operate
typically from mid-September until approximately the end of October or first part of November, depending
upon weather. Typically during early the harvest period(September—October 9th)they schedule growers in
for delivery. They only buy enough beets to supply the factory for what they need. During that time period
they have limited traffic coming in. Mr. Otto added that once they start on October 9 through the end of
October or first part of November is when they have their main harvest and when all of their growers are
delivering their crop into the receiving station. Once harvest operations are completed they do have re-haul
operations where they haul the beets back to the Ft. Morgan factory for processing which occurs on a 24 hour/
7day a week basis. They do not haul out of the receiving station during the entire length of the campaign
which can run to the end of February. Mr. Otto concluded that during the harvest period they have their
incoming traffic and then the re-haul traffic period which is from when they start harvesting to the end of the
campaign, generally the middle to end of February.
Mr. Otto stated that they handed out an augmentation plan that Front Range Feedlots has submitted to the
State Engineers office which designates 10 acre feet of water for the on-site well for their dust control issues.
Their plan is that once they receive the crop in, get the beets hauled back out of there, they will level up the
land and take care of any ruts, reseed it to keep erosion down and maintain the site in nice order.
Mr. Otto commented that they have an entrance and exit scale that they have from the two entry locations
from County Road 66.They plan to use the far west location only during harvest operations. During night re-
haul operations they plan to utilize the east scale for re-haul traffic so that there won't be any lights shining into
the house across the road.
Commissioner Grand asked if they had thought about any illumination protection for the housing such as
•
trees, etc. Mr. Otto stated that they are not sure what would screen that enough to be able to not have any
lights shine in there. Their hours of operation are typically from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Otto pointed out
that at night during re-haul traffic they would go out through the east scale to eliminate the lighting issue with
the housing.
Mr. Otto also pointed out that they are cognizant of the issue with the house and do not wish to create any
nuisances for them. They are going to place their piles on the south end of the property and pile back toward
the road so that they are as far into the property as they can be.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Watson,20295 CR 66, lives approximately'/mile west of the proposed facility on north side of road. He
also farms adjacent to the land on south side of the road. Mr. Watson stated that he is highly opposed to this
application. He is concerned with what this is going to do to the neighborhood. One major concern is with the
traffic as County Road 66 is a highly traveled road as well as County Road 43. He stressed that this is a very
busy intersection. He has some concern with transportation and would like for them to consider placing a 4-
way stop sign as it would slow down the traffic. He also commented that the trucks delivering the beets will
have a very difficult time turning off of County Road 43 to get on to County Road 66 and get into the facility.
He pointed out that two years ago Western Sugar Cooperative considered a place located on County Road 43
and County Road 62 and was denied due to the traffic problem. He would like for the applicant to consider
another location with less traffic impacts.
Jim Koehler stated that he lives off of County Road 43 and has farmed for 55 years in that location. He
commented that to the west of County Road 66 and County Road 41 is a blind spot in the road. He added that
there have been several accidents and some fatalities as well. He continued to add that County Road 43 and
State Highway 392 have also had numerous accidents and fatalities. Mr. Koehler stated that these trucks
• coming in take two lanes when turning the corner and added that there are no shoulders on County Road 66.
He believes that the applicant should re-locate to the north side of Highway 392 to help eliminate the amount
of traffic.
4
Howard Axelson, 21026 CR 64. Mr. Axelson stated that he would like to reiterate Mr. Watson and Mr.
• Koehler's concerns with the traffic on County Road 43. He commented that County Road 43 is a high speed
road with tremendous amount of livestock hauling traffic, propane trucks, grain trucks and also the regular
morning commute. He stated that there is a stop sign at County Road 43 and County Road 62. The
intersection at County Road 66 and County Road 43 is extremely narrow for trucks to turn. He pointed out one
fatality from an accident on Highway 392 and County Road 43 involving a beet truck. He commented that if
this application is approved he would like for the board to consider the rehaul traffic to drive across County
Road 43, go two miles east, two miles south and then get on Highway 263 as it would eliminate a lot of the
congestion.
Jeff Stewart, 32425 R 43. Mr. Stewart commented that his email is included in the packet of information that
Mr. Ogle handed out previously. His stated that his main concern also deals with the traffic issues. He is very
familiar with the intersection of County Road 43 and County Road 66 and added that tandem trucks as well as
semi-tractors go into the borrow ditch on both sides every day. He reiterated Mr. Axelson's comments with
regard to the speed on County Road 43. Mr.Stewart stated that he is very opposed to it and feels that it will
be a detriment to the neighborhood and will become an eyesore. He added that one of the great values that
they have in Weld County is the Agricultural community and they can enjoy the views from their property.
However he doesn't feel the beet dump enhances that view or natural environment. He referenced the
question earlier with regard to lighting during the re-haul. He assumed there will be some type of lighting so
that the trucks can see and didn't see any provision in the application addressing that. Therefore he would like
the applicant to address how that would be handled.
Marvin Bay stated that he is a beet grower. He commented that there is always a problem when you are trying
to change something. He added that he had a beet dump close to him and stated that it is a good thing to
have it close as it saves the beet growers money. Mr. Bay stated that they are trying to get everything as close
to Ft. Morgan as possible because if they would go further north it would cost them a lot more money. He
pointed out that this has been researched quite a bit and they found that this location was the most central.
He understands the opposition to this but tried to reassure the surrounding property owners that they will
. maintain the property and will try to listen to them.
Becky Safarik stated that she is with the City of Greeley Planning Department. She commented that one of
the challenges that we all have deals with compatibility and it is a balancing act no matter what we do. She
added that Western Sugar Cooperative has been in the City of Greeley since the turn of the last century and
they have been very good neighbors. They have had several situations with urban dwellers and higher levels
of traffic that have been challenges for them to deal with as well. However,Western Sugar Cooperative has
been very responsive to issues that the City has had. She submitted a letter in February to the applicant
indicating the City of Greeley's support for this development because it is in an area that is rather difficult to
develop with other more sensitive land uses. She further added that this location is in their airport influence
area and this is a use that would be compatible with that and would not create any adverse affects. It is also
an area that they would expect to support further agricultural economic development.
Commissioner Branham understands the City of Greeley's position with this location being compatible to their
future plans. He asked Ms. Safarik if when they were looking to evaluate it, if their Public Works Department
also looked at the traffic issues involved. Ms. Safarik commented that safe traffic movement throughout the
urban areas is always of concern to them. She added that they did not do an independent traffic analysis of
this, however,from the testimony today it sounds like there is already a traffic issue that needs attention from
the County and this may be an opportunity to study it.
Commissioner Grand asked Don Dunker, Department of Public Works,what the County and/or the applicant
should be doing to mitigate the traffic issues with regard to the intersection of County Road 66 and County
Road 43. Mr. Dunker commented that there is no doubt that it is tight there and when they have the large
haulers coming in they will have to take up both lanes when turning.
Commissioner Grand asked if there is any option of widening those roads. Mr. Dunker replied that there are
• options of widening it and mentioned that they could ask the applicant to put in a right turn lane. He added
that they would need to relocate the ditches and diversion boxes for that to be able to happen, but it is a
possibility and they can further study that.
5
Commissioner Grand asked what they can do with regard to the speed control issue and working with the
• Sheriff's Department. Mr. Dunker stated that they can contact the Sheriffs Department about more patrol. He
commented that with regard to stop signs, County Road 43 is a major collector road and with the amount of
volume that it holds you need to move the traffic. Mr. Dunker indicated that there are stop signs on County
Road 66.
Commissioner Grand stated that he understands the problem but would hate to hear of another tragic incident
in the future. Mr. Dunker stated that he did look at the accidents from 2004 to 2007 and at that intersection
there have been no accidents reported to the Sheriff's Office or to the State Patrol. He added that there have
been several accidents at the intersections of Highway 392 and County Road 43 as well as some accidents at
the intersections of County Road 66 and 45 and County Roads 66 and 47 and County Road 66 and Highway
85.
Commissioner Grand asked with regard to the intersection at County Roads 43 and 66 if there is anything
proactively that can reasonably be done to make it safer. Mr. Dunker replied that the Public Works
Department and the applicant would need to visit about changes that could be made as far as relocating those
ditches and putting in more asphalt and making it a wider turn.
Commissioner Grand stated that some thought needs to be given to the impact from the traffic flow and what
we can do proactively to minimize the problem. Mr. Dunker agreed with him and added that they can add a
condition of approval with language that states prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing they will
have some kind of answer.
A member of the public asked if they were allowed to speak. Commissioner Holton stated that the public
portion of the hearing was closed but would allow her to speak.
Loriann Stewart, 32425 CR 43. She referenced the conversation with regard to widening the road and putting
a turn lane in and is concerned with the home that is located adjacent to the property. Mr.Dunker replied that
• it would only be widened at the intersection. Mrs. Stewart commented that with regard to the accidents just
mentioned she is home all day and witnesses accidents all the time, however they may not be reported. She
added that she is also concerned with her kids crossing County Road 43 to get onto the bus safely. Mrs.
Stewart appreciated the time to speak after the public portion of the meeting was closed.
Commissioner Berryman asked Mr. Dunker if east of County Road 43 on County Road 66 is paved. Mr.
Dunker replied that it is. Mr. Berryman asked if it made any sense to have the traffic go straight to Highway
263 as opposed to turning. Mr. Ogle stated that we have that included in Development Standard 11 as an
alternate rehaul route to go east on County Road 66 to County Road 47, then south to State Highway 263.
The Chair asked the applicant if they had response to the questions or comments made.
Mr.Otto commented that the trucks used County Road 43 during beet harvest to get to the current location in
the City of Greeley. Therefore, in essence he doesn't believe that they are adding traffic to this area. Mr.Otto
wished to address the comment of this being a detriment to the neighborhood. He commented that this
property was purchased for an augmentation program and added that the plan is to get the side that they will
be on dried up. He commented that they will be maintaining the property in keeping the weeds down and
eliminate erosion control and keep it in anagricultural type use.
Mr. Otto stated that they did work with the Planning Department in considering an alternative rehaul route. He
mentioned that they want those intersections to be safe as well. He added that they asked the Public Works
Department about placing signs that say"Slow—Truck Crossing" to try and slow the traffic down as well.
Mr. Otto stated that they have two scale houses that have a light above them that shines down onto the scale
deck so the drivers can see. He added that there is a light at the top of the piler that shines down to show
where the trucks pull on and it moves with the piler. He continued to add that from time to time they may have
• temporary generator lighting.
Mr. Otto requested to amend in Development Standard #4 the number of employees listed to thirty (30)
employees. He commented that when they originally submitted this information that number was just for their
6
harvest employees but they would need to include the loader operator and truck drivers involved with the
• rehaul operations.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if there are any concerns with changing the number of employees. Mr. Ogle said
that they don't have any concerns with changing the number of employees.
Commissioner Holton asked the applicant if they had any comments about placing stop signs at the
intersection of County Road 43 and 66. Mr.Otto said that it wouldn't be a problem and would be a good safety
issue.
Commissioner Grand stated that it sounds like the applicant is willing to work with Public Works in developing
some alternatives to traffic on County Road 43. Mr.Otto mentioned that their entrance and exits have 75 feet
entry ways to get the trucks off and back on as quickly and easily as possible.
Commissioner Branham asked if they would be comfortable with developing a standard that would specifically
prohibit the rehaul trucks from going through the intersection of County Road 66 and 43. Mr. Otto stated that
they would have to go through that intersection to get east.
Paul Branham moved to replace Development Standard#11 with"During and after the campaign,the sugar
beets will be hauled to Fort Morgan for processing utilizing County Road 66 east to County Road 47 then
south to State Highway 263 as the designated heavy haul route for beet transport from and to the facility."
Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Paul Branham moved to amend Development Standard#4 to increase the total number of employees from
twenty(20)to thirty(30) employees, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standards 18 and 19 as per staff recommendations, seconded
by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
• Mark Lawley moved to amend Development Standard #16 to add "or equipment" after"vehicle" in the first
sentence, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Paul Branham moved to amend Development Standard 6, 8, and 9 and to add language to Development
Standard #10 as well as the Condition to be met "Prior to Recording the Plat" number 1.G and renumber
accordingly as indicated in the memo by staff, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1654, 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 Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�aF (� �ti�V,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
Hello