HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080040.tiff •
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 18,2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,
4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham •
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Tom Honn, Brad Mueller, Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Don
Carroll,Don Dunker,David Snyder,Department of Public Works;Lauren Light,Environmental Health Department;Bruce
Barker, County Attorney; and Donita May, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the March 4, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Second by Erich
Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair said the next three items were on the consent agenda and will continue on to the Board of County
Commissioners,unless two or more Planning Commissioners feel a case should be removed from consent and be heard.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1394
APPLICANT: Zadel Family LLLP
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3-7, part of Lot 11 and all of Lot 12 in Lupton Meadows Subdivision,
together with the former right of way of the Denver Larimer and Northwestern
Railroad all in Section 24, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource
Development Facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Materials
Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District. (NCCI Pit#1)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18 and west of and adjacent to CR 25.
SIZE: 175.63 acres, more or less.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, requested this case remain on the consent agenda and said the applicants
were in agreement with it remaining on consent as well.
The Chair said this was a continued item from a previous hearing and unless there was opposition, it would remain
on the consent agenda. There were members of the public who wished to comment. The Chair added that due to a
typo,this case was originally listed on the agenda as a continued case, therefore not everyone may be prepared to
hear the case today.
Todd Yee, J &T Consulting, 1400 W 122 Av, Ste 120,Westminster, CO 80234, applicant's representative, said they
preferred the case be heard before the Planning Commission today.
Ms. Martin interjected that the case could be heard today if it were moved to the last hearing item in order to allow
time to prepare additional reference materials for the Planning Commissioners.
Doug Ochsner and Erich Ehrlich asked the case be removed from the consent agenda to be heard.
The Chair then said AMUSR-1394 would be heard after hearing item USR-686.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1646
APPLICANT: Dannie&Gail Cito
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
1
L. nuLualiesc(,ww_)/ z/-,:2-get Q L.C/`t 0
o2008--
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of SE-664, being part of the SW4 of Section 3,Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right,
an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District
(Steel Fabrication Company)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 7 and approximately 1/2 mile south of State
Highway 52.
SIZE: 2.5 acres, more or less.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said both Staff and the applicant were requesting this case 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.
There was no opposition to the case remaining on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: 3AMPF-431
APPLICANT: Frontier Companies LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 8 &9, Block 2, Western Dairymen Cooperative, Section 10, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amendment to a PUD Final Plat Redesign; consolidating Lots 8&9 of Block
2 into one lot in the Western Dairymen Cooperative PUD.
LOCATION: South of Hwy 119 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 7.5.
SIZE: 2.22 acres, more or less.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said both Staff and the applicant were requesting this case remain on the
consent agenda for the sole reason that this application is just for the consolidation of lots eight and nine. The
proposed use on the property is an indoor shooting range,which is a site plan review and a use by right on this
property. The applicant is going through the site plan review process for the property which is a separate
application. It is an administrative process that will not have a public hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application remaining on the
consent agenda.
Kevin Lyles, 10671 Butte Dr, Longmont, CO 80504,said the letter he had received from the Planning Department was
not clear enough as to the specific proposal. He understood this case is the merging of two lots and the intended use is
not subject to public review, but he felt it was still appropriate to comment at this time.
The Chair asked Bruce Barker, County Attorney, for legal advice regarding this case and if the public would have the
opportunity to speak before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Barker replied that in terms of when it is forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners,this is considered to be an amendment,and as a result it would be heard by the
Board.
Ms. Hatch reiterated the case today,consolidating the two lots,would be heard by the Board of County Commissioners.
The site plan review for the shooting range is a separate application which would not be heard by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Tom Holton added that the Planning Commission can't comment on the use by right. They can only rule on whether the
applicant can combine the two lots. Ms. Hatch responded that was correct.
Mr. Barker added that was not the issue in this case and that one had nothing to do with the other, though concerns
regarding the site plan review could be expressed to the Board of County Commissioners. The Chair said unfortunately
the Planning Commission cannot hear information based on what is proposed at the location. Mr. Lyles asked if there
would be an opportunity to comment on the site plan review. He added that since surrounding property owners were not
notified during the site plan review process, they would at the very least appreciate notification of when the site plan
review was going before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Barker suggested the Planning Department provide
future information to Mr.Lyles and added he was welcome to visit with the Planning Department regarding his concerns.
Ms. Hatch interjected that all case files are open to the public and may be reviewed at any time.
The Chair stated that as the applicant wished the case remain on the consent agenda,and no Commissioners requested
it be heard, it would remain on the consent agenda.
2
Mark Lawley moved that the Consent Agenda,Cases USR-1646 and 3AMPF-431,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. Second by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-686
APPLICANT: Martin &Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust& Rocky Mountain Fuel Company,
represented by Mile High Dairy LLC.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel being part of the E2 and Lot B of RE-525, also being part of the E2 of
Section 17,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Livestock
Confinement Operation (1,940 head dairy including milking cows,dry cows,
heifers, and calves)and one single family dwelling unit per lot other than those
permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code (two single family
employee homes)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5 and north of and adjacent to CR 32.
SIZE: 183 +/-acres total- USR Boundary 60 +/_acres, more or less.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Martin and Johanna Bangma 1989 Trust and Rocky Mountain Fuel
Company represented by Mile High Dairy LLC, c/o Dusty McCormick with AGPROfessionals LLC, have applied for an
Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Livestock Confinement Operation(1,940
head dairy including milking cows,dry cows, heifers, and calves)and one single family dwelling unit per lot other than
those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code (two single family employee homes) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on March 7,2008 by Staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to CR 5 and north of and adjacent to CR 32.
The site consists of approximately 183+/-acres total,minus the USR Boundary of 60+/-acres. The dairy was originally
approved for a total of 900 head dairy by the Board of County Commissioners on October 25, 1985. The applicant is
proposing to increase the number of head on site to 1940.
The Department of Planning Services'Staff recommends this request be denied for the following three reasons:
Section 22-5-30--for Wildlife Goals and Policies 3.W.Policy 1.3 states:"The County will identify and attempt to protect
critical or unique habitat areas of high public value,such as habitats of endangered or unique species,significant viewing
areas and breeding and spawning areas."
The Division of Wildlife,in their referral dated January 30,2008,state that,"According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife
Natural Diversity Information Source Maps for Weld County, this general area provides winter range for bald eagles,
foraging areas and winter range and winter concentration areas for ducks and geese,and is within the overall range for
pheasant and mule deer and white tailed deer. Raptors and songbirds have also been observed in the area. In addition,
a check with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse may be appropriate for any
development what would possibly occur near wetlands associated with the property. A row of cottonwood trees is located
on the southern edge of the property. A raptor survey may be warranted to determine utilization of the area and potential
impact to raptors if disturbance is expected. Native trees and downed or dead wood on the property should be left in
place for continued benefits to wildlife." They proceed to state,"Water quality may be impacted and any storage ponds
should be built and maintained to minimize impact to wildlife. Screening structures and water quality monitoring and
other measures may be necessary. Close coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife may assist in minimizing
impacts to wildlife while maintaining quality water resources in the area."The Division of Wildlife also states that any
heavy equipment that may come in contact with any water resources in the area: if heavy equipment is acquired that was
previously working in another stream,river,lake,pond,or wetland within 10 days of working on this project,a disinfection
practice is necessary to prevent the spread of New Zealand Mud Snails and other aquatic hitchhikers into this drainage.
The Department of Planning Services has determined from the Colorado Division of Wildlife referral that there is a need
to protect critical or unique habitat areas of high public value,such as habitats of endangered or unique species in the
area.
Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.
The surrounding properties are zoned agricultural. The Town of Mead is located approximately 1/8 mile to the south.
SUP-334 for a reservoir is located approximately 1/2 mile north of the site. USR-1419 for the parking of carnival
equipment is located approximately 1/8 mile north of the site. USR-1421 for a single family dwelling is located
3
approximately%=mile west of the site.
There are eighteen property owners located within five hundred feet of the site. At this time,the Department of Planning
Services has received fourteen letters that are included in your packets. Since that time an additional letter has been
submitted making it fifteen letters that have been submitted. Two of the letters are in support of the proposal. Thirteen
letters are opposed to the proposal. Two of the letters from the same individual recommend that the dairy invest in an
anaerobic digester for the manure which would reduce the odor,eliminate the needs for settling ponds and could even be
used to generate electricity to power some of the operation.
A majority of the letters opposed to the operation focused on the problems with the existing site including flies,odor,truck
traffic and the reduction of property values. The surrounding property owners are concerned that if the site is allowed to
expand the existing issues will get worse and that the expansion of the use will not be compatible with the surrounding
property. One letter outlines that the site is located in an area that is in the planned growth areas for the Town of Mead
and the City of Longmont. The letter also states that the expansion of the dairy is inconsistent the Town of Mead's
growth plan.
Section 23-2-220.A.4--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding
area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County
Code and any other applicable code provisions.
Section 22-2-110.C.1.c UGB.Policy 3.1.3 states "The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan.
The property is within the three mile referral area for the Town of Mead and the City of Longmont along with Boulder
County. The City of Longmont in their referral dated January 23,2008,state that they have reviewed the request and
find no conflict with their interests. No comments were received from Boulder County. The Town of Mead in their referral
dated January 23,2008,state the site is located in the Mead Planning Area and is designated as medium to low density
residential(1.1 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre). The Town of Mead request the applicant consider annexing into the Town.
The Town of Mead also requests that if this application is approved, the accesses to the site be reviewed, that the
manure and waste disposal on site be handled appropriately including clear and enforceable standards, that the
landscaping on site needs to be increased to assist in screening,and finally that a lighted sign is not in keeping with the
character of the area.
The Town of Mead has submitted the email I provided you today dated March 13,2008,that states they are in support of
the application with the following conditions: the sign light be downcast; there is an improved paved apron;landscaping
be installed; and serious consideration be given by the applicant to annex to the Town of Mead.
The applicant is proposing a twenty four square foot illuminated sign on the property. The Weld County Code allows for
a sixteen square foot sign in the agricultural zone district(Appendix 23-D). Staff is in support of the larger sign on site but
do not support the light being internally lit and agree with the Town of Mead that the light sign should be downcast.
Seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case. Four referral agencies had no comments. Ten referral agencies
included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards and conditions of
approval.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied.
Mark Lawley asked if there were any formal complaints filed with the County. Lauren Light, Environmental Health
Department, said there was one complaint in 1991 for dumping water and sludge and excessive odor. The site was
brought into compliance and there have been no complaints since.
Robert Grand asked if the current operation was within the applicable standards established by the County and the State.
Ms. Hatch replied that USR-686 was originally approved by the Board of Count Commissioners on October 25, 1985.
They had a show cause/probable cause before the Board of County Commissioners in 1986,but this is a new owner at
this time and they are not in violation of any applicable County or State standards.
Tom Holton inquired if Public Works had addressed the access regarding the Town of Mead.
Don Dunker,Public Works,responded they were asking the applicant to eliminate the south access onto CR 5 which is
addressed in item I.of the development standards and conditions of approval. He added that CR 5 is a paved collector
and requires eighty feet of right of way at full build out. Currently there is sixty feet of right of way. The most current
traffic counts from 2007 were 807 average daily trips. Storm drainage will be handled by a water retention collection
pond per Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations. Public Works would like to request the addition of a
development standard which requests the applicant provide a geo-tech study indicating exactly where the ground water is
located and another development standard that all drain tile easements that crisscross this particular parcel be
4
designated on the plat. Data provided by the applicant suggest an additional 78 trips per day on CR 5.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health Department, said water to the site is provided by Little Thompson Water District.
They have four existing septic permits. The permit for the residential house and the two mobile homes will need to either
be abandoned of re-examined by an engineer. A new septic permit will be required for the milking parlor. Dust control,
as identified by development standards eight and nine, will be mitigated by water trucks or sprinklers. Odors are
addressed by development standards eight and twelve and will use standard management practices to control odor by
composting,the timing of land application,reduction of standing water,good pen drainage and regular manure removal.
Pest control is also addressed in development standards eight, ten and eleven. The applicant's management plan
outlines seven practices they will implement to control pest, including regular manure removal, reduction of standing
water,minimization of fly habitat,weed and grass management,minimizing stockpiling or storage of manure,biological
treatments. The applicant is required to provide evidence that a CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit has been applied for
through the State Health Department. Conditions of approval M., N., and O. are all regulated by the State Health
Department as well. Development standards five through twenty-one address additional Health Department
requirements. She repeated that the only complaint received was from 1991 and the previous owner. Odor is a concern,
but we have two people in our department certified to measure odor at the site if necessary. There are numerous State
regulations that will come into effect should this amendment be approved.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Light if the development standards and conditions of approval are listed on the current USR.
She said the only thing specified on the USR in 1986 were the guidelines for water pollution control through the State
Health Department. The development standards and conditions of approval for the current application would bring the
site into compliance with County and State regulations.
Dusty McCormick,AGPROfessionals LLC,4350 Hwy 66, Longmont, CO 80504,applicant's representative,said in his
presentation that: the Bangma family purchased the property in October,2006; their family currently operates it and they
wants to continue their dairy business for future generations;it is compatible and consistent with surrounding uses in the
area and the Comprehensive Plan as this is zoned agricultural; cited Section 22-2-60 of the County Code regarding
agricultural goals and policies;spoke about the intent of the agricultural zone district,specifically livestock confinement
operations; and the use is compatible as it already exists;there has been one complaint, but no complaints in the past
ten years.
Mr.McCormick continued that this amendment application would: provide for the addition of 1140 head of cows,which is
the maximum number allowed in this zone district;there will be approximately 1400 milk cows on site;the applicants own
183 contiguous acres;they want to relocate the commodity area to a location along CR 5 and bring the calf huts from the
calf ranch closer to the facility;push the manure currently along the road,further away from the neighbors as possible;
relocate the heifers and springer cows close to a proposed new calving area and milk pens;and build a new storm water
processing pond so the facility can drain as nature intended, collected in a lined impoundment which will make
management easier.
Mr. McCormick added:they have support for the new facility from the Town of Mead;on opaque screening fence will be
installed as well as landscaping; property values will not be destroyed nor will the quality of life for surrounding property
owners; there are several examples of co-existence between livestock operations and housing; they have public and
irrigation water on the site; manure production records will be kept; nuisance controls will be mitigated through design
and management factors;traffic will be mitigated by closing the south CR 5 access; they will add two milk trucks per day
but cattle truck traffic will remain about the same. Thirty-three conditions and forty-one development standards have
been designated by the Planning Department to protect the neighboring properties. The Bangma family wants the
approval in order to expand and improve their family business. It will localize impacts where impacts already exist. The
County will have recourse for enforcement, if necessary,with the approval of this application He closed by requesting
approval of the application by the Planning Commission.
Mark Lawley asked Mr.McCormick to address the Division of Wildlife recommendations. Mr. McCormick said he felt the
DOW referral was somewhat vague and nothing has specifically designated the site hazardous for wildlife. He
emphasized they are willing to work with the DOW however necessary to maintain habitat and water resources in the
area.
Tom Holton asked Mr.McCormick if he had talked to the Town of Mead about an annexation agreement. Mr.McCormick
replied they had and were in the process of completing an annexation agreement. Tom then asked if the application
were denied,how many animals they would have on site. Mr.McCormick replied approximately nine hundred animals.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the specific acreage of the property for the existing USR. Mr. McCormick said the existing
USR is on seventy-nine acres. They propose the USR boundary be the production area boundary;the sixty acres,which
includes the production area and also includes the pond.
Robert Grand asked with the right by use,how many animals were requested for this application with the addition of the
new property. Mr. McCormick replied 1544 head.
5
Nick Berryman asked Bruce Barker for specific guidelines regarding future expansion through agricultural zoning or
special review applications or was it on a case by case judgment. Mr.Barker replied it was treated just like USR so you
would apply the same standards that you have for any USR. The specific request is to approve an increase but there is
no specific language either in the Comprehensive Plan of the zoning ordinance that addresses increase in intensity.
What you must do is review the criteria detailed in the Staff comments,which are the same for almost all USR's.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms. Hatch about the vagueness of the DOW referral and any special concerns or was this just a
general observation that wildlife occurred in the area. Ms.Hatch responded though the referral does seem vague,they
do speak specifically about the cotton wood trees on the southern edge of the property. She suggested the applicant and
the DOW meet to address water quality and wildlife concerns.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ken Williamson, 224 Mulligan Lake Dr, Mead, CO 80542, said: he sent out petitions in the area and received 110
signatures requesting denial;strong odors emanate from the facility about thirty days each year;housing and land values
are affected; as the managing member of the Liberty Properties LLLP at CR 5 and 32 which consists of 158 acres
annexed by Mead and is zoned for 175 half acre home sites; spoke about another proposed subdivision in the area;if
this expansion is approved the facility would be within three quarters of a mile from a school and one mile from downtown
Mead;it is not compatible with the area and not consistent with present uses;this facility could operate for another twenty
years as the more money they put into the facility, the longer they need to operate to recoup that expenditure. Mr.
Williamson said this facility was not feasible given its proximity to the Town of Mead.
Don Abdow,15093 CR 5,Longmont,CO;addressed the closing of the access which would affect the use of his property;
felt the application was asking for too many cattle; knew there was a dairy when he purchased his property but the
operation is too large.
Bill Worrell, 15741 CR 5, Longmont, CO, resides across the ditch from the dairy and said he also knew what he was
buying into when he purchased property in the area. He did not like the addition of a center pivot to disperse liquids and
added that the odor is quite intense when he floods the fields with manure.
Kevin Vendega, 1975 CR 32,Longmont,CO 80504,spoke for himself and his father-in-law Roger Monroe, 1875 CR 32
and said;there is an easement on his property for a twenty four hour,one hundred year flood;the original intent for this
easement was for 900 cows; additional animals would break the easement agreement and give him his land back; a
brand inspector said eleven hundred animals were on the site when the property changed hands;asked for ground water
testing and test wells for the dairy as they do for hog farms back east; and the roads at certain times of the year are
undriveable due to water saturation.
Bill Opperman, 2588 Meadow Ln, Mead, CO 80542, asked: isn't Weld County primarily agricultural rather than
residential; why would Mead want to annex this property;and how long will it take to get pollution mitigation in place. Mr.
Opperman added that: traffic has increased greatly due to residential growth in the area not due to agricultural traffic;he
did not feel odor and traffic would increase incrementally;one thousand cows will smell just as much as two thousand
cows; and he supported the application.
Andy Johnson, 1489 CR 32, Longmont, CO 80504,said: he has coexisted with agriculture and the dairy for thirty-eight
years and enjoys living in an agricultural area. But to be honest,barley,alfalfa and corn production is not the same as a
dairy. He has had no problems with the dairy. As far as odor goes,there is one periodically but it is not intense unless
the wind is blowing a certain direction or settles like an umbrella in the area. The only real concern he might have is with
the area to the west for corn silage and what will they spray it with as there is clean irrigation water in the area and if they
start spraying sludge that will present a different problem. He also expressed concern over the dairy size increasing and
asked if is it possible for the dairy to expand and add animals in the future just because they own the land.
Dennis Ruff, 15470 CR 5, Longmont, CO 80504, said he knew a dairy was there when he purchased his property but
odor was still a concern. Manure in the area has filled ditches on the east side of the road and is at least three to four
inches thick. He felt an increase in traffic would obviously occur. Mr. Ruff also opposed manure composting on area
farms as it has not been common in the area and concluded by saying that future growth and residential development in
the area will surround the dairy.
John Haley, 14491 CR 5, Longmont, CO 80504, said he is the owner of Haley Land, which has been in the area for
almost one hundred years and he fought against the original dairy. His primary concern is that the flow does not come
onto his farm ground.
Richard Kraemer, 101 Silo Ct, Mead, CO 80542, said he had written a letter dated February 13, 2008, addressing his
concerns. He said he knew the dairy was there at the time he purchased his property but is against the size of the
proposed increase as it seems they are moving more cattle into less space. Traffic is also a concern of his as it will pass
6
area schools and create a potential hazard. He suggested traffic go south to Hwy 66, not north on CR 34, rather than
past schools or through the Town of Mead. Mr.Kraemer suggested the applicant should also pay for traffic signals. As
a former Mayor of Mead, he said he had helped develop their Comp Plan in conjunction with Weld County. The
expansion of the dairy is in the middle of residential zoning Weld County requested. He spoke about north/south
arterials and questioned adding more traffic to CR 5. He said he couldn't really complain about the odor as it was a given
but the expansion of this facility would make the odor more significant. Mr.Kraemer continued that he felt wildlife in the
area would be adversely affected and finally that this project was not compatible with current planning or anticipated
future development for the Town of Mead.
Larry Huddleston,PO Box 771,Castle Rock,CO,representing a partnership for property immediately across the street.
He agreed with much of what has been said previously. Mr. Huddleston said he had signed the petition against the
application because of his concern for the impact on property values and the possible impact the dairy would have in the
area. This expansion would also handicap the future of the 500 to 600 homes proposed in the area.
Erich Ehrlich asked Mr.Huddleston how the possible increase in dairy traffic was any different from the traffic generated
by a huge subdivision. Mr. Huddleston said his property rights do not trump anyone else's property rights,but this was
not a compatible use of the property and affected land values.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Dusty McCormick,applicant's representative,addressed neighbor concerns and the access easement along the south
property line. The dairy would still use the road on the property but would give up the access to CR 5 as requested by
the Department of Public Works. The applicant would be happy to move those pens back to the west to establish an
internal road on the site.
Doug Ocshner asked Public Works about the access. Mr. Dunker said they do not want the dairy to use that specific
access on CR 5. Neighbors who have an access agreement for agricultural uses can continue to use the road especially
if it is on their property, but the dairy needs to stop using that access.
Mr.McCormick then addressed the concern regarding mixing irrigation and storm water to reduce impacts on the land.
They are proposing a pivot, low drip,low hanging nozzles which provide better land application. Addressing possible
expansion, the use by right is only available on contiguous properties. Lastly, the milk is processed in Longmont by
Royal Crest Dairy and will be delivered in the area and will not be trucked to Greeley.
Robert Grand asked Mr. McCormick if there was ample ground in the area for manure application and where did the
manure go. Mr.McCormick said the majority of it is sold to third parties but some may be applied to the land as fertilizer.
Mr. Grand also inquired about the pond capabilities. Mr. McCormick explained that there is enough capacity to hold a
one hundred year event and added that the pond was created to prevent water issues and the easement would no longer
be required.
Mr.Spitzer asked Mr.McCormick if the calf and heifer operations would be part of this application and to address Mead's
willingness to annex. Mr. McCormick said they intend to localize their calf ranch and heifer facility onto a new location.
Regarding annexation, the Town of Mead has said their current zoning does not provide the protections that Weld
County can to his clients, but Mead is interested in possible annexation at some point in time.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification from Lauren Light,Environmental Health Department,regarding water quality issues
and test wells. Ms. Light replied that under State regulation eighty-one, the pond must be lined though they do not
require well monitoring.
Ms. Hatch said the site was approximately 183 acres and the USR boundary is approximately 60 acres. If approved,
they would be limited to 1940 cattle on the 60 acres. If they wanted to increase the number of animals, they must
amend the application. She added that the 183 acres,times four animals(which is a use by right),allows for 732 animals
on the property without a use by special review. The property across CR 5 cannot be included in that because there is a
County road that divides that property.
Tom Holton asked if the property across the road has a use by right. Ms.Hatch said that it does,but the animals cannot
be transferred to the 183 acre property. You cannot have a USR on a property and also have cattle by right. The USR
exceeds the use by right numbers.
Bruce Barker clarified that the USR-686 as approved in 1985,allowed 900 head on the property. He did not think it was
proper to go ahead and say we have control of surrounding properties and those have a use by right that includes the
additional property. It makes sense to put all of the animals on one property,the USR property. For example,Mr.Barker
said he could go out and obtain a USR and then buy multiple properties around there and multiple my number of animals
just by saying I have a USR and I can do so because I have all of these other properties. The USR-686 allows 900 head
on that specific property. If it exceeds that number, it is in violation.
7
Tom Holton asked if the amended USR changed the boundary. Mr. Barker said it does. Ms. Hatch said it was her
understanding that the USR encumbers both parcels and it is the intent that it is for both parcels. The entire 183 acres is
not included because if they did, the Department of Public Works looks at the drainage calculations differently. To
minimize drainage calculations, people try to reduce their USR boundary down as small as they possibly can.
Mr. McCormick added that in Weld County you are allowed four cows per acres, so the 104 acres could contain 416
cattle. They are not trying to fool anyone. One hundred eighty-three acres with 1940 animals is what they are asking for.
Tom Holton said the fact is that the rest of the property is not in the USR.
General discussion continued by the Planning Commission as to the numbers of animals, locations of the USR's and
general re-clarification of the specifics of the application.
Don Dunker,Public Works Department,added the following statement as item T.,under prior to recording the plat,"The
applicant shall have a geotechnical study to define the groundwater table of the site and the pond." Existing item T.will
be re-lettered as item U.
Tom Holton motioned and Mark Lawley seconded to adopt the preceding condition of approval. Motion carried.
Don Dunker, Public Works Department, added a new number 10 to item U.,to read,"The applicant shall delineate all
drain tiles with easements within the site on the plat map."
Tom Holton motioned and Robert Grand seconded to adopt the preceding condition of approval. Motion carried.
The Chair asked Mr. McCormick he applicant had read and agreed with the amended conditions of approval and the
development standards as amended. Mr. McCormick replied he understood them and agreed.
Tom Holton expressed concern over the use of effluent in sprinklers,which tends to increase odor and could they place
time or wind limits if it is blowing. Mr. McCormick said they were not necessarily opposed to such a requirement as the
applicant wants to be a good neighbor.
Ms.Hatch presented a suggestion for a new development standard number forty-one and renumber according on page
twelve of thirteen that,"No land applications shall occur during holidays or periods of high wind". Mr.McCormick agreed
to it.
Roy Spitzer motioned and Mark Lawley seconded to add a new development standard forty-one as stated. Motion
carried.
Nick Berryman asked Staff if the concerns have been adequately addressed for denial. Ms.Hatch said Planning Staff is
still recommending denial for compatibility reasons as well as DOW referral concerns until those items have been
addressed. Additionally,while the Town of Mead is in support of the application,the use is also not compatible with their
Comprehensive Plan.
Robert Grand asked the Chair if Weld County has an IGA with Mead. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said we do not.
Nick Berryman asked Ms. Hatch if it would be necessary to allow more time to satisfy the DOW concerns. She
responded that if the applicant could have evidence prior to the Board of County Commission hearing that he had
mitigated all of the DOW concerns, and has full support from the Town of Mead, Staff would provide a memo to the
Board of County Commissioners stating the conditions had been met.
Roy Spitzer asked if there were eighteen surrounding property owners within five hundred feet of the site and does that
include the entire site or the USR. Ms. Hatch replied it was the entire property.
Robert Grand motioned to forward AMUSR-686 to the Board of County Commissioners with their recommendation of
approval and cited Section 35-3.5-102.of the Colorado Revised Statutes,and Sections 22-5-30,22-2-220 A.3,and 23-2-
220 A.4.of the County Code. As there was no second,the motion dies.
Bill Hall motioned that Case AMUSR-686, be denied per Staff recommendations. Second by Erich Ehrlich.
Bill Hall cited the incompatibility issue of a dairy in the area due to density.
Erich Ehrlich said the applicant did what they did in order to amend the application. The public should be comfortable
knowing that there are State codes and statutes as well as County provisions in place that the applicant must comply
with. The concern regarding Mead is that we do not have an IGA with them and it is difficult for the applicant to continue
operation given the expected development in the surrounding area. The way the Code reads,the applicant can still place
8
four animals per acre on their property,adjoining sites,or across CR 5. He did not feel odor was an issue and added that
transportation whether engaged in agriculture or residential development was part of the dynamic of being in Mead and is
not relevant to today's USR. Increasing the intensity in the area concerns him as well. Lastly he expressed his
disappoint that the Town of Mead did not attend the hearing to participate when they have concerned citizens present.
He charged those citizens with asking why Mead did not have representation.
Tom Holton said these cases are the hardest to rule on and he still does not know how he will vote. This is an older dairy
with some issues and if this USR is approved then all of the standards we have added and all of the plans the applicants
have for improvement will increase the odor. By the same token, we have a gentleman that just bought a piece of
property, installed sewer lines, has plans for 175 residences, and then there is Mead saying they don't really care.
Robert Grand said it sounds like we are penalizing the applicant for trying to run the most efficient business operation.
The second issue is the growth and development around the facility. He has empathy for all involved. Weld County is a
farming community and it is a tough issue. He had a hard time penalizing a guy for intensity when we have inferred that
this is a more efficient and better way to do business.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms.Hatch if there were other USR's or any other dairies within a two mile radius. She replied USR's
in the area existed for carnival equipment storage, single family residence, and Mead has a small USR.
Mark Lawley commented that there is a compatibility issue. We have approved several PUD's and large subdivisions
since his tenure and when we intensify the use of something like this, it causes issues in the long run.
Nick Berryman cited Sections 22 and 23 of the Code and said it struck him how often there were references to the
importance of agriculture and its businesses and that Weld County tries to promote. In his mind there is an issue in that
we do not have an IGA with Mead prioritizing what we are focusing on today. Agricultural uses should trump some of the
other concerns we might have. Though he also agrees with Mark that there are obviously impacts and compatibility
issues which we need to take into account as well.
Doug Ochsner agreed with Commissioner Grand that basically we are penalizing a company that wants to clean up their
operation and make it more compatible with the area. If we deny this,they can continue to run 900 head of cattle on this
property with basically no regulations. It will continue the way it is. For compatibility, it is already there. It may not
change for one hundred years from 900 head. They are asking to improve the site and will comply with the forty two
restrictions to mitigate odor,pest control,drainage etc. We have seen dairies exist close to municipalities and we have
had very little if any complaints on a well run dairy. He thinks that is what the applicants are trying to do—clean up the
area and make it compatible. For him to deny it is basically makes compatibility worse as it will continue as it is. If we
were to approve the application,the County would have some control over prospective issues and could revoke the USR.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman, no;
Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,no;Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,no; Doug Ochsner,
no.
Motion tied so there was no recommendation made to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair reminded the members of the audience to attend the Board of County Commission hearing and express their
opinions again at that upcoming hearing.
Nick Berryman cited the section of the State and County Codes, previously outlined by Commissioner Grand, as his
reason for denial of the application.
Roy Spitzer commented he had three issues: the groundwater conditions are uncertain and there are three property
owners to the south who could be impacted;the compatibility issue;and that since the DOW referral was so vague,the
wildlife issue is a non-issue for him.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 22-2-60 of the Code to ensure continuation of agriculture as well as compatibility,because
the applicant is trying to make the site more compatible that it is currently.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1394
APPLICANT: Zadel Family LLLP
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3-7, part of Lot 11 and all of Lot 12 in Lupton Meadows Subdivision,together
with the former right of way of the Denver Larimer and Northwestern Railroad all in
Section 24, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource
9
Development Facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Materials
Blending,Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
(NCCI Pit#1)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18 and west of and adjacent to CR 25.
SIZE: 175.63 acres, more or less.
Michelle Martin,Department of Planning,said the application was for an Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a
Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility (including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant,
Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (NCCI Pit#1)
The site is located north of and adjacent to County Road 18 and west of and adjacent to County Road 25.
This case was originally scheduled to be heard February 19,2008 but was continued because mineral notification had
not been sent in time.
The sign announcing the PC hearing was posted January 31, 2008 by Planning Staff.
The proposed Use by Special Review(USR)proposes to mine additional lands as existing mineral reserves are
depleted from the current site (USR-1394). USR-1394 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
September 24,2003 for a Mineral Resource Development Facility(Dry Open Pit Mining for Sand and Gravel)on 102
acres. The proposed amendment includes an additional 73 acres of adjacent property and a concrete and asphalt
batch plant.
Existing land uses surrounding the property are typically agricultural and rural residential in use. Additionally, in the
area there are several Use by Special Reviews approved by the Board of County Commissioners: north of the site is
SUP-426 for a gravel mining operation, south USR-1255 for a gravel operation, and east of the site USR-986 for an
oil and gas facility. There are fourteen (14)property owners within five hundred (500)feet of this proposed
development. Weld County has not received any letters from surrounding property owners but did receive one
phone call.
The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the City of Fort Lupton,Town of Firestone,and the
Town of Frederick. The City of Fort Lupton returned a referral dated 11/30/07 stating they had reviewed the request
and find no conflicts with their interests.Weld County has not received a referral from the Towns of Firestone and
Frederick regarding this proposal. Planning Staff believes that,with the endorsement of the Conditions of Approval,
contained in this recommendation,the approval of this use will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding property owners.
Twenty-four referral agencies reviewed this case. Twelve responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
Planning Staff is recommending approval of this application along with the conditions of approval and development
standards.
The applicant's representative is present and at this time I will be happy to answer any questions.
Todd Yee, J & T Consulting, 140 W 122 Av Ste 120, Westminster, CO 80234, applicant's representative, said the
existing USR covers 102 acres for sand and gravel mining and processing. The planned reclaimed use is two lined water
storage cells to act as one reservoir. Seventy acres are planned for mining. They propose to expand the available
resources while protecting wells around the site. This site was selected because it would have the least effect on
surrounding property owners. There would be no blending of piles or product until it goes into the batch plant. The dust
would be minimal. There would be very little site lighting as they would rely on natural daylight for the majority of work.
They plan to pave the entrance per Public Works'recommendations for dust mitigation. They will have a concrete plant
processing area and a three bay truck wash and dumping ground. They will ensure that water will not enter or leave the
site. Site screening will consist of trees. They have worked closely with other oil and gas businesses in area. The
applicant currently has a long term road maintenance agreement with the County;the bridge at the river is complete;and
an agreement has been signed for improvements on Hwy 85. They have submitted and obtained State permits as well
as a Substitute Supply Plan, air quality permits, etc., and will maintain compliance with those entities. They will also
submit a stamped and signed Drainage Report.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Walter Kerr, 11104 CR 20, said his main concern is not necessarily with this specific operation, but for the increased
future traffic as far as the dust fog that is created presently in the area. Mr.Kerr thanked Doug Graff for addressing his
specific concerns regarding the operation. He said that while this specific operation doesn't contribute heavily to traffic,
he was still very concerned for additional heavy truck use on CR 23. He inquired if the County will maintain the roads.
10
He added that the dumping of water has flooded his pasture and renders it worthless. According to Mr.Yee,there is not
much odor from asphalt but Mr.Kerr said he was still concerned with possible odor. Mr.Kerr asked that dist mitigation be
addressed. He concluded by saying that CR 20 will be torn up if steps are not taken to prevent it.
Bill Gee,8995 CR 25,said the mining corporation has spoken with him and he thinks they will be good neighbors. He did
not oppose the application. They may not be too detrimental to the area if they control moisture as they claim they will,
and he would be happy if they dredge and dike the Little Dry Creek so his pasture does not flood.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Don Carroll,Department of Public Works,addressed traffic concerns and said that CR 20 signs were changed last week
to read the same at both ends;signs posted for"no gravel trucks"are scheduled to be placed at both ends of the road on
Friday,March 21,2008;CR 23 has a haul route they are to follow as CR 23 is a public road;loads more than three miles
from the site are to be tarped and if a load is lost on the road, Public Works will contact the operator for clean up or the
County will take care of it;the County has long term maintenance agreements with other pits in the area to stay on the
haul routes,complete required improvements, and they have been very good about following those agreements.
Robert Grand inquired about off site dust control. Mr. Carroll replied that the road is paved and dust would come from
loading from the stock piles or blowing of particulates.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said the septic system needs to be finaled for the house on the site; there is no
permit application for a vault system; restroom facilities need an ISDS permit; they also need a permanent adequate
water supply due to the number of employees; everything has been addressed in the development standards and
conditions of approval,as far as she can tell,including dust abatement which is addressed in development standard six.
The Chair asked the applicant to address public concerns. Mr.Yee said the travel pattern for this pit comes down CR 25
to CR 18 to Hwy 85 and is paved. Drivers are instructed to cover/tarp their loads. Odors are very low if any at all from
the concrete batch plant and very minimal from the asphalt batch plant,though some odor may come from trucks going
east.
The Chair asked the applicant if they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr.Yee responded that he had read them and did agree with the development standards and conditions of approval.
Mark Lawley moved that Case AMUSR-686, 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.
Second by Tom Holton.
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,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes. Motion carried.
Work Session Item—Proposed revisions to the Land Use Process
Tom Honn, Director of Planning, said that shortly after he assumed his new position, he felt they needed to look at
revising the process for items that go to public hearings. Sometimes cases came before the Planning Commission with
issues that had not been adequately addressed or resolved. Additionally we have scheduled hearing dates as soon as
we consider the application complete. We had no specific policy in place to meet with involved entities prior to the
hearings.
He said they had met with folks in surrounding communities who seemed to support the changes they were proposing.
They have structured the process to have a pre-application meeting with a brief presentation by the applicant. Planning
will then review the application and make suggestions to aid in completeness of the application. This will aid the
applicant in understanding the process and ensure their application is complete in a more timely fashion. Throughout
this review, Planning will determine that information is accurate and specific prior to submittal to the Planning
Commission.
There are a number of features that would change under the revised general process:
• "Required" Pre-Application Meeting
• Completeness Review
• Provide Planning Referral Comments& Meet Applicant After Referrals
• Set Planning Commission Hearing Date
• Neighborhood Meetings
• The County Commission Hearing Date
11
• Recording of the Plat
Torn Holton asked who decides when an application is complete and ready to move to the next step. Tom Honn said that
as long as all of the parts are there,it will move along. The development community felt this was in line with what other
entities are currently following. This new process will give the applicants the opportunity to address potential concerns or
problems in advance of the Planning Commission hearing. Mr.Holton suggested there had to be an end to the process,
that we could not just keep adding requirements. Mr.Honn said it was crucial to give specific directions to applicants so
they weren't caught in a never ending process and that communication needs to occur at the onset,rather than half-way
through the process.
Erich Ehrlich asked Mr.Honn whether referral packets were sent to the entities involved in the applications. He said they
receive the same complete packet as the Planning Commission receives. Planning is also trying to set up quarterly
meetings with towns, their planners, etc., to promote better communication between those involved in the various
applications.
Tom Holton mentioned what he called"beating up the applicant"and encouraged early mitigation by all parties involved
with the application.
Brad Mueller addressed the adversarial situations that could arise and that Planning hoped this process revision would
diminish those possibilities. He said this report and proposal will go to the Board of County Commissioners for a similar
work session. After receiving general reaction and direction, Staff will hold another forum with landowners and
developers to get additional input and to advise the community of intended changes.
Some of the changes will only require policy changes. Others will require revisions to the Code. Finally,any changes in
the process will be communicated by posting information on the department web page,updating the land use Procedural
Guides and through discussion with landowners.
Meeting adjourned at 6:05
Respectfully submitted,
Donita May �? J
Secretary
12
Hello