HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071090.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, April 3, 2007, in the Weld
County Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair, Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT —-
Chad Auer- Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich •
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Kris Ranslem, Jesse Hein, Don Carroll, Pam
Smith and Troy Swain.
Doug Ochsner mentioned that on the meeting items of March 6, 2007 minutes,technically he had wanted to
only change the time of the luncheon at the South office because of no speakers, however as we met today at
12:30 it seemed to work out fine and would like to continue. Bruce Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes
as written, seconded by Paul Branham. Motion carried.
ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN
CASE NUMBER: USR-1603
APPLICANT: Richland Towers Development LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the S2 of Section 10,T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan for one (1)or more microwave, radio,
television or other communications transmission or relay towers over
seventy(70)feet in height per lot in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 19;west of and adjacent to CR 21; 1/2 mile
south of CR 12.
The Chair stated that the board recognizes USR-1603, Richland Towers Development LLC has formerly
withdrawn their application.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1601
APPLICANT: Russell Pope
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1823; Pt NE4 of Section 8m T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by review or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(weddings,wedding receptions,
wedding seminars, honeymoons, meetings, reunions, religious
ceremonies, private parties, dinner parties, picnics; business
conferences, lectures, seminars and training sessions;trade shows, car
shows,art exhibits; recreational activities including badminton,
basketball, croquet, golf driving range, horseshoes and volleyball;
outdoor events including Easter egg hunt, hay/straw wagon rides,
pumpkin patch, sleigh rides and surrey rides; holiday parties and
community gatherings along with accessory uses including bar service
6rifl u-nt0.at-n0 'v-/G,_92,90 2007-1090
and catering)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile north of State Hwy 14;west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Chris Gathman stated that he received a verbal confirmation from the applicant that they wish to withdraw the
case, however he has not received a written request to do so,therefore staff would request that this case be
continued until April 17, 2007.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1601 be continued until the April 17, 2007 meeting, Tom Holton
seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUED ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1120
APPLICANT: Willard&Linda Owens
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3479; located in part E2NE4 of Section 23,T6N, R67W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 23 and south of and adjacent to SH 392.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,requested that this case be continued two weeks until April
17, 2007. The applicants have modified their application from eight (8) residential lots with a Commercial
parcel to nine(9)residential lots. Staff has sent out amended referrals to referral agencies and also amended
notices to surrounding property owners and are just waiting to get responses back.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-1120 be continued until April 17,2007 so that it can be re-advertised,Tom
Holten seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1602
APPLICANT: Cockroft Dairy LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-178;Section 11,T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agriculture,animal husbandry,or horticultural service on a fee or
contract basis including Livestock Confinement Operations (a dairy
operation for a total of 4500 cattle including milking cow and dry cows)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 72;west of and adjacent to CR 59; north
of and adjacent to CR 70 and east of and adjacent to CR 57.
Chris Gathman requested that this case be pulled from the Consent Agenda. The applicant has a letter they
would like to present to the board in regard to some potential changes to conditions of approval and
development standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that USR-1602 be pulled from the Consent Agenda, seconded by Doug Ochsner.
Motion carried.
2
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1590
APPLICANT: Contreras Farms Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3515; located in a portion of the W2SW4 and all of the
E2SW4 and of Section 19,T7N, R63W 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 a livestock confinement operation (a calf
raising operation for up to 5,000 head)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 78;east of and adjacent to the intersection
of CR 61 and CR 78.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services stated that staff has received a letter from the applicant's
representative and they are requesting a continuance of this case until May 1,2007 to address water supply
issues.
Pat McNear, Scott Realty, 1212 8thAv,Greeley CO, stated that he is here on behalf of George Contreras. Mr.
McNear stated that their concerns are explained in a letter that was handed out to the Planning Commission.
Their understanding was that they would get an approval from the Planning Commission Board and then
proceed with satisfying whatever the applicant has to do to provide raw water and an augmented well to that
application. Mr. McNear indicated he understands that everything else in the application has been satisfied or
is at a point where it can be satisfied. Mr. McNear stated that they have initiated the process as far as
augmenting and getting a permitted permanent well on the property. Mr. McNear commented that the
problem is the applicant doesn't own the property where the well will be placed and there is a problem that
exists on how the spacing is. In visiting with Mr.Contreras today, he feels that if we had a positive feeling that
this is going to go forward and that he just needs to satisfy the items previously mentioned then he is probably
in a position to purchase the other land and go forward which would eliminate one of the hurdles of non-
ownership.
The Chair asked the representative to clarify if they wish to continue the case. Mr. McNear stated that they
are in support of a continuance. Paul Branham asked Chris Gathman if planning staff has any objection to the
applicant's request to continue. Mr. Gathman stated that staff has no objections and would review any new
information that would come in.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance of
this application. No one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that USR-1590 be continued until May 1,2007. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1116
APPLICANT: Lone Tree Estates
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3846, part of the NW4 of Section 27,T7N, R65W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Lone Tree Estates PUD, Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone
District to PUD for three(3)lots with (E) Estate Zone uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and approximately 1/2 mile north of CR
76.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, stated that Troy Hauer for A Better Job Inc.has applied
for a request of Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to PUD for three(3)lots with(E)Estate
Zone uses called Lone Tree Estates PUD.
The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the E (Estate)Zone District.
3
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted February 16,2007 by Planning Staff for
the March 6, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. At the March 6,2007 Planning Commission hearing the
case was continued to today to allow for appropriate newspaper notification.
The site is located East of and adjacent to County Road 43 and approximately 1/2 mile north of County Road
76.
The surrounding property consists of primarily single family homes and agricultural uses. The majority of the
property is located within the 100 year flood plain as delineated on Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Community Panel Map #080266 0487 C dated September 28, 1982. Building and septic envelopes
shall be delineated on the plat. A Flood Hazard Development Permit will be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The applicant is proposing a low density residential development 3 lots on 24.7 acres. The minimum lot size is
6.719 acres.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by North Weld County Water District for potable water requirements. Fire
protection will be provided by sprinkler systems. Individual sewer disposal systems are proposed to handle
the effluent flow.
Lone Tree Estates is considered a non-urban scale development not requiring any open space per Section 27-
2-140 of the Weld County Code. The proposal does not include any open space.
The site is located within the 3 mile referral area for the Town of Eaton. The Town of Eaton in their referral
dated December 26,2006, indicated they have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with their interests.
15 referral agencies reviewed this case, 2 referral agencies had no comments and 9 responded favorably or
included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
Referrals were not received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Spring Creek Ditch
Company, the North Weld County Water District, and the Eaton Fire Protection District
No comments have been received from surrounding property owners.
The applicant is requesting that the Final Plan be administratively reviewed. The Department of Planning
Services'staff concurs with this request.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the Change of Zone.
Eric Ehrlich inquired if there was any notification from the Army Corp of Engineers that the flood plain has
been updated since 1982. Ms. Hatch stated that she has not received anything from the State. Ms. Hatch
added that the applicants are going to be applying for a LOMR for the site, however until that is done we are
asking building envelopes be put on the site and that flood hazard permits are applied for.
Paul Branham noted on page 4F, it is talked about the streets being dedicated to the public and then on page
8 there is a reference that the Home Owners Association will be responsible for maintenance on the streets.
Mr. Branham asked if that is consistent with what we normally do. Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney,
replied that it is consistent with the idea that you have to have it dedicated to the public and in essence they
don't own the rights of way, if they did they would be private easements.
Tom Holton stated that he looked at the property and with regard to the flood plain,the property sits up just as
high as the rest of the homes in the area. Unfortunately with the maps dating back to 1982,there is nothing
we can do with FEMA.
Doug Ochsner asked again if Ms. Hatch could go over in simple terms what needs to be done to build a house
because on page 9 you have"warning lots may not be buildable due to flood plain or flood way designation.
Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, indicated that Brian Varrella from Public Works can help shed some
light on this situation.
4
Brian Varrella, Department of Public Works, Water Division, stated that in the form of a flood plain the
Department is required by FEMA as the administrator of their rules in the County to first of all assure that any
homes constructed or proposed for construction in the County are safe from flooding. Second, they are not
located in what would be in a flood way. Third, the Department asks that each applicant not cause an
appreciable rise on adjacent or upstream properties. In this case there is no data to support the way this flood
plain has been drawn and therefore the applicant is currently looking into the process of changing FEMA's
map per the process known as LOMR and COMR. If they decide that they would not prefer to change FEMA's
map they can still apply to put a home site in the flood plain. If they decide they want to build in the flood plain
they will be asked to show the house is reasonably safe from flooding and to show that they are not flooding
their neighbors and to show that they are not sleeping or proposing to put people in an area where they might
be unaware they are in the flood way. We ask for a flood hazard development permit at the time they apply for
their building permits. Once the flood hazard permit has been approved by Public Works it goes back to
Building Inspection for them to inspect and make sure the property is complying with all FEMA regulations.
Tom Holton asked about the process to get the map changed. Mr. Varrella said the process to get the map
changed is the LOMR goes through and corrects whatever mistakes might have been made by FEMA or
essentially it is FEMA's vehicle for changing the map to update it for current land use.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health,added that along with what Brian stated about being able to build in
a flood plain or flood way the same restriction applies to placing of septic systems. Pam stated that you
cannot put a septic system in a flood way. She indicated you can put one in a flood plain but not in a flood
way. Pam reiterated that what she indicated in her comments, according to Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment ISDS Guidelines Section 8, #17 and also in Section 30-5-20 of the Weld County
Code, you can't build in a flood way. Pam added that since there is not a flood way delineated on this map,
that restriction basically eliminates the building of Lot 2 with the map they have right now. That also gives you
a very small, narrow area on Lot 1 and 3 of where you can put septic systems.
Doug Ochsner asked if applicant is successful in getting this changed,then all these requirements are null and
void. Pam Smith stated that you can put a septic system outside the flood way boundary but within that flood
plain.
Angela Hauer, 38515 CR 41, Eaton CO, clarified that on map two of the lots are out of the flood plain and
show building envelopes and sites for septic outside of that flood plain area. Mrs. Howard understands that
the third lot, which is Lot 2 is inside of that flood plain and with the Flood Hazard Certificate they can build in
that. She further stated it is their understanding that it has already been delineated and there is no flood way
in this area and is only a flood plain and the LOMR would just bring the flood plain back towards the creek.
Mrs. Howard stated it is their opinion that this map is incorrect. The have done an extensive hydrology study
at this point to show that they will not be flooding any of the neighbors and during that study they have found
that there really is no water coming up that way. She further stated that when they do their LOMR study it will
bring the flood plain back to the east.
Mrs. Hauer stated that they feel that these lot sizes and the continuation of very small scale agricultural uses
are consistent with the surrounding uses. She further indicated that since they are on a paved road and they
have water available from North Weld County Water District and do have opportunity for sanitary sewer in the
form of septic tanks and that the potential burden on that infrastructure is very minimal as there is only 3 lots
and the road is already paved. Mrs. Hauer stated she understands that Lot 2 is buildable at this time if we get
the Flood Hazard Permits done and added they will continue with the LOMR study if it is economically feasible
for them to do and not a requirement for them to build on that lot.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, stated that they have one item they would like to add to the
Conditions of Approval. Under final plat submission item 4 on page 10,the Department of Public Works would
like to add"all discharge of stormwater drainage from the proposed sites to offset properties must be located
in a dedicated drainage easement granted by affected neighbors. Written documentation of this agreement
shall be included in the drainage report."
5
Brian Varrella further stated that what they are trying to do is get approval from any landowners offsite who are
receiving flows from this site to approve the quantity and nature of those flows in accordance with the
Colorado Drainage Law. There is a swail leading from the site,going in a southeast direction and leaves the
site on the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision. Since this subdivision does change proposed
grading and it also changes existing flow patterns, we have to receive written approval from the adjacent
neighbor to receive those stormwater flows in both quantity and nature.
Bruce Barker said that it sounds from the applicant that they own the property to the east so it doesn't appear
to be a problem in granting an easement. Brian Varrella spoke with their Right-of-Way Agent and could not
find on public record where this adjacent property is currently owned by the Hauers. However,if it is owned by
them there will be a vehicle for them to grant a flow path from themselves to themselves but it cannot do it in
the form of an easement. According to our Right-of-Way Agent, a Grantor and Grantee cannot be the same
person,otherwise if they are that easement is null and void. They would have to reserve an area for water to
get to the creek and that reservation has to be recorded at the County. Public Works would still need some
written documentation recorded at the County that reserves a way for water to get from this point down to the
creek historically.
The applicant, Mrs. Hauer,stated that they control the property through a deeded 100 year lease. It is part of
a Recorded Exemption,which the farmer has deeded them 100 years until it can be subdivided off. As part of
that deed it says they have the rights to do any type of easement,grading changes, any type of building, any
change to that parcel whatsoever.
Doug Ochsner moved to accept staffs recommendation to add "U" language as read by staff under time of
final plat application, seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Eric Ehrlich, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer.
Doug Ochsner asked staff if we approve as is with Development Standards, as soon as this is approved can
they go and start building homes on all three lots right away and is there any safety precautions toward the
future buyer. Jacqueline Hatch stated that this is the change of zone stage so there is still a final stage. The
notes are on the Development Standards that a flood hazard permit will need to be issued, there is also a
warning note that said not all permits will be issued so there is no guarantee they will get building permits on
that. Also as Pam stated she needs to know where the flood way is before they can release a septic
envelope. So there are safety mechanisms in place.
The Chair stated that the board added the Development Standard with regard to the discharge. The Chair
asked the applicant if they are in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mrs. Hauer stated that they also are asking for a variance for additional animal units. Jacqueline Hatch
indicated that she is not seeing in their application where they had requested that. Ms. Hatch stated that
currently it was applied for with estate zoning and would like the applicant to be more specific on which
animals she wants. The applicant stated that they would request additional cattle units if someone were to
have a team roping facility or something like that. Ms. Hatch added that it could not exceed 8 animal units per
the Estate Zone District. The applicant stated that they would like to request a variance for 2 cattle per acre.
Ms. Hatch clarified that they would be changing the request of the application to Change of Zone from the
Agricultural Zone District to PUD for 3 lots with Estate Zone uses except for cattle 2 per acre would be
allowed. The change would be made in the general requests on page 1 and also the change to the
Development Standards on page 7A, and add a new"B" saying that all animal units shall follow the Estate
Zone District except for cattle which would be 2 per acre.
Paul Branham asked if staff would recommend approval or denial of this request. Jacqueline Hatch stated
that the Department of Planning Services would not consider that to be a significant change and the Board of
County Commissioners would be notified with this description. Pam Smith, Department of Public Health
stated that they would not have any concerns with it as they have feed lots around them.
6
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that the Planning Commission allow 2 cattle per acre and make changes throughout
the documents to reflect that, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case PZ-1116, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes ; Tom Holton, yes ; Mark Lawley, yes ; Roy Spitzer,
yes ; Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair requested to take a 4 minute recess at 2:42 pm.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 2:50 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1602
APPLICANT: Cockroft Dairy LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-178; Section 11,T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agriculture, animal husbandry,or horticultural service on a fee or
contract basis including Livestock Confinement Operations(a dairy
operation for a total of 4500 cattle including milking cow and dry cows)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 72;west of and adjacent to CR 59; north
of and adjacent to CR 70 and east of and adjacent to CR 57.
The Chair read the case into record.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that Cockcrofts Dairy, LLC being represented by
AgProfessionals, LLC have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Dairy operation (for a total of 4,500 cattle including milking cows and dry cows) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
district.
The site is located south of and adjacent to County Road 72 and east of and adjacent to County Road 57.
13 referral agencies reviewed this case, 10 referral agencies responded favorably or included conditions
that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The site is surrounded by agricultural land with single-family residences. The nearest single-family
residence is located approximately 1/8 mile east of the site.
The applicants have indicated that the facility will use public water of which is North Weld County Water
District.
One letter of opposition has been received from a surrounding property owner. The party who
wrote the letter expressed concern with traffic safety, dust, flies and odor. The property owner
lives across County Road 57 from the dairy operation.
The applicants have submitted a nuisance management plan with the application that outlines
operation practices to reduce dust and odor emissions. Additionally, development standards#15
-21 deal specifically with operation standards addressing dust, fly, odor, pest and runoff
conditions.
The Department of Public Works is recommending that County Road 59 be used as a haul route,
as opposed to County Road 57, to minimize impact on residences in the area. Development
Standard #10 addresses applying dust suppressant chemicals if dust becomes an issue between
residential structures and the secondary access to County Road 59.
7
Tom Holton asked where the house of the owner who opposes this is located. Chris Gathman stated that it is
located off of CR 57. Mr. Gathman further added that the buildings for the dairy were constructed in the past
couple of years and the main access is off of CR 72,with a proposed secondary access off of CR 59.
Doug Ochsner inquired if this in an amended USR. Mr. Gathman stated that they are a Use by Right Dairy
originally so they were under the 4 head of cattle per acre. Under this current proposal they will be increasing
the amount of cattle to exceed beyond the agricultural use by right of 4 per acre.
Mr. Gathman indicated that there is an existing dairy directly to the south and has been approved for up to
2000 head of cattle.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there are any current violations on the property. Mr.Gathman stated that there was
not.
Dusty McCormick, 4350 Hwy 66, stated that he would like to address some of the conditions that staff
originally placed on the application. Mr. McCormick handed out a copy of their proposed changes to amend
the conditions of approval and development standards. Mr. McCormick addressed most of the condition
changes through Mr.Gathman via email correspondence and conversed with Troy Swain of Pubic Health and
Don Carroll of Public Works. He understands that those three staff members are in support of the majority of
the wording changes.
Eric Ehrlich inquired if the homes that Mr. Gathman had showed were homes of the employees of the dairy.
Mr. McCormick indicated that those homes are employees of the dairy. He further added that Cockrofts own
quite a bit of property in this area and in order to operate a good organic dairy they needed to utilize as much
land as we can.
Paul Branham asked how a organic dairy differs from a traditional dairy. Mr. McCormick stated that organic
dairies are different in the fact that the cattle that are being milked daily have certain requirements set out that
for a certain amount of days those cattle have to be on natural feed,where they are out grazing on pastures
getting their food through grass rather than being fed in a bunk.
Roy Spitzer inquired where the composting facilities are located. Mr. McCormick replied that they are in the
middle of the section, south of the existing parlor and free stalls and north of the Greeley#2 ditch.
Eric Ehrlich asked if there was any required lining for the berm in case of any leaching from the compost. Mr.
McCormick stated the there was not any for the berm. He further added that it is addressed as a diversion
structure so if water collects there and if it makes it past the pond during a rain fall storm event and this
compost was to get saturated and leach it would come down and collect next to this berm. Then within 24
hours it would be pumped into either pond 1 or pond 2.
Doug Ochsner inquired if CR 70 would be a major access to and from the dairy. Mr. McCormick stated that it
will barely get used. He commented that it was probably used during construction and was aware of some of
the neighbors concerns during construction. Mr. McCormick stated that they will primarily use CR 59 and CR
72 depending on which way the traffic is coming from and will be used as a loop so there should be very little
traffic that will travel down CR 57 and CR 70. He further added that CR 59 would be the major thorough fare
getting to and from this facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sherry Wolfram,34505 CR 57. Mrs.Wolfrom stated that she lives directly west of this dairy. She read a letter
of concern to the board. She wrote to express several concerns on the new Cockroft Dairy and would like to
see a number of issues addressed. She continued that the building and opening of this dairy has resulted in a
dramatic increase of traffic in their area. The size of the dairy requires a large workforce as well as many
support services. The traffic has made an impact in several ways, including the deterioration of the county
road surface and the fact that cars and trucks travel at high rates of speed because there is no posted speed
limit. There are several families with small children including hers,who live along this road and the speed of
travel creates a hazardous environment for them. There is also an uncontrolled intersection at CR 57 and CR
8
72 through which virtually all traffic for the dairy travels. They have observed several near accidents at this
intersection over the past few months as there is no stop sign currently. Another concern that has arisen as a
result of the heavy traffic is a tremendous increase in the amount of trash along the road. Several other
issues that are concerns include the huge influx of flies last fall following the arrival of the cows. Over the
winter there has been manure piled on the dairy property and effluent or something similar spread on the
grounds. They understand that there will be a huge fly problem with the advent of warmer weather. In
addition there is a powerful odor at times and assume that this is when effluent is spread on the fields.
Approximately 1 week ago the stench was so strong in the late afternoon/evening that it made them nauseous.
This stench was not only outdoors it also permeates the inside of their home. She further stated that most of
the existing homes in that area are not owned or lived in by dairy employees. They wish to be good neighbors
to this business, however they expect the same. She further stated their concern with access to the dairy and
that it should be addressed with the dairy employees.
No further public comment was made, therefore the Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. McCormick addressed the list of concerns from the neighbor. He stated that in the application there is a
Nutrient Management Plan that addresses how and when we apply effluent on those irrigated pivots. He also
added that they have a Nuisance Management Plan in place that has been reviewed by the Weld County
Public Heath and Environment which does address ways in which we can help reduce those vector concerns
and dust and odor.
Doug Ochsner asked if those plans would be any different than what is currently being done on the site today.
Mr. McCormick replied that the only thing that is different in regard to this facility is that they are somewhat
limited since it is an organic facility. He added that they cannot use chemicals and certain baits, but that
shouldn't affect the control to some extent as those are last resort type issues. Mr. McCormick commented
that cleanliness of the site is of the utmost to the applicant as well as to the neighbors.
Paul Branham asked if they are going to do something different now in relation to the flies as opposed to last
fall. Mr. McCormick stated that they will use the same procedures as last year. He added that the biggest
thing they can do is to minimize the standing water of which historically there has been an irrigation pond,and
will continue to be. He added that fresh water such as the irrigation pond is something they really can't control
and is only used to irrigate.
Roy Spitzer inquired if with the traffic,with regard to speed and volume with employees, can be controlled to
some degree with routing. Mr. McCormick replied that they were not aware that it was a problem but it is
definitely something that they can easily apply.
Mr. Spitzer asked Don Carroll what the road conditions were like in the area. Don Carroll, Department of
Public Works, commented that he was at the site. He added that the department has received a lot of calls
during construction of the facility. Since it was a use by right,the department did not have any jurisdiction over
the use by right as it didn't come through the process as a case. Mr. Carroll indicated that many of the
complaints were about dust and construction traffic. Mr. Carroll recommends utilizing CR 59 as there is a
scale house located there and there is only 3 houses located on CR 59 whereas on CR 57 there is multiple
houses located there. He commented that they can place a stop sign at the intersection of CR 57 and CR 72.
Chad Auer asked if construction for the 4500 head of cattle is completed at this point. Mr. McCormick stated
that the only thing they would be changing is the stocking grates in the pens and in the barns. He added that
very little construction would be made from this point on and that the lagoons are currently sized to hold up to
the 4500 animals.
Doug Ochsner asked with regard to odor, what the county standards are that the neighbors can be
comfortable with. Troy Swain, Department of Public Health, replied that there are several development
conditions to address potential fly and odor problems. He commented that development standard 19 applies
to flies. They need any complaints to contact the department as now going through the USR process is
subject to these development standards and they would have jurisdiction over the facility. For other waste
issues we have development standard 21 and 26 with regard to handling manure and waste in a manner that
prevents nuisance conditions. For odor we have development standard 21 and also have a device that
measures odor and have placed an odor standard on this facility. He added that land applications would have
9
to comply with odor standard.
Doug Ochsner requested the applicant to provide a contact that the neighbors could contact first and state any
problems before contacting the Public Health Department. Mr. McCormick commented that they would be
willing to do that.
The Chair stated that Mr. McCormick has submitted a letter of proposed changes to certain conditions of
approval and development standards. Paul Branham suggested that staff review the proposed changes and if
they support those changes.
Mr. Gathman replied that condition 1B deals with the improvements agreements. The reason this condition
was placed in there is mainly to address any remaining transportation and parking related improvements on
the site. One item that Public Works had mentioned were the parking barriers indicating where the parking
would occur. Mr.Gathman believes that hasn't happened yet. He stated that staff is comfortable with leaving
that in there if there are any remaining improvements that need to be addressed.
Mr. Gathman stated that 1G the applicant provided a response that indicated the water for the facility would be
through North Weld County Water District and would not be using any of the irrigation water with regard to
potable water for the operation. He stated that staff is comfortable with the change.
Mr. Gathman stated that staff has no concerns with the language proposal for condition 1K5.
Mr. Gathman stated that staff is in agreement with development standard 6.
Troy Swain,Department of Public Health,stated that the proposal would like to remove development standard
27 and keep development standard 34, however we would like to remove#34 and keep#27 as#34 is more
detailed but it is wrong and should be updated, therefore we will keep#27.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated with regard to 1K10 he would like to have the applicant
designate on the plat where the parking would be. Along with that he suggested placing wheel guards or curb
stops adjacent to the office and the milking parlor to keep vehicles from protruding farther than what they
should. Mr. Carroll stated he would agree with the applicant on the proposed change, however would like to
see some up adjacent to the building.
Mr. Carroll stated that with regard to development standard 9 they've talked about traffic numbers out there
and would like to get it in the application on semi traffic and anything associated with the dairy including the
employees.
Mr. Carroll commented that he is trying to incorporate in the development standard#10 the dust control. He
added that he would include that CR 59 would be the primary access to the facility.
Mr. Carroll continued with development standard 11 which addresses parking. Mr. Carroll agrees with the
offsite parking including that the access drive shall be surfaced with gravel or equivalent.
Roy Spitzer asked Mr. Carroll when the dust control problem becomes an issue. Mr. Carroll replied that he
puts together a dust abatement plan and call out the location, how many homes are to be dust applied,and it
should be applied twice a year or as designated by the motor grader superintendent. Mr. McCormick stated
that he willing to accept this development standard and just wanted some level of definement from when it
becomes a problem. Mr. Carroll responded that the determination is made by the motor grader
superintendent but at a minimum twice per year.
Commissioner Spitzer moved that the language for 1K5 be changed to "the facility shall comply with the
Americans with Disibilities Act and ADA standards at all times. Eric Ehrlich seconded, motion carried.
Roy Spitzer motioned that condition 1K10 be changed to the following"Spaces reserved for parking vehicles in
all loading zones shall be designated on the plat and this facility shall adhere to the number of on-site parking
spaces indicated in Appendix 23-B of the Weld County Code. Two On-site parking spaces shall be van
accessible handicapped parking stalls meeting all of the requirements as set forth in the Americans with
10
Disabilities Act. Doug Ochsner seconded, motion carried.
Paul Branham moved to accept the proposed revision from the applicant for development standard #6,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Tom Holton moved to accept staffs' recommendations on development standard 9, seconded by Paul
Branham. Motion carried.
Tom Holton motioned to modify Development Standard 11 as per requested by the applicant, seconded by
Eric Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Development Standard 34 be removed and keep Development Standard 27,
seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards as amended. Mr. McCormick replied that they are in agreement.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1602,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Commissioner Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes.
Bruce Fitzgerald,yes with comment. Mr. Fitzgerald commented that he lives within two miles of 12,500 head
of cattle and both operations do a very good job in mitigating all the issues that he was concerned with and
feels that the management plan offered for this dairy will do the same.
Roy Spitzer,yes with comment. Mr. Spitzer commented that in hearing from the neighbor that they intend to
be a good neighbor to the dairy and hopes that the dairy will be a good neighbor to the existing neighbors as
well. Mr. Spitzer added that he feels an operation like this, as an organic dairy, is a step forward, as
agriculture goes,with higher value products.
Doug Ochsner,yes with comment. Mr. Ochsner commented that this is the reason for USR's as we did hear
from public comment and some concerns that they had and believes that those have been addressed. Mr.
Ochsner added that he hopes that they won't be affected by this dairy and that all their concerns have been
met and have been given an avenue that if they are not met that they have a method to get them fixed and
feels that the dairy is a good quality dairy and will do a good job.
Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton mentioned that Michael Miller,one of the previous board members of the Planning Commission,
has submitted an application to be on the Oil&Gas Commission and has asked the current board to give their
support. Bruce Barker, attorney, suggested that a letter be signed by the board members individually.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
11
Hello