HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070660.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Paul Branham that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the
application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1583
APPLICANT: Margaret DeHaan
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot D of RE-4098 W2; Lot B of RE-965 W2NE4 & NW4; Lot B of RE-
1729 E2NE4 of Section 17, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Agriculture Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agriculture, animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or
contract basis, including Livestock Confinement Operations (a dairy
operation with a total of 8,000 head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 14; west of and adjacent to CR 41; north of
and adjacent to CR 80; east of and adjacent to CR 39.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Section 23-2-220.A.4
Section 22-2-60 A.Policy 1.3
Section 23-2-220A.3 and A.4
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by
the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral
entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant has not delineated any on-site sign(s). If on-site sign(s)• are
desired the Department of Planning Services shall be notified in writing. If the
applicant does not notify the Department of Planning Services signs shall adhere
to Article IV Division 2 of the Weld County Code as it related to signs in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District. Further, the location of the sign, if applicable shall be
delineated on the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant has not indicated that there will be any lighting on site. If lighting is
intended a Lighting Plan, including cut sheets of the intended lights, shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The
lighting plan shall adhere to the lighting requirements for off-street parking
spaces per Section 23-4-30.E of the Weld County Code and shall adhere to the
lighting standards, in accordance with Section 23-3-360.F and Section 23-2-
250.D of the Weld County Code. Further, the approved Lighting Plan shall be
delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval. The applicant shall place "plant material" to
mitigate the impacts of the facility from adjacent properties. The plant material
screen shall be placed between the road right-of-way and the proposed
improvements. The buffer strip shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and
run the length of the property line. Further, the applicant shall adhere to all
• EXHIBIT
2007-0660
#7583
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 2
landscape requirements of Section 23-3-350.G.1 and Section 23-3-350.G.2 of
the Weld County Code. Upon approval, the Landscape Plan shall be placed on
the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services a copy of an agreement with the properties mineral owners/operators
stipulating that the oil and gas activities have adequately been incorporated into
the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made
to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners. (Department of Planning
Services)
E. The applicant shall provide both the Weld County Department of Public Works
and the Department of Planning Services with a detailed access, site circulation,
loading, and parking plan for review and approval. This plan shall address the
concerns of the Department of Public Works memoranda dated October 10, 2006
and November 21, 2006. Written evidence of the Department of Public Works
approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Public Works/Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall provide the Weld County Department of Public Works
Drainage Division a copy of the site grading plan for review and approval.
Written evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Works)
G. Written evidence of a water agreement shall be provided to the Department of
Planning Services. Appropriate documentation shall be provided which indicates
not only that taps are available, but provide assurances that these connections
will be made. The style of assurance may take several forms, however pre-
purchase of taps, line extension agreements, tap service agreements, or another
form of "participation agreement" will be acceptable. The agreements shall be
approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to submittal to the
Department of Planning Services. If a commercial well is intended to supplement
the Water District's service a copy of the well permit application shall be
provided.
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1583. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to
policy regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all
landscaping, transportation (access drive, parking areas, etcetera) and non-
transportation (plant materials, fencing, screening, water, signage etcetera). The
applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services an itemized
landscaping bid for review. The agreement and form of collateral shall be
reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners
prior to recording the Use by Special Review plat. Or the applicant may submit
evidence that all the work has been completed and approved by the Department
of Planning Services and the Department of Public Works. (Department of
Planning Services)
C. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 3
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The USR boundary shall be a solid heavy line. (Department of Planning
Services)
3. The approved access point to the proposed facility. (Department of Planning
Services)
4. The flood plain shall be delineated on the plat as it is shown on the FEMA
FIRM Community Panel Map # 0802660480 C. (Department of Planning
Services)
5. County Road 39 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan
as a local paved road,which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out.
There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the
existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way.
(Department of Public Works)
6. Spaces reserved for the parking of vehicles and all loading zones shall be
delineated on the plat. This facility shall adhere to the number of on-site
parking spaces indicated in Appendix 23-B of the Weld County Code. The
total number of on-site parking for the this facility shall be facility shall be
seventy-five (75) spaces, of which three (3) shall be a van accessible
handicapped parking stall meeting all of the requirements as set forth in the
Americans with Disabilities Act. In accordance with Section 23-3-350.B,
Section 23-3-350.C, Section 23-3-350.D and Section 23-4-30.C all parking,
loading areas and street access drives shall be paved with asphaltic concrete
pavement or equal. Further, all parking areas shall be surfaced in
accordance with Appendix 23-A, 23-B, Section 23-3-350.B Each parking
space shall be equipped with wheel guards or curb stops when necessary to
prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of the space and
from coming into contact with other vehicles, walls, fences, or plantings. The
location of all curb stops in the parking areas per Section 23-4-30.D of the
Weld County Code shall be delineated on the plat. The applicant shall also
delineate (Department of Public Works)
7. The applicant shall address and adhere to the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and ADA standards for this facility at all times. Non-ambulatory /
ambulatory parking spaces shall be identified and shown on the plat. This
site will be required to meet all requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. ADA parking spaces are twenty (20) feet by eight (8) feet
with five (5) foot aisles. A minimum of one space must be van accessible
with an eight (8) foot aisle. An accessible path shall be required from the
building to the public right-of-way. The parking spaces must be the closest
possible to the entrance. Signing will be required. Curb cuts, ramps and
other methods of providing accessibility shall be required to reasonably
attempt to meet the requirements of this Act. Should the applicant elect to not
adhere to the previously discussed Federal Standards, this office requests
that the applicant outline how their proposed site design mitigates the
requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act. (Department of Planning
Services)
8. The approved Lighting Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 4
9. The approved Landscaping Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
10. Any approved signs, if applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
11. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Provide documentation, prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer, that all wastewater impoundments for the confined animal feeding
operation (CAFO) will meet seepage rate standards of Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission Regulation 81 [81.5(2)]. Evidence of approval by the
Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
D. Provide evidence that a Standard Operating Procedure for sludge and manure
removal (cleaning of impoundments to maintain capacity) has been submitted for
approval to the Colorado Water Quality Control Division required by Colorado
Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 81 [81.5 (3)]. Evidence of
approval by the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
E. Demonstrate that impoundments meet required setbacks to water wells and
groundwater required by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation
Number 81.[81.5 (6)]. Evidence of approval by the Department of Public Health
and Environment shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. Provide evidence that a CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit has been applied for
or obtained from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. Evidence of
approval by the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
G. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary
approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
3. Prior to Construction:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment /construction site where a contiguous or non-
contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact
the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health
and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more
information. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all
other documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded
in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services'
Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-
260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be
submitted within one hundred eighty(180)days from the date of the Board of County
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 5
Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording
fee. (Department of Planning Services)
5. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-7 approved June 1, 2006, should
the plat not be recorded within the required one hundred eighty (180) days from the date
the Board of County Commissioners resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge
shall added for each additional 3 month period.
6. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital
copy of this Recorded Exemption/Subdivision Exemption/Use by Special Review/.
Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats
are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital
file may be sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
7. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be
issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
r
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
_ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Margaret DeHaan
USR-1583
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for an Agriculture Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agriculture, animal husbandry, or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock Confinement
Operations (a dairy operation with a total of 8,000 head) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District, as indicated in the application materials on file and subject to the Development
Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The number of employees shall be limited to forty (40) as stated in the application
materials. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The hours of operation are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Equipment operations,
trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities, other than emergencies, will occur
primarily during daylight hours as stated in the application materials. (Department of
Planning Services)
5. The facility shall operate in compliance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission
Regulation Number 81. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. The facility shall maintain CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit coverage and operate in
compliance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 61.
There shall be no discharge of manure or process wastewater, except as provided in the
facilities CAFO Colorado Discharge Permit. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
7. Manure and process wastewater shall be applied at agronomic rates and in accordance
with the Nutrient Management Plan or Manure & Wastewater Management Plan. There
shall be no discharge from land application areas except for agricultural stormwater.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. The facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner to prevent nuisance conditions.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. The facility shall control fugitive dust on this site and operate in accordance with their
current approved Management Plan for Nuisance Control. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
10. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control pests. The facility shall be operated
in accordance, at all times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance
Control. Additional control measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment in the event that rodents (which
can be determined to be associated with the facility) are in such a number to be
considered a nuisance condition. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control flies. The facility shall be operated in
accordance, at all times, with their current approved Management Plan for Nuisance
Control. Additional fly control measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment in the event that flies (which can
be determined to be associated with the facility) are in such a number to be considered a
nuisance condition. Additional controls shall also be implemented in the event the Weld
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 2
County Department of Public Health and Environment receives a significant number of fly
(associated with facility) complaints, and in the judgment of the Weld County Health
Officer, there exists a fly condition requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
12. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved nuisance control plan.
Odors detected off site shall not equal or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one dilution
threshold, as measured using methods set forth in Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Regulations. Additional controls shall be implemented at the request of
the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in the event odor levels
detected off site of the facility meet or exceed the level of fifteen-to-one dilution threshold,
or in the judgment of the Weld County Health Officer, there exists an odor condition
requiring abatement. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock area in a
manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to
exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, insect pests, or
pollutant runoff. The surface beneath the manure storage areas shall be of materials
which are protective of State waters. These areas shall be constructed to minimize
seepage or percolation of manure contaminated water. In no event shall the facility
impact or degrade waters of the State in violation of Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission Regulation Number 81. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. An individual sewage disposal system (I.S.D.S.) is required for the proposed facility and
must be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and in accordance
with Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. Any I.S.D.S. on the property
shall be permitted, installed, maintained and operated in compliance with Weld County
I.S.D.S. Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. The facility shall operate in compliance with applicable Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission Regulations. There shall be no open burning except "agricultural open
burning" as defined by Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation 9.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. There shall be no permanent disposal of solid wastes, as defined in the Regulations
Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2), at this site.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Light
Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 25-12-103 C.R.S, as amended. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
18. Waste materials, not specifically addressed by other development standards, shall be
handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and
other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Storm Water Discharge Permit from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 3
21. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of
Planning Services)
22. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the
purposes of exploration development, completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and
maintenance operations associated with existing or future operations located on these
lands. (Department of Planning Services)
23. The applicant shall adhere to the approved Lighting Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
24. The applicant shall adhere to the approved Landscaping Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design
Standards of Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
26. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation
Standards of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the
Supplementary Regulations regarding Livestock Confinement Operations (Section 23-4-
350, Weld County Code).
28. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Miscellaneous
Regulations regarding Livestock Feeding Performance standards (Section 23-4-710,
Weld County Code).
29. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. Buildings that
meet the definition of an Ag Exempt Building per the requirements of Section 29-1-20 and
Section 29-3-20.B.13 of the Weld County Code do not need building permits, however, a
Certificate of Compliance must be filed with the Planning Department and an electrical
and/or plumbing permit is required for any electrical service to the building or water for
watering or washing of livestock or poultry. (Department of Building Inspection)
30. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans
shall include a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered
architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each
permit. Include a Code Analysis Data sheet provided by the Weld County Building
Department with each Building permits application. (Department of Building Inspection)
31. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of
permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003
International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International
Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; and the 2005 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
32. All buildings used by the public, including the bathrooms shall be accessible to persons
with disabilities. Plans should include detailed drawings showing the exiting and how
accessibility will be maintained through out the facility. Fire resistance of walls and
openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will
be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 4
Zoning Ordinance. (Department of Building Inspection)
33. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building
Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various
uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements
from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in
accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance
with offset and setback requirements. When measuring buildings to determine offset and
setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the
first site inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
34. All building plans shall be submitted to Ault Fire Protection District for review and
approval prior to issue of Building Permits. (Department of Building Inspection)
35. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and
Federal agencies and the Weld County Code.
36. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property
at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply
with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County
regulations.
37. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the
foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes
from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval
of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners
before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other
changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services.
38. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the
foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing
Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of
County Commissioners.
39. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: Weld County is one of the most productive
agricultural counties in the United States, ranking fifth in total market value of agricultural
products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are
intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and
accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with longstanding agricultural practices
and a lower level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives
which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural area: open views, spaciousness, wildlife,
lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without
neighboring farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County
would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established
agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area.
Well run agricultural activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors
and equipment; slow-moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field
work, harvest, and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage, and manure;
smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers
in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. Ditches and reservoirs cannot simply be
moved out of the way of residential development without threatening the efficient delivery
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 5
of irrigation to fields which is essential to farm production.
Section 35-3.5-102, C. R. S., provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to
be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance
employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with
agricultural production.
Weld County covers a land area of over 4,000 square miles in size (twice the State of
Delaware) with more than 3,700 miles of state and County roads outside of
municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available
resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols
of the county and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency
responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually
provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to
emergencies. County gravel roads, no matter how often they are bladed, will not provide
the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that
roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major
snowstorm. Snow removal for roads within subdivisions are of the lowest priority for
public works or may be the private responsibility of the homeowners. Services in rural
areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must,
by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers.
Children are exposed to different hazards in the county than in an urban or suburban
setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical
power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture
vines, territorial farm dogs, and livestock present real threats to children. Controlling
children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the
farmer's livelihood. Parents are responsible for their children.
Motion seconded by Erich Ehrlich
Resolution USR-1583
Margaret DeHaan
Page 6
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the
file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning
Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on December 5, 2006.
Dated the 5th of December, 006.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
/Z - 5- actin
a cease and desist order. This is reflected in Development Standards #12. There have been no other
complaints in the last three years. Mr.Swain added it was more of a question of the cause regarding whether
it was storm water, process water from the lagoon or wastewater and that has not been determined.
Erich Ehrlich asked if the Department of Public Health and Environment had any standards that were reviewed
in regards to the retention ponds and the overflow or sanitation of those ponds. Mr.Swain stated the applicant
has for a CAFO discharge permit and this would allow them to discharge in event of storm or such. The
permits include the estimates of the wastewater that will be generated and it is incorporated into the design of
facility.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend Development Standards #27 to reflect Milk parlor. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the second request by the applicant. Mr.Gathman added he believes
that the language should remain. Mr.Auer added an additional request was to amend the language to reflect
the location of the manure pile. Mr. Gathman added he was describing the locations and technically it is
correct.
Chris Gathman asked the applicant if the composting on site was being sold at the site. Mr.McCormick stated
it will be hauled off by A-1 Organics.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gathman for clarification on "cut sheets." Mr. Gathman stated those are just a
detail and extent of the lighting. It could be a potential change to the current situation. The standard lighting
should be down cast and not shine onto other properties. If the lighting is affecting the neighbors it will need to
be addressed.
Paul Branham added he believes the neighbors are opposed to the dairy as it exists even prior to this
application. The dairy has approval for 11000 head and it will stay the same. This change will not make a
noticeable difference.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2AmUSR-1282,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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. Mark
Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mark Lawley commented this is not a new operation and will not increase in animal units. This proposal is
consistent with the current use.
Erich Ehrlich commented he is in agreement with this proposal based on the following Section 23-2-
220.A.2
Paul Branham commented he believes this proposal will not have any noticeable negative impacts.
Chris Gathman added that the Board of County Commissioners hearing will be Wednesday, December
20, 2006 at 10:00am.
Chad Auer excused himself due to a prior commitment.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1583
APPLICANT: Margaret DeHaan
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot D of RE-4098 W2; Lot B of RE-965 W2NE4& NW4; Lot B of RE-1729 E2NE4 of
Section 17,T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. ,.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Agriculture Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agriculture, animal husbandry or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock Confinement „+
yvx ev3
Operations (a dairy operation with a total of 8,000 head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 14;west of and adjacent to CR 41; north of and adjacent to
CR 80;east of and adjacent to CR 39.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1583 along with the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval to the Planning Commission recommendation with a of approval.A
Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment
primarily engaged in performing agriculture, animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract
basis, including Livestock Confinement Operations (a dairy operation with a total of 8,000 head) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. The property is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Ault and 1.5 miles north of
Eaton. More specifically, the site lies South of and adjacent to State Highway 14, West of and adjacent to
County Road 41 and North of and adjacent to County Road 80, East of and adjacent to County Road 39. The
sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted November 15,2006 by Planning Staff. All of
the surrounding property is zoned agricultural. Multiple rural residences are located in the area as shown on
the PowerPoint in yellow dots. A Confined Feeding Operation (AmUSR-199 for 3000 head of cattle) lies
directly north of the proposed dairy.Two feed lots are located within a mile to the west(SUP-148 and SUP-
219). USR-1349 for a dairy permitted for 2675 head lies within a mile to the east. USR- 1020 for sugar beet
storage lies across CR 39 to the northwest. 13 referral agencies reviewed this case,8 responded favorably or
included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.2
agencies responded without comments. Responses were not received from the Weld County Sheriffs Office,
the Ault Fire Protection District or the North Weld County Water District.
The Department of Planning Services has received multiple letters of opposition from surrounding
property owners and other concerned County residents. The most common concerns expressed include:
> Traffic Impacts
➢ Noise and Light Pollution
➢ Air pollution—Dust and Odor
> Pests—specifically flies and mosquitoes
➢ Ground Water Contamination—its effect on local domestic wells
➢ Waste disposal
Staff feels that these concerns have been or can be addressed through the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
I would at this time, like to add an additional Condition of Approval G.
The additional standard states: "Written evidence of a water agreement shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. Appropriate documentation shall be provided which indicates not only
that taps are available, but provide assurances that these connections will be made. The style of
assurance may take several forms, however pre-purchase of taps, line extension agreements, tap service
agreements, or another form of"participation agreement"will be acceptable. The agreements shall be
approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to submittal to the Department of Planning Services.
If a commercial well is intended to supplement the Water District's service a copy of the well permit
application shall be provided." This condition would be added under conditions to be met prior to the
Board of County Commissioners as number G. Staff is recommending approval of this application.
Erich Ehrlich asked if there was other USR's with cattle in the area. Ms. Hippely provided that information
on a map in the presentation. There are SUP's in the area that are not limited. Mr. Fitzgerald asked
where the Eaton Country Club was on the map approximately 1.5 miles away.
Tom Haren, applicant representative, provided clarification on the proposal. The family does have a
facility east of Firestone and Frederick that they operate presently. This site is 365 acres but the use
permit will only be 165 acres. They also own several parcels. Several properties have been reviewed for
this operation. Dairies require several of the same utilities that residences require. The land use is what
is being reviewed today. Mr. Haren presented the design of the site on overheads. This will be a dry lot
dairy run which means the waste management is not flushed. There are lagoons per the law. There is
6
existing feedlot to the north west of this site; this site basically surrounds that site. There is one zone in
Weld County that allows for a dairy. The intent is to try to direct dairy's to areas where compatible uses
exist. With this proposal there will be several Development Standards and Conditions of Approval that the
applicant must adhere to.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the other dairy's the family owns. Mr. Haren stated one that is leased is on
west 10th near the missile site. There is another dairy for 5000 cows 1/2 mile east of Frederick and
Firestone.
•
Doug Ochsner asked about the existing feedlot. Mr. Haren stated it is not part of this property it is located
adjacent to the north, the property being considered basically surrounds that site. This dairy could be
considered as nothing more than an expansion of a use that already exists.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
The following comments have been added due to public comment on the previous case.
Bill Hutchinson, 39507 CR 37, one mile west of feedlot, provided his concerns. This operation will buy
products within the area but this will get very little product north of Hwy 14 since the City of Thornton bought
the water, will be no hay. This dairy will have hard time getting rid of manure.
Rip Cole, 1410 Falcon Ridge Rd, provided his concerns. He is the general manager of the Eaton Country
Club and a resident of Hawkstone Subdivision. This is poor site as this would make the site have twice as
many cows as people in Ault. The Eaton Country Club Board of Directors letter was read into the record, a
copy of the letter is in the original record. There are other areas for this to be located in.
Gary Schnell, 800.Hawk Stone Drive, provided concerns. Mr. Schnell is also the Mayor Pro-Tem for Eaton
but this issue has not been discussed by them so he will be speaking on his behalf only. The urban growth
boundary extends to CR 80. This is not within Eaton's Urban Growth Boundary but it will be adjacent to it. Mr.
Schnell disagrees with this being compatible use in area. There are towns in the area that will be experiencing
extensive growth. This is heavy industrial use not agricultural use.
Greg Mack, 1455 Falcon Ridge Court, provided his concerns. He is tired of hearing about development
complaining about agricultural uses. However,the Town of Eaton has grown approximately 1.5 miles. In 10
years there will be development in this area. Mr. Mack is in support feed lots that are in operation today but
this site could cause future problems. Greeley has had to use tax dollars to buy feedlots because
development grew to those uses. This could place the same burden on towns. There are water deficiencies
in the area already. The plan for the area should be reviewed for both agricultural and residences. Should
this be recommended approval there should be an independent firm hired to monitor the air and water quality
for the area and should those be altered this will give authority to cease and desist. Please protect people and
agricultural in business in the area.
Brad Bain, Ault Mayor on behalf of town board and himself, provided their concerns. During the October
board meeting it was voted on to not support the proposal. They are not against the dairy itself just the
location. Ault Comprehensive Plan is not done but the projected plan is to annex and extend the Urban
Growth Boundary one mile to CR 37. The long range plan is to increase this to a two mile radius to take
advantage of the growth around Ault. A one mile radius is planned for now but will increase to CR 39 in the
future which would make it adjacent to this site. That would be detrimental to the town in the future. The town
is surrounded by feedlots now but the smell and the dust will be a concern. There are feedlot to the east of
town that when full will contain 14000 head. The town and Mr. Bain would like to see another site that makes
more sense.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the mentioned annexation. Mr. Bain stated they are looking at the short
term to annex a one mile radius but the long term plan would be to annex two miles which would put them
adjacent to this site.
Jody Skyberg, neighbor, provided concerns. An operation this size should notify the surrounding property
owners for at least one mile. Their concerns are the odor, flies, rodents and pests. They built their home
7
away from the feed lots in the area. This site provided large farm land buffer. There is shale below the
surface and the wastewater will flow into domestic wells. The operation is said to be 24-7-365. The traffic
count was not done during harvest season. There is presently light pollution; increase in traffic and pests.
The size of this operation is not in best interest of the area. This does not blend with Comprehensive Plan in
area. They are in opposition to this.
Doug Ochsner asked for Mr.Skyberg to expand on the topography and whether the diary was higher or lower
than surrounding properties. Mr.Skyberg stated the dairy will sit on a high point that then slopes to south and
east.
Lisa Simpson, daughter for Mr. Bird, read letters of opposition from her mother and step-father since they
were unable to attend.
Doug Ochsner added there are Development Standards that address dust control.
Harry Schmidt, adjacent neighbor, provided concerns. Their property is 80 feet lower than the dairy site, on
their property with a heavy rain they have water on the farm and almost to house. The water drains to the
east,south and west and there can be nothing to stop this drainage. The water table is high in this area. They
have a domestic well for the house the dairy will affect the well. The closest dairy is two miles to the east.
They want to keep the farm and there is a need for dairy's but not at this location. The City of Thornton is
cutting off wells and there will be dry land which means no place to spread the manure. This is not a dairy but
a mass production dairy. Environ not safe for the community. There are plenty of places to build a dairy and
this is not it.
Roy Spitzer asked where his home was located. Mr. Schmidt stated it was to the east.
Maureen Martin, 19495 CR 80, neighbor, provided her concerns. They will not be able to live in the area if a
dairy is put in. She agrees with everyone else's comments.
Kenneth Powell, 1175 Eagle Drive, provided his concerns, and presented letters of opposition. The
subdivision was allowed in the area and he believes that this will produce more odors and such than what is
there now and this will affect the quality of life. Eaton Country Club presently has problems with getting
members and the additional odor may affect it in the future.
Doug Ochsner asked for the location of Hawkstone Subdivision and if it was in Eaton. Ms. Hippely stated it
was in Eaton and the county did not approve it.
Barry Pant, 1402 Prairie Hawk Road,developer of Hawkstone, provided his concerns. He still owns several
lots in Hawkstone. This does not meet with what is going on in the neighborhood. This is not an existing
facility expanding it is a new use. This does not make sense it needs to be either agricultural or residential. He
is opposed to this.
Doug Ochsner asked for the number of lots in Hawkstone. Mr. Pant indicated Hawkstone had 355 lots while
Eaton Commons has approximately 240. Eaton Commons is located further south. This is just the wrong
location for this proposal.
Josh Bailey, neighbor, added there will be a positive economic impact from this operation. There will be
several families that will benefit from this. The DeHaans will be good neighbors in the area. The number of
animals for the area and the economic benefit that it will afford will be tremendous. The benefits will apply to
grain operations, labor force that provides care for the animals, interest to banks, supplies for the operation;
utilities; fuel, oil; taxes; licenses and insurance. These are just a few things that will benefit from this
operation. Approximately$1200 dollars per animal goes back into the economy. It takes 9.5 million to support
a dairy of this size and that income will go back into the area. There would be several benefits to the area.
Mr. Bailey would like to know where urban sprawl ends to allow for the ability to sustain themselves to begin.
Angela Hower, neighbor, added she is in support of the dairy but the problem is the responsibility of the
location of the dairy. The development trend in the area is for residential. This may not be in the Urban
Growth Boundary but the County needs to look at the entire rural area. All the residents need to be
8
addressed. The Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2-60 Policy 1.3 addresses land uses that are directly related
to agricultural to locate in agricultural when impact is minimal. There is a definite impact of dairy for this size.
Apprised value is best way to gauge impact and should be considered to determine a minimal impact.
Municipalities have adopted Comprehensive Plan which impact Urban Growth Boundaries(UGB)and this will
eventually affect Ault when their boundaries increase. The UGB needs to be modified in this case. The UGB
needs to be modified from the three mile referral area. Efficient development surrounding municipalities
needs to be done with the referral process. When growth has incompatible adjacent land uses it needs to be
reviewed.
Richard Kobel, 1480 Hawk Ridge Road,added that the applicant is leasing the Hersky Dairy and why does he
not own that. The urban growth will happen around this site also. This is in the wrong spot.
Dennis Enchlaga, oppose this.
Tim Magnuson, neighbor, provided his support for the dairy. He farms and this gives him another outlet for
the crop. Ault is surrounded by the City of Thornton so it will be hard for them to grow product. The consent
of the day is Not in My Back Yard and what is going to happen when there is no more farm ground left.
Bill Sitzmen, added that 80%of his income comes from the DeHaans.
Jim Graham,4056 CR 41, neighbor, believes that the 8000 head is in the wrong place.
Elaina Sanchez, 19352 Hwy 14, added she does not want to walk out her door and look at pile of manure.
Kacey Lind, north of Severance, added that a lot of their family income comes from DeHaan family. They
need outlet for local product and the DeHann's do buy lots of locally grown material. The farmers have to sell
there product some place and a residential development would not provide anything additional that the County
does not already have.
Adam Stanke, 525 Black Hawk Drive, added he is the one proponent of the dairy in Hawkstone. This is a
reactionary situation since the zoning was done for this type of operation it should not be changed. The dairy
should be allowed to go forward.
Don Anderson, CR 41, southwest of site, added they understand the dust and odors associated with this.
There are two concerns:groundwater and air quality. The groundwater is about 7 foot in the area. The dust is
a continuous problem and it is in the Weld County Code that if fugitive dust leaves the property that property is
in violation. Every diary has a place but this one is getting too dense for what the projected growth will be.
Brent Laymen, Greeley, added that he has a personal and professional relationship with the DeHaans. He
would like to support the operation as it is a top notch operation. They do have the resources needed to run
as good operation. In order to prevent development there is the desire to support viable and sustainable
agricultural business.
Bill Hemmerick, CEO of Colorado Livestock Association, added the applicant has been proactive with
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The amended CAFO permit which addresses a
strong set of rules regarding surface and groundwater protection was accepted last Friday. The applicant will
have to comply with those regulations.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Tom Haren,provided additional comments addressing concerns. The topics that were brought forward were:
manure, ground water, drainage and nuisance. There is a substantial amount of regulations the applicant
must adhere to by State and Federal Agencies. They must account for everything including manure. Some
properties in the area are permitted feedlots and dairy and they are presently operating without having to
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval applied by the County. State Regulation 81 protects
groundwater from Confined Feeding Operations. They are required to use a synthetic liner for the ponds to
prevent seepage. Regarding the nuisances, the application is willing to do what they can control. This new
facility has more standards and improved technology. They have the best designs intact. The agricultural
9
zone is the only place a facility like this can go. It is the County's obligation to protect that ability since these
are allowed in agricultural zone. The County needs to protect these uses in the agricultural zone district since
there are designated districts for residential development. It is the property owners responsibility to do due
diligence to review their possible property and look around to see what could be allowed in the area. When a
person chooses to live in an agricultural zone the allowed uses should be assumed to be able to develop next
door. Weld County Comprehensive Plan knows this therefore the reason for the plan and the Weld County
Code book. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval along with state and federal regulations
will address the concerns from the neighbors.
Roy Spitzer asked for clarification on the composting on site and how that will be handled. Mr. Haren stated
composting is the best management tool it stabilizes manure and reduces the impact for fly and volume of
manure.
Erich Ehrlich added he believes in the rights of property owners but no one was spoken to regarding this. The
intensive use is the concern. Was there any type of conversation with the residents in the area addressing
this use? Mr. Haren stated there was no formal dialog. They have found that without the forum of a public
meeting those become one sided and difficult to manage. This meeting is a controlled forum and the proper
forum to discuss fairly. They have been planning this for a long time and it is difficult to believe all this
discussion waited until the last minute. The Town of Eaton had no conflict with this. Should Ault annex the
two miles it suggests that would be 35 times the present size of Ault. That proposed annexation gives the
applicant approximately 20 years to run this operation, given the current growth rate of Ault.
Troy Swain, Department of Public Health and Environment, addressed the issues raised by the public. Mr.
Swain pointed out the Development Standards addressed dust,rodents and groundwater. Dust is addressed
in Development Standards#9. The Department of Public Health and Environment requires the applicant to
submit Comprehensive Management Plan use control. As part of nuisance dust is also included as part of
odor in Development Standards#18 as well as#8 and #13. Odor is addressed in Development Standards
#12. Pests are addressed in Development Standard #10. Odor, dust and rodents are included in the
Management Plan for nuisance control. Groundwater protection is in Development Standards #5, #7 and
Conditions of Approval Prior to Recording the Plat in C, D and E. Those address the placement of the ponds
in relation to the ground water, wells. Regulation 81 is also incorporated. Surface water is addressed in
Development Standards #6, #7 and Prior to Recording the Plat F. The applicant will be getting a CAFO
permit. Noise is addressed in Development Standards#17. Mr. Swain added the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval address all the concerns.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how many animals by right can be placed on the facility.Ms. Hippely stated they could
have 1460 animal units.
Roy Spitzer asked if there was any formal Comprehensive Plan with Ault or Eaton. Ms. Hippely stated this
property is outside of both boundaries.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there was IGA with both. Ms. Hippely stated the County does.
Paul Branham moved to add language proposed by staff in 1G. The language consists of"Written evidence
of a water agreement shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. Appropriate documentation
shall be provided which indicates not only that taps are available, but provide assurances that these
connections will be made. The style of assurance may take several forms,however pre-purchase of taps,line
extension agreements, tap service agreements, or another form of "participation agreement" will be
acceptable.The agreements shall be approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to submittal to the
Department of Planning Services. If a commercial well is intended to supplement the Water District's service
a copy of the well permit application shall be provided." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Tom Haren has two small changes. One is the Conditions of Approval 4 and 5 regarding submitting the Mylar
within 30 days. The applicant is asking for 180 days due to the size of this. The second issue is in regards to
the parking requirements there are conditions that need to be amended due to this not being a public facility
specifically ADA requirements. Perhaps this is something that staff and the applicant can address with the
approval of the Planning Commission. Ms. Hippely stated some discussion could be done and finalized prior
to the Board of County Commissioners.
10
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change the language to 180 days from 30 days in the appropriate places. Roy
Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Haren agrees to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Tom Holton asked about the PUD in the area. Ms. Hippely stated it was Stark Farms and a three lot PUD on
CR 43 between CR 17 & 18.
Paul Branham agrees this is too close to Ault and Eaton. With 8000 cows there will be an increase in traffic
and noise as well as the manure odor and flies will increase. The run off water is a concern. Mr. Branham
disagrees with staff and refers to Section 22-2-60.A. This refers to allowing a commercial business when the
impact is minimal; this is not a minimal impact. There are already a number of feedlots in the area but that
does not justify putting more intense uses in the same location. Section 23-2-220.a.4 also adds the County
will commit development when it is compatible with future development.
Bruce Fitzgerald added he lives close to the DeHaan's diary in Firestone and Frederick and very seldom
smells the odor. There is no way to determine whether this application is the source of the flies. This is a
good thing for the agricultural community in that they need places to sell their product due to Thornton drying
up the farms. The farmers in the area need other markets to sell in.
Roy Spitzer added there is development in the area and this will have an affect on the homeowners and could
have an affect on the dairy operation also. The only way to control what happens on adjacent properties is to
own the property. That is the downside of living in agricultural zone. He is concerned with the size but is
impressed with the advances in technology in the dairy operations. He will be for this issue. This is a
compatible use with the surrounding area and is adjacent to an existing feed lot.
Erich Ehrlich added the big picture is no matter what when there is no water nothing can grow, agricultural or
residence. The Planning Commission needs to figure out where to get water in order to sustain agricultural
and residences. City of Ault is looking at prison closer to Hwy 14 and in middle of the proposed area. Section
23-2-220.A.4 deals with the compatibility and this intensity of this may not be in the future development intent
for the area. With the growth in the area the concern should be where the water will come from. The dairy is
intense but there are also other factors. Regarding future development this is not in right area for this.
James Welch added he wants to be for application but only if he knew everything would be stagnant in the
area. It is the Planning Commission's job to look towards the future and this could be a train wreck in next
decade. The Planning Commission needs to prevent disasters when they can so he will be in opposition to
this.
Doug Ochsner added he was undecided. He usually is pro-property rights in the applicant being able to
choose what the best and highest use for the land is. The applicant should be able to do what they want as
long as impact is minimal. The question is whether the new dairy is that good that they would have no impact
within one mile away.
Tom Holton added he believes in property rights as well as the right to farm. A normal operation consists of
four cows per acre while this is an intensive use. The density of this is high. Should this have been located
further east it would have been better.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1583,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley, no; Roy Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich, no;James Welch, no;Tom Holton, no, Doug Ochsner,no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, no. Motion failed.
James Welch, Mark Lawley, Erich Ehrlich, Paul Branham and Doug Ochsner references Section 23-2-220.A.4
11
i. Tom Holton references Section 22-2-60 APolicy 1.3 and Section 23-2-220A.3 and A.4 and the interpretation of
the Weld County Right to Farm.
Mr. Ochsner added it may not be compatible with future or even existing uses.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1583, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.• Mark
Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, no; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:18pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
12
Hello