The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20100644.tiff Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller From: Trevor Jiricek Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:26 AM To: Brad Mueller; Charlotte Davis Cc: Troy Swain; Cody Hollingsworth Subject: RE: Barkey's Bosies USR-1554 conditions met? Brad, The applicant has addressed all COA dealing with our Department. They recently addressed COA 1.B. concerning the dairy barn septic system. Call me if you have any questions. Trevor Jiricek, M.A. Director, Environmental Health Services Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment 1555 N. 17th Ave Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-304-6415, ext. 2214 (office) 970-304-6411 (fax) From: Brad Mueller Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:20 PM To: Trevor Jiricek; Charlotte Davis Subject: FW: Barkey's Bosies USR-1554 conditions met? I understand that Troy is out for several weeks. Can either of you help with this question? Thanks, Brad From: Brad Mueller Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:18 PM To: Troy Swain Subject: Barkey's Bosies USR-1554 conditions met? Hi Troy, Just checking on the status of the Conditions of Approval for Health for USR-1554. Have these been all met? The owner is indicating that they've turned everything in, and I just need to find out if it was acceptable. I believe that the septic issue was the only outstanding one, but I could be wrong about that. Thanks for any update you can provide. Brad 2010-0644 et9rn/ml11u4d /6L /aft 7 03/20/2007 &i1(11;;;) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1555 17TH AVE GREELEY, CO 80631631 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us ip ADMINISTRATION (970) 304-6410 FAX (970) 304-6412 Wl O PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND NURSING (970) 304-6420 FAX (970) 304-6416 T ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (970) 304-6415 COLORADO FAX (970) 304-6411 March 9, 2007 Dennis and Erin Barkey 7291 County Road 80 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Dennis and Erin Barkey ISDS No.: 07008 Permit No.: SE-0700008 On March 6, 2007,an evaluation of the existing individual septic disposal system at: 7291 County Road 80, Fort Colllins; Section 17, Township 07 North, Range 67 West, was conducted by Stephen J. Wiatrowski, an Environmental Health Specialist of this department. • The existing individual septic disposal system is of sufficient size and capacity to adequately handle the proposed load. This evaluation is based on a final treatment capacity for a Milk Parlor with 4 employees. Be advised, neither the County of Weld nor any of its agents or employees undertake or assume any liability to the owner of the above property, to any purchaser of the above property or to any lending agency making a loan on the above property or in the report. This inspection was conducted for the purpose of determining compliance with current regulations and for detecting health hazards observable at the time of inspection. This does not constitute a warranty that the system is without flaw or that it will continue to function in the future. Inspections requested during periods of snow cover and high soil saturation may be of questionable value to potential buyers due to adverse conditions. Evaluations based on Statements of Existing(S.O.E.) relies on information the property owner provides, under oath, indicating current status of the system and representing to the best of his/her knowledge the system is not failing to function properly. • If we can be of any further assistance, please contact our office at(970) 304-6415. Sincerely, Stephen J. Wiatrowski Environmental Health Specialist Pie Charts Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller From: Cody Hollingsworth [chollingsworth@agpros.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:28 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Barkey's Bossies USR 1554 Brad, This is a follow up on the Barkey's Bossies USR. To complete condition1.C the Barkey's agree to clearly put the address numbers on their sign if front of the dairy. Cody Hollingsworth Planner AGPROfessionals, LLC 970-535-9318 office 970-535-9854 fax (17/110/7(1117 Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller From: Jan Schmidtbauer[indfield@Ipbroadband.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:09 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Re: Berkey Dairy exhibit Just seems like if you move one pond to get it away from the road, you should move both ponds no matter the size of the ponds. Thanks for considering our input. Original Message From: Brad Mueller To: Jan Schmidtbauer Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:18 PM Subject: RE: Barkey Dairy exhibit It wasn't specifically called out by the Board as a condition that the SE corner be moved back. However, I can certainly work with them to see what can be done. Do you have a sense of how much, and what it the goal? (General mitigation by setting it further into the site?) Thanks for your e-mail. Brad From: Jan Schmidtbauer [mailto:indfield@Ipbroadband.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:06 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Re: Barkey Dairy exhibit Thank you for sending the update. The new plan shows that only one pond has been moved away from the road. Shouldn't the pond in the Southeast corner also be moved back? Thank you for the regular updates on this property. We appreciate the information. Jan Schmidtbauer Original Message From: Brad Mueller To: indfield@Ipbroadband.net Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:50 PM Subject: Barkey Dairy exhibit (got your call—sorry about the omission) Jan, Attached is the proposed USR plat. Please let me know of any questions by the middle of next week. Feel free to call —970-353-6100 x3572. Brad Mueller Weld County Planning n7/01/9007 Clear Day Page 1 of 2 Brad Mueller From: Donald Carroll Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:36 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: USR-1554 No, WCR 80 has Stsbilized base in-place, for dust control. From: Brad Mueller Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:24 PM To: Donald Carroll Subject: RE: USR-1554 I'm sorry— I wasn't clear. I was wondering if an Improvements Agreement (IA)would be required. Brad From: Donald Carroll Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:35 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: USR-1554 I send you a memo for 1D 5,6,and 7. 1A? Management Plan for Nuisance Control! From: Brad Mueller Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:53 PM To: Donald Carroll Subject: FW: USR-1554 Thanks, Don. Is an IA going to be required? It's not in the Conditions, but I know I missed that on some of the earliest USR's I processed. From: Francie Collins Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:25 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: USR-1554 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller From: Brad Mueller Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:54 PM To: Dusty McCormick Cc: Brad Mueller Subject: Barkey dairy Dusty, I've recently heard back from Health and Public Works about the revised USR plat for Barkey Dairy (USR-1554). PW has no outstanding concerns, and all of Health's requirements have been met, with the exception of Condition of Approval 1.B. A summary of outstanding items, based on my review: • COA 1.B. ISDS evaluation I evidence (again, from Health) / • 1.C—Written info from Fire Dept. • 1.D.4 & 7 — Plat items Those plat items include the following: • Is the Vicinity Map really at 1" = 1000'? Looks more like a half mile to the inch. What's important here is that the soil classification numbers are too small to read, so the whole thing would be better a bit larger. • Lighting labels and note. The Development Standards refer to a lighting plan. The drawing shows "existing lighting", but not proposed. Are those the black and white circles? If so, please label as such. Also, to meeting lighting standards, especially prohibiting trespass of lighting off-site, please add the following note to the front sheet: "All lighting on site shall adhere to the lighting requirements outlined in Section 23-3-250.6.6 of the Weld County Code." • Tom's e-mail from May 1 indicates that a sign will be added to the plat. The location is shown, but needs to be moved, since it's in the sight triangle. Then, an elevation needs to be put on the plan set, since both the sign location and the sign size need to be approved. • Can you verify that all easements and ditches are shown on the plan? (Required by Sections 23-2- 260.D.5.c.3 &4) • All USR's require a landscape plan (Sections 23-2-260.B.13 & 23-3-50.F), and the 50' trees were a minimum. To properly mitigate the site to neighboring uses, it would be appropriate to add landscaping along CR 80 east of the house. This might require moving the Area#1 proposed pond further to the north to allow trees, etc., in that area. • The landscaping plan needs to include the species name and numbers, rather than generic tree symbols. (See Section 23-2-160.M.4.) This can be fixed by adding a chart to Sheet 1 with the number of plants, and types (both common and botanical). • The plan indicates a berm of 1' above the road, but Tom's e-mail of May indicates a berm of 3'. Please explain the discrepancy. With these corrections, the plan should be ready to go. Please give me a call to talk through these. Brad 01/23/2007 z' 2 1 AO i Sv�azsO2id x�deiaS sriounzos nDanosa i V WWI�acoa 9002-£D--10 133135 SaISSog Samna OHdUNV' J U OHdOV 31V0 ,. o 4 I a< , %lA• ot.: Wt 3JY2l01S a_ I< <Waa �r >c ••d o �' co- \ Icc a — 'A 88 bo'� o — N•• a —Z.'• $moo 'U\� I� '. • o 1• I8 I oz • x it i / i n . m �'J l Cl.� a 1avd 0NLLSI ^ 03NS �sno o &'.+r 0 •�. 1N3Vdn03 • \ 0 • •, a o /}. a 43r 0 �; .. . .._..____ \ W • Yr� . WW V. to H Y - a=' i z g 3N �t 7 �.� \ .. 0 NRI W <NtV K b' a• W inc, , .1 NNn 033! ao• Cr- '. ,7¢ a« O• \a 0 _ 0 00 O� OO O oI $� . ,1� 1 ' aPI W Z ti O o -- �+ O g \ g 1 Y .• •• • i 7• n \ n •D a Q Z or a a , W . a� o ,' 1Id ,r W wan@ 033! D . \ \ \ / 0 ti':; ; :y} ' N \ p Ti ' sgaim` • o•,o • �. o • nil,: a< a :.j i°t •_:.1 :_:' - Zip iCf-'... jig'r�r Z ,•:„r:' f 0I.:.':'I .n, 0 'IU.�yJ' 7r `I' "B ,liJbte -• $mss O 1\ � >o O W . N C Z r.O 0 0 o d� O O o ,, v..... • 1i1VdV. WIN 31 1 a1 SUN / - L gT X07 t '- a ,,r — �W`8 $8 W.1m I vlvlea a< <I Li oN N J I II II Weld County Planning Department C4EELEY OFFICE �<'•N 2 3 2007 rs MEMORANDUM : IVED TO: Brad Mueller, Planning Services DATE: 1/23/2007 CFROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator KJ • COLORADO SUBJECT: USR-1554, Dennis & Erin Barkey, aka Barkey Bossies The applicant has provided a new site plan identifying the set backs for the Area No. 2, the proposed pond located in the southwest corner of the proposed USR. It identified adequate sight distance for access points from WCR 80 and WCR 15. I have reviewed the sight distance triangle at all locations and find them acceptable. This meets the requirement set forth in the standards 1 D, 5, and 6, and 7. pc: USR-1554 M:\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\USR-Use by Special Review\USR-1554-A.doc 1 Page 1 of 1 Brad Mueller From: Troy Swain Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:35 AM To: Brad Mueller Cc: Dusty McCormick; Pam Smith; Trevor Jiricek Subject: Barkies Bossies USR-1554 Regarding prior to recording the plat, Condition 1 A, the applicant has satisfied this condition by submitting a Management Plan for Nuisance Control, dated April 2006. This plan has been approved by the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment (Department). Regarding prior to recording the plat, Condition 1 B, the applicant has not provided an ISDS evaluation (conducted by a CO licensed PE)for the dairy barn septic system (permit#G19810022) or made application for a repair permit or new permit for the dairy barn (system designed by CO licensed PE). Troy E. Swain, B.S., R.S. Environmental Health Specialist Environmental Health Services Weld County Dept. of Public Health & Environment 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970) 304-6415, ext. 2219 (office) (970) 304-6411 (fax) 01/29/2007 Pie Charts Page 1 of 2 Brad Mueller From: Brad Mueller Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:04 AM To: Brad Mueller; 'Cody Hollingsworth'; tharen@agpros.com Cc: Troy Swain; Donald Carroll Subject: RE: Barkey's Bosies Dairy Cody, I had a chance to look at the draft plat you dropped off last week. I'd encourage you again to look at the Board's conditions of approval. There are some critical items that remain unaddressed, such as setting back the pond and manure stockpiles 200', and providing trees/landscaping. Here's a specific rundown of the conditions to date: • 1.A, B, & C Need status on all three of these items. ✓ • Items D.4, 6, 6, and 7 remain unaddressed. Also, I didn't review D2 (formatting, etc.) in great detail until the fundamental issued are addressed. Please provide 3 copies when you re-submit, because I'll need to have the Health Department and Engineering look at it when you provide the revised copy to me. Thanks! Brad From: Brad Mueller Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:13 PM To: Cody Hollingsworth Cc: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: Barkey's Bosies Dairy Cody, Thanks for the call and note. You might want to look at the conditions again. One item that could take some work is the design of berms and screening. We'll need to see a draft USR site plan anyway, but there could be some back and forth discussion about how that part of the design gets executed. I just want to make sure you don't find yourselves needing/wanting to record a plat quickly at some point, and us not having reviewed it. So probably the sooner you can get us something to review, the better. i�nnnnnA Pie Charts Page 2 of 2 Thanks again for the call —let's please discuss this some more. Brad From: Cody Hollingsworth [mailto:chollingsworth@agpros.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:09 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Barkey's Bosies Dairy Brad, I recieved your message you left Tom on the conditions for Barkeys Bossies USR-1554. The existing septic system needs to be enlarged to handle the additional employees that MR. Barkey wants to add, due to financial hardships this has not been done yet. MR. Barkey is working diligently to get this condition met, and has assured us that he will get it done as soon as he is financially able to. Once he does and I can get an engineer to inspect and sign off on this we will get this USR finalized. I ask that you allow us a little extra time, due to the nature of the delay. I will keep you updated on when Mr. Barkey may be able to get this done. Regards, Cody Hollingsworth Planner AGPROfessionals, LLC 970-535-9318 office 970-535-9854 fax 12/20/2006 Pie Charts Page 1 of 2 Brad Mueller From: Brad Mueller Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:13 PM To: Cody Hollingsworth Cc: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: Barkey's Bosies Dairy Cody, Thanks for the call and note. You might want to look at the conditions again. One item that could take some work is the design of berms and screening. We'll need to see a draft USR site plan anyway, but there could be some back and forth discussion about how that part of the design gets executed. I just want to make sure you don't find yourselves needing/wanting to record a plat quickly at some point, and us not having reviewed it. So probably the sooner you can get us something to review, the better. Thanks again for the call —let's please discuss this some more. Brad From: Cody Hollingsworth [mailto:chollingsworth@agpros.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:09 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: Barkey's Bosies Dairy Brad, I recieved your message you left Tom on the conditions for Barkeys Bossies USR-1554. The existing septic system needs to be enlarged to handle the additional employees that MR. Barkey wants to add, due to financial hardships this has not been done yet. MR. Barkey is working diligently to get this condition met, and has assured us that he will get it done as soon as he is financially able to. Once he does and I can get an engineer to inspect and sign off on this we will get this USR finalized. I ask that you allow us a little extra time, due to the nature of the delay. I will keep you updated on when Mr. Barkey may be able to get this done. Regards, Cody Hollingsworth Planner AGPROfessionals, LLC 970-535-9318 office 970-535-9854 fax 17/1 c/7M6 Message Page 1 of 2 Brad Mueller From: Tom Haren [tharen@agpros.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:27 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: Brad, Thanks. I met with the client. They only had a few minor requests. 1. Page 3. #2A. We had 300 milking cows in the application but a total of 900 animals which is what the zoning number will be. Your write up doesn't need to change. But, they had a questions; the language says "typical activity on the site will include milking of 300 milk cows..." The zoning permit is based on the 900 total though right? They wanted to know if new technology allows them to put more milking cows through the parlor in the future if that's OK as long as they do not exceed the total in the o permit? I just wanted to converse with you on this. I'm not going to bring it up and do not want to talk / about this in the hearing. • Prior to the Board: ............. ............They lighting. pole yard lights ( p_... get thatladdre addressed prior to hetboard.ular unted va or�rot flood or spot lights. We'll (� -E. ,0 They do want a sign (4x4) that's what they have now. We'll put it on the plat. _ o (+— Prior to plat: page 4 #2B - They do have some questions themselves about the parlor septic since they bought the v{c property the way it is. The company that installed the septic is coming out this week to uncover parts of it and we'll be there to take a look FYI. p4#2C - The only thing I saw from the fire department is that they wanted large address numerals and 0k we'll put that on the sign. Is there anything else that I am missing from the fire or is that it? o p5 #2.D.5 - FYI - The berm will only be abou 3 feet highaa d should not block any of the views of the "1 intersection above car-eye-level from any dist nce— -- P5 #4. Can we change the 0 days to 180? oat least 90? There is a lot to get done on the conditions in 30 days. 0 Development standardsdr. - #12 -'Tan we change the first sentence to match the first sentence in#13. "The facility shall operate in compliance with applicable Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations" and take out references to the 15 to 1 dilution threshold? There are things changing at the state with animal agriculture and1_ compliance with the regs will cover it. If the conditions is this specific and it changes, we could be vb famcow, .,n ncirnnnnF Message Page 2 of 2 locked in to an old standard. 0 #20. The office will be in the house and should not require any construction but it is OK by me to leave the office in. But the commodity shed should be an ag exempt building and the way the conditions is written it would supersede that. The commodity shed is a three sided shed with three concrete stem walls and steel sheeting on the three sides and roof. There are concrete dividers to separated the different minerals and supplements that get mixed in to the feed. But, it should qualify as an ag exempt building. That's all I had. Thanks for your help. I sent you two letters of support via fax this afternoon. I'd like to keep things simple and quick. Please call me if you have anything last minute. Thanks. Original Message From: Brad Mueller [mailto:bmueller@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:15 AM To: tharen@agpros.com • Subject: Per our discussion. Brad nc infl innnc Hello