HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061723.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Michael Miller,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1554
APPLICANT: Dennis& Erin Barkey
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4210 &Lot A of RE-4211; Pt W2SW4 of Section 17,T7N, R67W 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 Livestock Confinement
Operations (a Dairy operation for a total of 900 head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 80; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 15.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. The request complies with Section 23-2-220.A.1 of the Weld County Code, that the proposal is
consistent with Chapter 22 of[the] Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinance in
effect. Some relevant sections included the following:
A. Section 22-2-60.A (A.Policy 1.1) —Agricultural zoning will be established and maintained and
promote the Country's agricultural industry. Agricultural zoning is intended to provide areas for
agricultural activities and other uses interdependent upon agriculture. The subject property has
historically been used as a 200-head dairy. The proposed expansion increasing the number of
cows requires a special use permit and will increase the dairy output of the site. Typical activity
on the site will include milking of 300 milk cows at build-out; delivery of hay, silage, and other
horticultural products; and management of the site through waste removal, etc.
B. Section 22-2-60.A (A.Policy 1.2) — The County should support the development of creative
policies to conserve agricultural land, including preservation techniques and prioritizing
incentives. A 900-head dairy is proposed,which would result in the addition of two lagoons, use
of the existing home as an office,and construction of several new cattle pens and a calf hut area.
An approved nuisance control plan is being required by the Department of Public Health and
Environment.
3. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is
located. The subject property is zoned Agricultural,and the proposal meets the intent of this District.
Livestock Confinement Operations which exceed four(4)animal units per acre are permitted in the
Agricultural Zone District as a Use by Special Review, as detailed in Section 23 of the Weld County
Code.
4. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. Surrounding uses include agriculture and associated housing and support
facilities; the nearest farm residence is approximately 1/3-mile away. A mobile home park and
several large-lot residences are located less than one(1)mile to the north; R-5 zoning allowing for the
mobile home park lies within '/a mile of the property. A large sheep feedlot of approximately 10,000
head is located 1 '/A miles east of the site.
5. Section 23-2-220.A.4-- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development
of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as
projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code provisions or SIIMMIlla
ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. The proposed use is
compatible with the area as discussed above. The subject property lies within the 3-mile referral area
of Severance, Windsor, and Larimer County; Severance and Larimer County did not provide 10
comment. Windsor noted only that any right-of-way requests made by Weld County Public Works be =
observed. >K
2006-1723 W z
rommemsted
Resolution USR-1554
Dennis Barkey
Page 2
6. Section 23-2-220.A.5-- The application complies with Article V of this Chapter[Overlay Districts]of
the Weld County Code. The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts. Effective January 1,2003,
Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the
County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots 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)
7. Section 23-2-220.A.6— That if the use is proposed to be located in the A (Agricultural)Zone District,
the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve prime farmland. A
portion of the land proposed for development for the dairy support facilities is located on prime
farmland. However, a dairy is recognized by the Weld County Code as being an agricultural service
and is consistent with the agricultural tradition in the area.
8. Section 23-2-220.A.7—There is adequate provision for protection of the health,safety,and welfare of
the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. The Design Standards(Section 23-2-240,Weld
County Code), Operation Standards(Section 23-2-250,Weld County Code), proposed Conditions of
Approval, and Development Standards will ensure that there are adequate provisions for the
protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant has not indicated any lighting on the site. If lighting is proposed or existing on site it
shall be noted on the Site Plan. The applicant shall adhere to the lighting standards, in
accordance with Section 23-2-160.U.6 and Section 23-3-250.6.6 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant has not delineated any on-site signs. If an on-site sign is desired, the sign shall
adhere to Section 23-4-90 of the Weld County Code. One identification sign per public and quasi-
public uses shall be allowed, provided that the sign does not exceed sixteen (16) square feet.
Further, the location of the sign, if applicable, shall be delineated on the Plan Map. (Department
of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat, the following shall be addressed, with written evidence of completion
provided to the Department of Planning Services:
A. A management plan for nuisance control shall be submitted and approved by the Weld County
Department of Public Health & Environment. This "nuisance control plan" plan must address
control measures for dust,odors,flies and pests. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The applicant shall provide evidence to the Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment that an adequate sewage disposal system is available to serve the proposed use.
An Individual Sewage Disposal System (I.S.D.S.) evaluation shall be conducted by a Colorado
Registered Professional Engineer for the barn system (G19810022). The review shall consist of
observation of the system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the
proposed hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services
Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the
system is found to be inadequately sized or constructed, the system shall be brought into
compliance with current Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
C. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the Department of Planning Services from the
applicant that an attempt has been made to address the items noted in the Poudre Valley F-15
Fire District's referral of April 13, 2006. (Poudre Valley F-15 Fire District)
Resolution USR-1554
Dennis Barkey
Page 3
D. The Special Review Permit Plan Map shall be amended as follows:
1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1554. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The plat shall be prepared in accordance with all requirements as listed in Section 23-2-
260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3) The plat shall be modified to include the attached Development Standards. (Department of
Planning Services)
4) Section 23-3-250.A.6 of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash collection areas.
Areas used for storage or trash collection shall be screened from adjacent public rights-of-
way and adjacent properties. These areas shall be designed and used in a manner that will
prevent wind or animal scattered trash. (Department of Planning Services)
5) At the intersection of WCR 15 and WCR 80,the applicant is proposing to install a berm and a
proposed waste water pond. The applicant needs to place on the plat drawing a diagram
showing sight distance for westbound traffic on WCR 80 by berming near the intersection.
Verification needs to be place that this does not become a blind intersection. Utilize the
AASTO or the state requirements on sight distance at intersections. The sight distance at 55
mph needs to be a minimum of 583 feet. (Department of Public Works)
6) The applicant is proposing two new accesses to the site. The western most access is
approximately 450 feet from the intersection, and the eastern access is 1,850 feet from the
intersection.The access shall be placed in such a location to have adequate sight distance in
both directions and not below the crest of a hill or where physical obstructions are present.
(Department of Public Works)
E. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plan map for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services, prior to recordation. (Department of Planning
Services)
3. Upon completion of Items#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 plan map 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 thirty(30)days from the date of
the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the
recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005,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. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation);acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is.tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Prior to operation at the site, any grading permits required to grade the site and create the retention
ponds must be obtained. (Department of Public Works & Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Barkey Dairy USR-1554
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for an Agricultural Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,animal husbandry, horticultural services
on a fee or contract basis including Livestock Confinement Operations(a DAIRY operation for a total
of 900 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. No more than twelve (12) employees are to be on site, employed as indicated in the application.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,pursuant
to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
5. 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)
6. The facility shall utilize Best Management Practices and operate in compliance with Water Quality
Control Commission (WQCC) Regulation #81. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. The facility shall control fugitive dust on this site and operate in accordance with the approved
nuisance control plan. (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 the approved nuisance control plan. 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 the approved nuisance control plan. 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. The plan shall also be implemented in the event the Weld 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)
Resolution USR-1554
Dennis Barkey
Page 2
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.
13. The facility shall operate in compliance with applicable Colorado Air Quality Control 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)
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. The access shall be placed in such a location to have adequate sight distance in both directions and
not below the crest of a hill or where physical obstructions are present.(Department of Public Works)
17. The applicant shall utilize the existing residential access to this parcel. Utilize the existing agricultural,
oil and gas, and ditch roads that are necessary for your agricultural operation.(Department of Public
Works)
18. Off-street parking spaces including the access drive shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete
or the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
19. All driveways should be surfaced with gravel and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems.
(Department of Public Works)
20. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the commodity shed and the office.
(Department of Building Inspections)
21. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall bear the
wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required
when applying for each permit. Building plans shall also be submitted to the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District. (Department of Building Inspections)
22. 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 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspections)
23. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an
open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be
designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspections)
24. The structure will probably be classified as a U (commodity shed) and B (office) occupancy. 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
Zoning Ordinance. (Department of Building Inspections)
Resolution USR-1554
Dennis Berkey
Page 3
25. 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 Inspections)
26. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
27. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots 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)
28. Effective January 1,2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning
Services)
29. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code (as amended). (Department of Planning Services)
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code (as amended). (Department of Planning Services)
31. Personnel from 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. (Department of
Planning Services)
32. 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. (Department of Planning Services)
33. 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. (Department of Planning
Services)
Motion seconded by Roy Spitzer
Resolution USR-1554
Dennis Berkey
Page 4
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
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 May 2, 2006.
Dated the 2' of May, 2006.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
- v?-OO(c
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
Michael Millers does not feel the application is in compliance with Section 22.2.60.A.1,Section 23.2.220.A.3,
and Section 23.2.220.A.4
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that Section 22-2-60.A.1 promotes the Counties agricultural industry and
agricultural zoning is intended to provide areas for agricultural activities. He does believe the application
does this but still has safety is a concern but overall he would support it.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1554
APPLICANT: Dennis & Erin Barkey
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4210 & Lot A of RE-4211; Pt W2SW4 of Section 17, T7N,
R67W 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 Livestock Confinement Operations (a Dairy
operation for a total of 900 head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 80; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 15.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1554,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The applicant would like to change two
conditions. Those conditions are Item #4 regarding the recording of the plat. The applicant is requesting a
change to 180 days. The applicant would also like to amend Development Standard#12 to reflect adhering
only to State Regulations.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how many head are allowed on the site as a use by right. Mr. Mueller stated they
could have approximately 220 head.
Paul Branham asked how many existing animals are there. Mr. Mueller there are between 200-300 head on
the existing site but the acreage was at 160 acres.
Chad Auer asked about the referral from Severance and their request for a reservation of roadway on CR 80
and CR 18. Mr. Mueller stated that would be reflected the plan set.
Tom Haren, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the project. This permit is for 900 head
on the entire site. The intent is to milk 300 head. The total of 900 will consist of milkers, dry heifers, calves
and bulls. The Barkeys have an exiting property in Windsor but are crowded. They presently have neighbors
within 1/4 mile away and have had no complaints. The additional room is for bulls. There is a waste water and
nuisance plan included in this application. The applicants must follow all state regulations. The layout for this
facility is 1200 square feet per head which is approximately twice the size of a typically designed system. The
larger footprint is for better room and access to the animals. There will be times when there is no water in the
detention pond. There is a proposed berm on the south and west sides for landscaping. The pond fits within
the setbacks from the roads. The referral from Severance was received late and the road reservation would
be agreeable to the applicants if it is warranted.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated there will be several Development Standards and conditions. A Use by Right would
allow for fewer conditions. What is the difference between USR what this will ultimately become? Mr. Haren 4
stated this application makes the applicant more subjected to scrutiny. Most of the dairy farmers in the area
are already doing these requirements without being prompted too. The farmers want to show the public a nice
facility. This permit adds value to property as well as being a safe guard for county.
t
7 .
Doug Ochsner asked about the tap references in the letter from North Weld County Water District. The tap
allows for a specific amount and will need to be amended once the herd grows. Is the 900 number a current
number or the number in a five year span? Mr. Haren stated the applicant has planned for growth and this is a
closed herd. The herd will grow slowly within the herd. There is a specific allotment for the taps and if the
applicant were to go over this there is a substantial fee. There are also agreements to maintain certain
pressures in the water lines. As the dairy grows the infrastructure will need to be increased, but those will
need to go hand in hand. There is no intent to put all the infrastructure in for the 900 head. Mr. Ochsner
asked if there is a head count for the date of move in. Mr. Haren indicated it was around 300-400 head.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regards to CAFO. Mr. Haren stated they are required to adhere to
Regulation 81 and Regulation 61 but those vary depending on size of the operation. In order to meet CAFO
requirements they would need to have 700 mature animals.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification with regards to the manure and whether it will be used on site or hauled
away and will there be any composting of the waste. Mr. Haren stated the manure will be applied to the site
until the future buildings occupy the area. Once those buildings are in place the manure will be hauled offsite
and used. The waste water pond is designed to be evaporative. The pond may not be utilized at certain times
of the year. Composting may be a viable option for the future. It is a good method of control for flies. It is a
good management practice.
Tom Holton asked why the stock piles are next to the road as opposed to where the hay storage is. Mr.Haren
stated there could be some flexibility on the piles but the storm water run-off needs to be contained from them.
So the piles need to be close to the ponds. The further away the piles are from the pond the more difficult it is
to collect all the water run off. There is one waste management area to manage adverse to several locations.
There is a smaller pond that will catch the water from the calf area. Mr. Holton asked what will happen if the
pond gets full. Mr. Haren stated there are other means to increase evaporation,but it will also be designed to
maintain a 10-15 year water balance. The State requires them to look at ten of the wettest years and design
for that. Mr. Holton asked about the ground to the north and will there be any runoff. Mr. Haren stated they do
^ not want any uncontaminated water getting onto the site. The owners to the north will need to do maintenance
of their own.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Fred Walker, representative for surrounding neighbors, indicated they would like a better understand of the
intensity of the application and the use. This land has been petitioned into the Boxelder Sanitation District.
The original farm was 160 acres and the irrigation water has been sold off and there are deed restrictions on
the whole corridor that does not allow for future irrigation of land, it must be dried up. This does not preserve
prime agricultural land, it cannot be irrigated. The original farm was acceptable as well as the intensity. The
neighbors would like to have meeting with the applicants because the neighbors believe the intensity is too
great. The larger pond on CR 80 and CR 15 is a concern especially for odors. The odor will be more
intensified on a smaller acreage. The neighbors do not object to the diary but it encompasses the entire 55
acres. This seems to be more of an industrial use rather than agricultural use. The other concern is the
possibility of a future user milking the entire 900 head. There will be land in the future that will be dried up.
Boxelder Sanitation is placing a sewer line in the area for possible future development. There will be a lift
station for the entire basin. The future use is what the land owners are looking forward to. There is about a
two mile strip that the City of Thornton owns. Those lands will be dried up also. There are 700 acres in the
Boxelder Sanitation District. There does not seem to be enough mitigation to allow this to go forward,
therefore, the reason for a meeting with the neighbors. The pond at CR 80 &CR 15 is a concern and this is
not a not a good location. The major concern is the possible future owners of the site and the possibility of
them being able to milk all 900 head.
Tom Moore, neighbor and managing general partner for K&M Partnership, indicated his concerns. The
intensity is the concern. The original owners had 150 acres and they split the land into four parcels. The
Barkey's have two of the lots with several more animals in the acreage. Development is coming to this area.
There is room for dairy operations further east on Hwy 85. This is a lose lose situation for the neighbors. A
sewer line is being brought to the area from 1-25 and development will happen in the area. This could be a
situation that may not be good for anyone including the applicant.
8
The Chair closed the public portion
Tom Haren indicated that the intensity of the use could not be better located than on an existing dairy. The
intensity will not change; the entire site was not used historically. The historical size for cattle pens was 3-4
acres and that intensity turns out to be approximately 100 head per acre. The 900 head on 55 acres actually
works out better with a smaller number of animals per pen being better. The Barkey's have been managing a
facility around Windsor with no complaints. The break down is much smaller per head at the present facility.
The design for this facility is much larger. A typical design utilized 600 feet of space per head while this site
will be using 1200 feet per head. This equates to 16 cows per acre. There have been cases of 10,000 head
on 160 acres which is 62 head per acre. This is a better situation than what has been there. There were no
lagoons before so where did water do at that time? There were no environmental controls at that time. There
is development along the Front Range. It will come and the land value will increase and they can sell and
move on at that time. There will need to be a lot of future development to affect this site. This makes the land
also appealing due to possible future value. The county sets rules and patterns of where they want to see
development and then try and direct the growth there.
Chad Auer asked if there were assurances that the Department of Planning Services has that would not allow
for a more intensive use in the future. Mr. Haren stated that anything in addition to the 900 head would require
an amendment to the USR. The family debated on the pen size and it came down to cleanliness of the
animals. Finally, the ratio and infrastructure would be irregular. This is what the family wanted to do. The
additional expense would be irregular for someone else to do. Mr.Auer asked about changing Development
Standard#12 and the rational to that. Mr. Haren indicated the applicant will comply with the State regulations;
this is more of a technical process issue. This limits the applicant to this even if the regulations change. Mr.
Haren added that it would be acceptable if Development Standard #12 was worded like Development
Standards#13. Mr.Swain, Department of Public Health and Environment,added that Regulation 2 does not
apply to any type of agricultural in the state except for the hog farms. Historically the 15-1 odor standards
have been added to the USR. The language calls out the method of measurement and nothing more. The
conditions may be redundant but those are the ones staff has the most concerns about; therefore he would
prefer not to change the language.
Doug Ochsner asked if the neighbors will experience any odors from the lagoons or stock piles and what is
the regulations that will apply to them. Mr. Swain stated the odor standard is nuisance based. They try to
establish levels to control the nuisance as a way to control.
Bruce Barker added the odor is measured with the method set forth in Regulation 2. "Pursuant to"suggests
that the Regulation will need to be followed and this is not the intention. Mr.Swain indicated that would be fine
with the Department of Public Health and Environment to modify the language.
Michael Miller moved to amend the language in Development Standard #12 by deleting "pursuant to" and
replacing it with "using the methods set forth in". Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Haren added they would like to amend item#4 from 30 (thirty)days to 180 (one-hundred eighty)days.
There are several conditions that must be adhered to so the extra time will be needed. Department of
Planning Services is in agreement with this.
Chad Auer moved to amend the above referenced language. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Haren indicated the applicant is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval.
9
Tom Holton asked for clarification on bunk space and stated the question seems to be the number that will be
milked. Mr. Haren stated the bunk space is for 300 head which is all that will be milked. A dairy parlor can
only take so many at a time. Mr. Holton suggested getting together with neighbors to possibly mitigate their
concerns with the number that will be milked. They do not want to see an operation of 900 milkers. Mr.
Holton added it might be better to put a specific limit on those. Mr. Holton added the other concern he has is
the lagoon and if it ever gets too much water in there how it will be addressed. Mr. Haren stated the pond can
be aerated along with some biological chemicals that will try and de-sludge the pond.
Brad Mueller added "staff wants to make sure the record as we understand it right now is that the limits then
on the property would be for 900 and for 300 head milkers unless the applicant speaks otherwise. That is
what the application stated." Mr. Haren added that is what the application stated. Mr.Mueller added that once
again that that would be a limit of 300. Mr. Holton asked if this was in the Development Standards. Mr.Haren
stated it was in the record. Mr. Mueller stated "we can for the Board's comfort add that to what would be
essentially Design Standard Number One." Mr. Barker stated it could be modified in the third line. Mr. Haren
stated that historically the county has predicated all of the zoning on the number of noses not specifically what
kind. With the size of the facility in the area and what was there, this is a very small operation. This
application has 900 head on 55 acres whereas the previous dairy had 300 head on 3-4 acres.
Paul Branham asked if they agree to the 300 head. Mr. Haren stated that was what is in the application and
what must be adhered to according to the comments by staff.
Paul Branham asked if this was approved"as is"and the applicant wants to increase that what is the process.
Mr. Mueller stated the applicant will provide additional information and it will be determined by staff if a
substantial change exists. If this exists it will need to go before the Planning Commission again.
Discussion ensued on limiting the number of milk cows and whether it should be allowed. The limitation is in
the application.
Michael Miller stated this had not been done historically and is not necessary. The applicant should have the
ability to increase the number if technology allows without changing the intensity of the use. Mr. Miller would
hesitate to regulate especially since it has been explained that the parlor determines the number the applicant
can milk. The intention is on the record. Mr. Auer added that there could be a possibility that the number
could go to 900 but that would take some doing but it is possible. Mr. Miller stated that if they increase to 500
would that change the impact on the surrounding community enough to warrant an amendment. They
application is not going to want to truck animals back and forth to keep the dry cows at one place the bulls and
another and the milking cows here. There can be some king of possibility with any application that comes
before the Planning Commission.
Paul Branham agrees that it is clear what is intended on both the application and by the applicant but it would
be appropriate to have a clear Development Standard amended to read"900 head with maximum of 300 milk
cows."
Tom Holton agrees with Mr. Branham that it is in the application and not in the standards but he does not feel
comfortable giving 300 as a limit but there needs to be something. Mr. Branham added the applicant has set
the number as 300 and if they want to increase that number the will need to come back. Mr. Holton asked if
they only went up fifty they would need to come back.
Doug Ochsner indicated the main issue is whether this is a dairy or not. Whether they are milking the cow or it
is dry, 99%of the people driving by are not gong to care. That does not affect the land use an animal will still
be there. Mr. Holton added the concern is odors. With a milking cow there is more of a potential use from
that animal. A dry lot cow does not get the same type feed.
Michael Miller stated he does not see the applicant as being capable to increase with the facilities that are on
site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated 900 are 900 no matter what kind of cow it is.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend Development Standards #1 to limit the number of 300 milking cows. Paul
Branham seconded.
10
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, no; Michael Miller, no; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, no, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Don Carroll added that the applicant is agreeable with Department of Public Works conditions but they would
like more information on the lagoon especially with the berming and the site distance. There could be a
request for additional right-of-way to be shown on the plat. Staff can work on before the Board of County
Commissioners. AASTO standards have been printed for applicant.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1554, 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. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented he is concerned about the future use. He typically votes in favor on the issues that
reflect Section 22-2-60.A regarding the support of policies to support agricultural land. The applicant is doing
this and they have the right to. The property owner should have the ability to choose the highest and best use
for their own property. The concern is the manure and lagoons being on the borders of the property. If those
two items were not there he would be in support of this. Those two items will negatively affect the future use
for the neighbors. If those two items could be discussed with the neighboring land owners and moved the
application is valid. There is another concerns with the water being removed from the land and by doing this
the neighboring property will be the first to develop. That can be mitigated with possible landscaping. He is
voting"no" but there could be some mitigation to change the vote.
Tom Holton commented he has a problem with the location of the lagoon and the manure stockpile. It can be
an issue in the future. Before this goes to the Board of County Commissioners he suggests the applicant get
together with the surrounding land owners and discusses this issue.
Michael Miller commented he believes this application meets the standards of Section 22-2-60.A regarding the
agricultural zone as intended. He also believes it supports Section 22-2-220.A.2, Section 23-2-220.A.3,
Section 23-2-220.A.6 and Section 23-2-220.A.7. Both the applicant and the land owners need to get together
to discuss the locations of the lagoon and manure pile.
Paul Branham commented there is an existing dairy and the applicant has the experience. They have
adequately addressed all the concerns.
Chad Auer commented he believes the neighbors and the applicants need to get together possibly before the
Board of County Commissioners.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented he has voted to approve two dairy within two miles of his house. There is no
problem from his house. He appreciates the management practices. All the issues have been mitigated with
the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm
R
espectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
11
Hello