HomeMy WebLinkAbout20013371.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 20, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2001, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller I 1
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker
John Folsom -
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp Absent
Luis Llerena Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll, Kim Ogle, Robert Anderson, Lauren Light, Monica Daniels Mika,Jeff Reif, Cindy
Etcheverry, Char Davis, Lee Morrison
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 6,
2001, minutes will need to be continued to the next meeting. Bryant Gimlin and John Folsom did not receive
them.
CASE: Chapter 29 -Weld County Code Revisions
PLANNER: Jeff Reif and Monica Daniels Mika
Jeff Reif, presented a brief summary of the changes for the Building Code. In particular Section 29-2-90 is
the affected section due to an ordinance passed by the State Legislature that mandates how local jurisdictions
are to inspect manufactured and factory built housing. Specifically, all references to be blocked and tied
mobile homes must be deleted from our ordinance. In addition, our ordinance must reflect the adoption of
the State Department of Housing Standards with regard to the installation and inspection of manufactured and
factory built housing. IF the installation standard from the manufacturer are not available, then ANSI
standards will be used.
Michael Miller asked about the ANSI Standards and how it would affect the inspections. Mr. Reif stated that
the inspection will change little. The homeowner or installer will provide the instructions for the installation.
Cristie Nicklas moved to send Chapter 29 to Board of County Commissioners for approval. Stephan Mokray
seconded. Motion carried
Monica Daniels Mika presented a brief summary on the changes within Chapter 23of the Code regarding
Zoning issues. Two changes were recommended. The first one deals with the Development Standards and
addition of language consisting of "Civil penalties in lieu of a suspension may also be imposed with the
express prior agreement of the applicant. The availability of these remedies in no way limit the Board of
County Commissioners from seeking or applying any other remedies which are available for noncompliance
with the development standards." The second change deals with the definition of section regarding "offset"
and"setback". The changes with regard to offset need to be more definite and inclusive. The changes with
regard to setback would be the same.
Bryant Gimlin asked what would determine the civil penalties. Mr. Morrison provided further information with
regard to the penalties and what can be done to the applicant.
Michael Miller asked about the intent and what could be done with regards to penalties. Mr. Morrison stated
that prior to the process it sets up the possible penalties that could be enforced. Mr. Morrison stated it does
not preclude subsequent agreements.
Ccltaxc�� Cam' rw�¢ t;v,./2oo/ 2001-3371
Mike Miller asked Ms. Mika if there will be a chart for potential penalties or is it going to be determined asked
of the Commission during the hearing process. Ms. Mika stated that is was unclear as to whether it would
be carried out at the time of the hearing or case or at the time of violation. Mr. Morrison stated that this is a
broad based issue that does not specifically define the process. This enables the applicant to discuss
alternative ideas. The authority must be available before the complete process can be fully defined.
Cristie Nicklas moved to send amendments to Chapter 23 to Board of County Commissioners for approval.
Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried
Monica Daniels Mika provided a brief summary on Chapter 2 dealing with Substantial Change. There would
be changes to A, B and K. The changes in A and B would tighten the language up and provide a clearer
definition for the applicant to work with. The changes in K would affect the time parameters of re-applying
for a change. The time frame of one year would be available if the applicant found subsequent to the original
decision of denial by the Board of County Commissioners, new evidence which would have effected that
outcome.
Fred Walker would like to see changes in the language in subsection A, B and would like to see changes in
the last sentence. Mr. Morrison provided some clarification as to the reasoning and intent of the language.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change the language in subsection K to be consistent with A& B. Stephan Mokray
seconded. Motion carried.
Fred Walker asked about the there not being an "or" in the documents in subsection C of Chapter 2. It was
agreed to place the or in the language.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas moved to send the changes to Chapter 2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval including adding the word or in Chapter 2 Subsection C. Steve seconded Motion
carried.
Case : USR-1358
Applicant: Robert& Cozette Legino
Planner: Monica Mika
Legal: S2 of the NE4 of Section 20 T11N, R67 West of the 61h PM Weld
County Colorado
Request: Special Use Permit for 195 foot wireless telecommunications tower.
Location: East of and adjacent to WCR 126.5 (Carr Road)
Monica Daniels Mika, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1358, 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.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the size of the tower. Mrs. Mika stated it is a 195 foot tower.
Hal Garwood, provided clarification to the site and is available for questions. Mrs. Nicklas asked why this is
a guide tower and the fencing of it for cattle purposes. Mr. Garwood stated that the tower will be fenced as
well as the guides. This height of tower meets the needs of the area and is can be co-located on. Mrs.
Nicklas asked about prospective carriers. Mr. Garwood stated that the client would be Sprint and that the
company will not construct unless there is a client ready to go on the tower.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray motioned for final approval of USR-1358. Cristie Nicklas seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Case#: USR-1357
Applicant: TowerCom
Planner: Lauren Light
Address: do Hal Garwood 1220 Kerr Gulch Road, Evergreen,CO 80439
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for
a Major Facility of a Public Utility (195 foot Telecommunications
Lattice Tower) in the Agricultural Zone District.
Legal Part of Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 62 West of
Description: the 6th Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado
Location: 1/3 mile south of State Highway 34 & 1/4 mile west of Weld
County Road 385 sited on land to be leased from Equus Farms,
Inc.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1357, 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.
Hal Garwood, provided further information with regards to co-location and the fact that Qwest will be the first
carrier but Sprint will have an option. Mr. Garwood stated that lattice towers are easier to co-locate on and
will blend into the area better into this area. Mr. Folsom asked for clarification between a Lattice pole and
monopole. Mr. Garwood stated that a monopole is very large in regard to the base size while a guide tower
has cleaner definition in a rural area.
Mike Miller asked about the Division of Wildlife letter and the possible benefit of moving the tower with regards
to protecting the migratory birds that the farm has tried to attract. Mr. Garwood stated that there was no site
available to meet the RF needs of the carrier.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas moved to approve Case-1357. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Case Number: USR-1356
Planner: Lauren Light
Applicant: Scott and Susan Busker
7678 Weld County Road 17
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a 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 of 1,450 head
of cattle, with two additional mobile homes as accessory
to the farm) in the Agricultural Zone District.
Legal N2SW4 of Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 67 West
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Location: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 17;
approximately Y�mile south of Weld County Road 18
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1356, 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 Standard.
Michael Miller asked about the agencies and what the regulations might be. Ms. Light stated that there will
be Confined Animal Feeding Operation Standards regulated through the State and the County Health
Department has separate requirements.
Tom Haren,AgPro Environmental Services, provided further clarification of the Busker Dairy. This is a Use
by Special Review. The herd will consist of app. 1100 milk cows,200 dry cows and 150 replacement calves.
There will only be an addition of two pens, pond,facility west of the Stanley Ditch and a 60 foot addition to
the milk parlor, and two new mobile homes. The 80 acre parcel is the operating facility. The Use by Right
property is used for dry cows, heifer,young stock. This plan can be a complete stand alone facility. There
was a neighborhood meeting in which suggestions were taken into consideration with regard to the design.
There will be addition of some of the landscaping and buffering because of the request and concerns of the
neighbors. The existing dairy milks 695 cows in a double thirteen parlor on 220 acres. The manure on site
is composted by a contract compost operator. The dairy is a dry scrape dairy and the only flush is a recycle
from the parlor to the alleys. The ponds are designed as evaporative and can be used as recycle.Mr.Haren
stated their compliance with County Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan with regards to this 80 acre, 1450
head site. In the County Code Section 23-2-240(1)proving adequate water service-in the application there
was a permit for a well into the Foxhill Laramie Aquifer that is currently servicing the dairy for 30 gallons per
minute almost 24 acre feet of water per year. In addition Mr. Busker has applied for and received the
information necessary to obtain a Central Weld Water District permit. He will proceed with that permit
pending this applications approval. The tap will be purchased if approved. The requirements are addressed
either in the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr.Busker has agreed to build a 6-8 foot
masonry wall around the SW corner of the lagoon in conjunction with masonry signs at the entry way to
improve the look. In the County Code Section 23-2-250(B)-Operation Standards Air Quality Regulations-
those are being addressed in the nuisance plan and to some extent in the landscape plan with the buffering.
It is addressed in the Development Standards. There will be no lighting directed up or off site. The largest
issue is that there are considerable regulations that are incorporated into the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. The major issue is the compliance with Chapter 22. Section 22-2-60-(1)(A)states
that Agriculture Zone district is to promote and protect the Agricultural Industry. This is the only zone that
this use can occur. The compatibility with the surrounding land is the Agricultural usages. Residential units
can be located within the Ag. Zone District. In the Ag District there is no distinction of uses with regard to
dairy, residential. The last item is to show that there is protection for the public and the surrounding areas
with mitigation and controls were of a considerable importance. Included are several separate plans that
address those issues to the fullest extent.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the composting and what would be hauled in. Mr. Haren stated it was aspen
mulch but in the winter it would be straw. The solid manure will be hauled off site which is standard for most
dairy operations. Mr. Haren added that they must go through several standards for the ponds and the
difference in the ponds is a result of the difference in the requirements from the initial construction. They
have to design the ponds in accordance with the ten wettest years on record. If there is a need to pump it
will go to the land application area. The manner will be flood irrigation and the tail water goes to the ditch
along the border and back to the pond.
Michael Miller asked about the provision for the runoff and it not going to the ditch. Mr. Haren stated that
the west side flows west and the east/west break on the property is the ditch. The east side goes to the
northeast and the west side goes to the northwest.
Mr. Folsom asked if there would be no more than the 1450 total number of head of cattle whether they are
milking,dry or calves on the property. Mr. Haren stated that was correct and any more would be a violation
of permit subject to revoking. Mr. Haren provided clarification with regard to animal unit, 1450"noses"are
what is classified as an animal unit.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dianna Evans, opposes the dairy. The State inspection found that they were watering the lagoons on non
crop lands. The specific issue is the"small family dairy'and she does not believe that the dairy is compatible
with the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Busker reconfigured his own land in order to re-apply. He still owns the
same amount of land as he did when he was first denied. Mrs. Evans believe that nothing has changed from
the original proposal. The bottom line is that this is a land use issue and Mr. Busker will get the benefit from
it while the surrounding neighbors will not.
Bruce Nikerson,Consulting Town Planner from Firestone,read letter into the record with regards to the Town
of Frederick not wanting this application. They would like to see a reduction in the number of animals.
Dave Mallery, opposes the application. Mr. Mallery stated that the smell coming off the existing lagoons is
quite strong. Mr. Mallery supports the use as long as it does not impose on the surrounding land owners. His
financial security is tied to his property and it is surrounded by the Town of Frederick UGA. He will eventually
be annexed into Frederick and it will be developed into residential units.
John Henderson, represent a group of neighbors. They do not believe that this is a 1450 head dairy but a
combination of the two for a total of over 2010 cows. There are not two dairies just one large facility and the
impact on the neighbors should be considered. The ponds are of concern in that the standards imposed are
not enough. The existing and new ponds surface area are about 3.3 acres at the allowed seepage rate
through those ponds is about 369 cubic feet a day. There has been no discussion with regards to the wells
in the area that will be affected by that seepage. The neighbors are not opposing agriculture but the
expansion of the existing dairy. The dairy is the one expanding and the neighbors will be the one impacted
by the expansion. The major compliance issue is the impact on the neighbors. The intensity of the
concentration of cows needs to be looked at with regard to the residence.The dairy will go from 880 cows to
2010 cows and does that improve the quality of life.
Bill Streeter, banker for the Buskers, there has to be an efficiency to the operations fo the dairy. In order to
maintain they will need to grow into a larger facility.
Ray Sagehorn, veterinarian for Busker, recommends approval for the expansion of the dairy.
Nikki Rosene,opposes the dairy. The opposition is based on the fact that it is dirty and not maintained as well
as it could be. It will impact the lifestyles out there. The do not have a problem with the dairy just the
expansion of it.
Will Wimer, opposes the dairy because of the smells associated with this.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Tom Haren, provided clarification on some of the issues that the public brought forward. There is no
distinction in the comprehensive plan that specifically addresses the agricultural uses with regard to size or
use. The degrees of odor and incompatibility is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan with relativity in the
Agricultural zone district. The dairies operationally function together but they had to design the dairy it as
separate functioning companies. This is one of the smallest dairy application in years.
John Folsom asked about the effect on the nearby wells from the lined lagoons. Mr. Haren referred back to
the engineers letter which tested the Busker pond.
Fred Walker asked for clarification about the trees. Scott Busker stated that the trees were cottonwood,ash,
some ornamentals. Mr. Haren added that there will be a plan submitted for the landscape purposes. Mr.
Walker asked about the capacity increase and the conditions would be aggravated and what is proposed in
the management plan. Mr. Haren stated that the dairy would smell but not more. Mr. Busker is looking into
lagoon additives and this will help alleviate the odors.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Light about the use of deciduous trees for the purpose of year around buffering.
Evergreen trees would provide that effect. Ms. Light stated that they would confer with the extension agency
and have the landscape architect on staff review the plan.
Michael Miller asked about the benefit of the surrounding neighbors with regards to CAFO Regulations. Are
there further remedies that have not been done and why. Mr Haren stated that the CAFO Regulations deal
with water quality not air. The facility has over 1000 animal units and is regulated by the State CAFO
Regulations. There are plenty of things out there, for control, that can be used as additives. Mr. Haren
experience is that the whole system needs to be looked at with regard to bacteria and biology. Mr. Miller
asked about the increase with regards to the flies and odor. Mr. Haren stated that the odor issues are
evolving with new technology coming on line. The applicant is willing to use lagoon additives when they are
available. There is nothing that is a quick fix. Mr. Miller asked about the flies and mitigating that. Mr. Haren
stated that Mr. Busker has bought a fogger to assist in addressing the fly issue and uses it on a daily basis
on the composting.
Bryant Gimlin asked Trevor Jiricek,Director Weld County Department of Public Health,about the wastewater
drainage. Mr.Jiricek stated that the State standard is based on a Federal Standard which is a 32nd of a day.
The liner overtime will get tighter so 3000 gal a day would be a worse day scenario. The standards are based
on risk to the public.
Michael Miller stated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of the agricultural land usage and this
use would be beyond the normal use. Mr. Walker commented that this is an application for something that
is allowed.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case- 1356, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas commented that this is a more intense Agricultural use but Weld County is an Agricultural
County and Mr. Busker has mitigated his application to the point of it will be a benefit to the Agricultural
community.
Bryant Gimlin commented that Weld County needs to foster the Agricultural industry as much as possible
because the commodity prices are not helping.
Michael Miller commented that the County needs to help the dairies in order for them to stay active but had
concerns with the surrounding land uses encroaching on the dairy. The responses to the mitigation of flies
and odor problems needs more attention to mitigation. It is an Ag area and the uses are according.
CASE: Z-564
APPLICANT: Fran Garcia
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL Lot A of RE-2509 being a part of the Northeast Quarter,
Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 68 West of the 6'h
Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado
Robert Anderson requested a continuance until January 5, 2002
There was no public input with regards to the continuance.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue the case to January 5,2002. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried
Case#: 3rdAm US R-778
Planner: Robert Anderson
Applicant: Xcel Energy/Public Service Company of Colorado
Address: c/o James McClung 550 15th Street Suite 700 Denver,
CO 80202-4256
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special
Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(Natural Gas
Control Facility/Yosemite Site)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
Legal Part of the Southwest Quarter, Section 27, Township 1
North, Range 67 West of the 6'h Prime Meridian, Weld
County, Colorado
Location: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 19& North of
and adjacent to Weld County Road 4 sited on land
currently owned by David Howard, et al.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case 3rdAmUSR-778, 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.
Mr. Anderson requested to move Condition of Approval #3 to Prior to Recording the Plat and deleted the
last two sentences of the paragraph. The Planning Commission concurred.
Jim McClung of Public Service Company of Colorado,stated that he is responsible for the land acquisition
and Mr. Bob Weaver of Hydrosphere a Resource Consultant prepared the application and will present the
application request.
Bob Weaver, provided some background on the proposed project with an overview for the need and the
selection of this site. The new site consists of two air compression buildings,with four compressors and up
to six in another building. There is a gas compressor building, quality control, shop and storage building.
odor facilities and evaporation pond. The buildings are set back according to the environmental buffer.
Natural Gas from Wyoming is blended with air in this plant to balance the BTU stabilization. This facility
boosts the pressure of the gas and feeds it into the distribution center. Mr. Mokray asked about security on
the site. Brett Hollumbaugh an Engineer for Public Service Company stated that there may be surveillance
cameras at the new site but the design has not been completed. A six foot security fence is standard. The
facility can function on its own without personnel. There are emergency controls at the site. Odorant is
added to the gas at this plant. Mr. Weaver went on to state that there is a need for the utility and the future
projections are ever increasing. This site was selected because of the compatibility with surrounding land
uses and the proximity to the existing Public Service infrastructure. The service area extends from Fort
Collins to Pueblo excluding Colorado Springs. The site is in close proximity to existing gas lines from the
natural gas production in Wyoming. The site is not in the flood plain and is in an environmentally safe area
that is large enough to create a substantial buffer. The major concern is the sound impacts, noise and
vibration,from the new and existing facility. The area of concern produces approximately 65 decibel which
equates to normal conversation at about 3 meters. The industrial zone district standard is 80 decibels at
the edge of site. The new site complies with the light industrial standard night standard of 65 decibels at the
property boundary. Odor control issues have been raised and there have been developments to improve
those. Design feature and operation techniques can help to minimize the odor. The odor injected is the
cause and to some extent it cannot be avoided. The lighting concerns can be mitigated and directed to
where it is needed and this will reduce the light on surrounding properties. The applicant would like to have
this treated as a new application not an amendment. It was intended to be a new site or USR not an
amendment to the existing property. Mr. Anderson stated that the application is for an expansion of the
existing site it would be relatively easy to separate the two site and the separation would not require
additional referral comments. The existing application proposed the eventual relocation of the existing site
to the new site. The footprints are already in the plan for the eventual move.
John Folsom asked about the equipment silencers. Brad Hollenbaugh stated that studies were done to
determine low frequency sound and were pinpointed. A silencer was fitted for the noise level in unit 5, 3,
4,and the new unit 6 was installed with it. The study was done before and after the silencers. The reduction
was significant and Mr. Ron Spillman of HFP Acoustical Consultants of Dallas Texas stated that each unit
went down substantially from a 5 to 13 d.b.a. The low frequencies decreased dramatically.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the noise measures on the new site. Mr. Spillman stated that all the new
equipment will have the silencers that are on the existing units. The exhaust will have them also as well as
the coolers. The buildings are acoustically engineered to have sheet metal exteriors with insulation on the
inside and perforated metal on the inside of that. The vents, and combustion air inlets will be treated
acoustically.
Michael Miller asked about the noise level being consistent and the mitigation of it. Mr.Spillman stated that
the new plant is significantly quieter than the old plant. The buildings and equipment are specially designed
and treated for noise abatement.
Jim McClung stated that they only need 40 acres for the site but purchased 160 and located the proposed
site in the center for the buffer effect. The rest of the land around the site will stay agricultural.
Stephen Mokray asked about noise complaints. Cindy Etcheverry provided clarification with regards to
noise. The records show noise vibrations were recorded starting March 1999. The first complaint was in
April 2001.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Larry Johnson, provided information with regards to the noise levels in correlation to the residences. There
are some specific issues with regards to health issues and noise. With regard to the health issues is there
any long term effects. There was instance that went on for months with regards to the phone lines and it was
coming from the plant. The new plant is predicated by the history of the old plant. (Mr. Johnson showed a
home made tape that contained very little)Mr.Johnson spoke with geologists and have determined a problem,
the sound transmissions ride on the carrier of each other. Mr. Johnson does not believe that problems with
the existing plant have been addressed and therefor will be moved to the new site. The summary states that
the anticipated build out is multiple acres. The plant will grow with the increase in need. The buffer is minimal
and will decrease when the plant increases. There is no berming around the site to assist with the noise.
There is only fence around the site with no landscaping or buffering. The workforce numbers can be
increased and the neighbors have no idea where this is going. What is going to happen with the increase fo
trucks. The well permit is an issue,there cannot be another one drilled on that site. Will one well be sufficient
for both sites. Another noise element is the shrill that is from the gas going down the pipeline. The odor is
not intermittent it is a constant. The neighbors have a hard time with the company not being proactive but
reactive. The surrounding neighbors have nothing good to say about the plant and what is has done for the
surrounding areas. There are several issues with wildlife, road, noise, smell and the possibility of terrorism.
The emergency plan must be taken into consideration with regards to the what ifs. The Comprehensive Plan
states it will have minimum impact but this is untrue. The sound transmissions are effected by barometric
readings and humidity. The application seems to be very vague with regards to the proactive stance that Xcel
is taking.
Jennifer Bargan, neighbor in the one mile radius has several questions as to the other locations and the true
intentions and if stay true to the comprehensive plan . The use of the land needs to be considered. Does not
want to become an industrial zone.
Bad Stoneback, neighbor,the decibel level is of great concern. The existing plant has smaller compressors
and less of them. The amount of noise is going to be larger at the new plant. Also question if the pipelines
are existing or will they need to take more land.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Bob Weaver, provided some clarification with regards to the public questions and comments. The new site
is meant to take care of the need for future amendments. The site plan includes the new additions for the
expansion and the needs for the next twenty years. Public Service is willing to continue to work with the
neighbors and assist that in any way. The noise level at the boundary of the site is 50-55 decibel.The reason
for the environmental buffer is the noise impacts. These facilities have been designed to meet light industrial
standards. This meets the Counties Requirements.
Michael Miller asked about the acoustics and silencers with the noise levels in the existing and the new facility.
The map shows that the levels are the same from both. Mr. Spillman stated that 50 dba would be an
acceptable level on the outside at the property boundary. Mr. Spillman is not certain about the vibrations
within the home and has not seen any complain logs. The shrill noise is unclear.
Brad Hollenbaugh, have asked neighbors to log when the instances occur and what and when so that they
can resolve the issues. This is being done in an effort to assist with the noise by the company.
John Folsom asked Cindy Etcheverry about the noise levels. When the complaint was received she made
several calls and visited the Johnson residence and the end result was the placement of the silencer. Ms.
Etcheverry also went to the Ware and Johnson home and determined that the silencers were a huge benefit.
She had difficulty in hearing any significant noise or detecting any vibration.
Fred Walker asked about final authority and if the Planning Commission has the ability to be more restrictive
with regards to noise abatement. Mr. Morrison stated he was unaware if the statue that deals with noise
actually covers vibrations.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on who has final approval and what is the appeal process. Mr. Morrison
stated that the BOCC has final appeal. Xcel can appeal to Public Utility Commission.
Robert Anderson stated that the DPHE development standard "The applicant shall operate in a manner that
minimizes noise and vibration to adjacent properties in accordance with its approved, written plan to
minimize or mitigate noise and vibration. In the event that excessive noise and vibration exist at adjacent
properties,additional measures shall be implemented at the request of the Department of Public Health and
Environment"addresses the issues raised.
Michael Miller asked if low frequency sounds to change to vibrations. Mr. Spillmans stated that the noise
could not be transmitted into vibrations. Mr.Spillman doubts that vibrations are traveling through the ground.
It is possible that the sound can be picked up by small things such as tea cups,pictures on the wall etc. You
can measure vibrations in decibels but it is a different scale. The low frequency sound is incorporated into
the displayed graphic. Noise can be reflected, low frequency is less responsive. Low frequency sounds are
the most difficult to fix.
John Folsom asked about the range from this installation. Mr. Spillman stated it will be a mixture of
frequencies. The best berming is to place it right next to the receiver and not halfway in between. The
neighbors will not want barriers in their yard. More insulation is a possibility to abate the noise.
Stephan Mokray asked about the security and emergency plans. Mr. Hollenbaugh stated that there will be
a monitoring company along with safety devices within the building.The security could incorporate cameras
at the gates or several places to maintain safety. There are very few air blend companies in the country and
they learned about the low frequency noise sources from adjacent residences and plan on incorporating the
safety measures into the new facility.
Michael Miller asked about the size of compressor and what horsepower and how does it relate to the
Yosemite site. Mr.Weaver stated that there are six units with 8,000 hp and the new site at build out with the
elimination of the old site there is 28,000 hp in four compressors driven by natural gas. There are also four
air compressor units totaling at 16,000 hp. This is total of 44,000 hp at full build out. Mr. Miller asked about
the buildings that would be better for sound abatement rather than the steel buildings. Mr Hollenbaugh stated
that the building structure has composite elements that absorb the sound energy. There are other products
but at a much higher cost.There are two types of insulation used in combination,one is a four inch fiberglass
and the other is three inch high density mineral wool layer. Mr. Miller asked about the pipelines and if they
are exposed. Mr. Hollenbaugh stated that they are outside the building. The plant has to be operated
according to State and Federal Regulations. Mr. Miller asked about the possibility of other locations. Mr.
Hollenbaugh stated that this was the best site available. This site has the lines whereas the other might not.
There are four gas lines and two air lines that are already there and to chose another facility would cause the
need to build these lines and take more land.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the time line to incorporate the plants together. There is no definite time line but
they wanted it platted to be able to move when it is viable to do so. The facility added will be one line to the
new site and one back to the old site.
Christie Nicklas asked about the water availability. Mr. McClung stated that he would like to get through this
process prior to the request for the well or a conservation easement. The Division of water Resources has
approved an increase to the existing well. Mr. McClung stated that a conservation easement will be pursued
once this process is passed. The Howards farm the ground and the value will be agreed upon by the courts.
There are lines already on the site as well as gas lines. Mr. McClung stated that the new facility will have as
much new technology as is economically prudent .
Robert Anderson has some corrections with regards to Cindy Etcheverry memo dated 11/14/01 DPHE
recommended an addition standard under prior to recording the plat... "the applicant shall submit a written
plan for review and approval to the DPHE that describes how noise and vibrations will be minimized or
mitigated at the new expansion area"There were also Development Standards that were omitted and need
to be inserted at #6 and then subsequent renumbering. 6. The applicant shall operate in a manner that
minimizes noise and vibration to adjacent properties in accordance with its approved, written plan to
minimize or mitigate noise and vibration. In the event that excessive noise and vibration exist at adjacent
properties,additional measures shall be implemented at the request of the Department of Public Health and
Environment. 7. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees. Portable
toilets (port-o-potty) may be utilized during the construction of the project for up to six months at each
location. 8.The facility shall provide an adequate drinking water supply for drinking and sanitary purposes.
The facility may use bottled water for drinking and sanitary purposes during the construction of the project.
9. All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld County
Department of Health and Environment.Any existing septic system which is currently not permitted through
the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment will require an I.S.D.S. evaluation prior to
the issuance of the required septic permits. In the event the system is found to be inadequate, the system
must be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations.
Christie Nicklas moved to delete last two sentences of#3 on page 4,and move it to prior to recording the plat,
Change Paragraph D- delete and insert and security plan, development standards as delineated by DPS
Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Christie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin asked about changing it from an amendment to a new USR. Mr.Morrison stated that a process
to amend is the same as a Special Use Permit. The board agrees to leave this as an amendment and not
change it to another case number.
Fred Walker has some issues with regards to compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He would like
to see more mitigation with regards to landscaping for the noise. He will vote no unless more mitigation is
presented.
Michael Miller does not believe a real effort has been made with regard to the construction on the building to
mitigate the sound problem. The graphic was not appropriate and that amount of noise is not acceptable.
Bryant Gimlin believes the sound issues are significant and the 40-50 dba range is something that people in
town experience. The language in the development standard addressed the noise issues.
Michael Miller stated that it would be more preferable to address the issues now instead of moving it through
the process. Now is the time to fix the problem not wait until it is built. Mr. Miller is suggesting that Public
Service find a way to reduce the noise emission before it goes to construction or approval stage.
Fred Walker suggested a continuance due to the compatibility issues. He is not comfortable voting for it. Ms.
Nicklas added that speculation is the only mitigation for the new plant. Mr. Mokray asked what was expected
from Public Service, Mr.Walker suggested they open up better public communication. Mr. Fitzgerald added
he was looking for a more new and improved plant and it was not shown in the presentation today. Mr. Miller
added that there are plants out there that are better contained than the one that has been presented. He
would support a continuance and provide Public Service time to come up with a better plan for a building. Ms.
Nicklas feels that they need to deal with it on a proactive not a reactive basis. Mr. Gimlin stated that all the
noise may not be theirs due to the fact that there are other plants in the area.
Char Davis, suggested getting information on similar plant and what they do and what issues they have that
mitigate the noise levels.
Lee Morrison provided clarification with regard to setting some ground rules about time lines for submittals.
A time frame needs to be set in order to maintain an open record. Mr. Miller suggested that the applicant
submit the needed information 10 working days before the next hearing. The main issues were alternative
structure types,sound mitigation possibilities and some information from comparable sites or industries with
regard to noise and how they mitigate it. The Board is trying to find a better way to mitigate the sound. Mr.
Miller asked how much time the applicant thought he would need and how he would like to proceed.
Mr. McClung stated that he does not understand what the rush to judgement is. Mr. Miller stated that a
continuance is not a rush to judgement. Mr. McClung stated that they are here on a land use issue and they
have done everything that was asked of them. He does not know how long it will take to go out and find the
information requested. Mr. Miller stated that the Board is asking the applicant to provide information that
shows the plant is state of the art and is the best that can be built and will protect the health and welfare of
the County. Mr. McClung asked about the appeal and who it would be done to and what the direction would
be. Mr. Miller stated that the end goal is to mitigate the amount of noise that is influenced on the
neighborhood. Mr. McClung stated that the information would be in Department of Planning Services two
weeks prior to the next board hearing.
Christie Nicklas moved to continue 3rd AmUSR-778 to December 18 at 1000am. Stephan Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Christie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. McClung wanted to make sure that he understood what was being asked. The confusing issues was
the design of the facility to meet a standard and they felt would comply with the County. They have an
analysis of sound impact and design that deals with those issues. The applicant is dealing with a perception
of what the noise impacts are and the testimony is conflicting. Mr. Johnson and Cindy Etcheverry had two
different sides to the same issue.
Case Number: USR-1354
Applicant: Aggregate Industries,
West Central Region, Inc.
Planner: Kim Ogle
Address: 3605 Teller Street, Lakewood, CO 80235
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
Mineral Resource Development facilities including open pit mining
and materials processing including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch
Plant in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
Legal Description: Part of the W2 of Section 8,T4N, R66W; Lot B of RE-1586, being
part of the W2 and part of the NW4 of Section 8,T4N, R66W;and
parts of Section 4, 5 and 8, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
Location: North of Weld County Road 46; east of and adjacent to State
Highway 60 and Weld County Road 27.5
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services stated that the applicant does not have an agreement with the
Railroad thus they cannot get their resources from south of the railroad track to the north side where the
processing plant is located. Staff had addressed this issue vie the requirements stated in item 2.F. Mr.Ogle
asked the Board how they wished to proceed noting that the applicant as well as a representative from the
Railroad are present.
Mr. Morrison stated that the Board may want to address this issue prior to proceeding with the case. The
Board agreed to hear from both the applicant and the railroad representative with regard to the issue.
Barb Brunk, of Rocky Mountain Consultants and the applicant's representative, provided clarification with
regards to the Railroad track on the site. Ms. Brunk stated that the applicant has maintained a constant
dialog with the railroad and are confident that a permit crossing agreement can be accomplished to the
railroads satisfaction. This is a technical issue and it has been done on other sites. Mr. Miller asked about
the crossing. Ms. Brunk stated it will be a conveyor. Aggregate Industries is also working on being able to
ship the material to market on the railroad which will alleviate some traffic on the road.
George Hix, representative for the Union Pacific Railroad, stated that there will be an agreement, but it is
just an issue with regard to time,engineering design and safety matters. Union Pacific has a vested interest
in the safety and viability of the project.
Mr. Miller asked the Board if they wished to continue. The Board stated their desire to proceed with the
hearing.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1354, 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.
Danna Ortiz, of Rocky Mountain consultants and the applicant's representative, asked for clarification
specific to Development Standard#38. She wanted to make sure that the language was correct. Mr.Ogle
stated that they have three years to commence operations. Mr.Morrison reviewed the language in the Weld
County Code, Section 23-2-200.E and determined an error existed in the text of the code. Additional
wording should be inserted after the word"commenced"to read three years of the date of approval or is.."
Mike Savage, of Savage and Savage Environmental Consultants, addressed the issue of the bald eagle
night roost. Mr.Savage discussed the potential night roost documented on the site. He further stated to be
accurate from a jurisdictional stand point, Condition of Approval number 2.A.3 should state"If a bald eagle
night roost is identified in the study by Savage and Savage, and buffer established by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service shall be delineated on the plat." This amendment to text shall also be reflected in
Development Standard number 32 that shall state "If a bald eagle night roost is identified in the study by
Savage and Savage,mitigation measures will be developed by the proponent and approved by the U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service, and implemented prior to mining within the buffer zone established by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service." Mr. Savage stated that the proposed language is outlined in Exhibit 48 previously
submitted to Mr. Morrison
Tom Hesemann,of Rocky Mountain Consultant and the applicant's representative,addressed the issue of
potential seepage from the Union Ditch. Based on the study by Rocky Mountain's Consultant's, it is not
anticipated that the ditch will suffer damage as a result of the proposed mining operation. Ms. Ortiz stated
that the ditch company wanted the assurance that the ditch is not effected. Ground water modeling was
undertaken by Rocky Mountain Consultants in an attempt to show that adequate measures are placed to
preserve the existing water conveyance system, including issues surrounding seepage from the ditch. Via
several factors ascertained through the Rocky Mountain Consultant study,this issue has been addressed
and resolved. Mr.Ogle stated that the issues pertaining to the Union Ditch and allied ditches on the property
are addressed in item#2E. Mr. Miller asked what were the concerns of the ditch company. Mr. Ogle read
into the record the letter received from Mr.Alles of the Ditch Company. Ms.Ortiz responded to those issues.
Ms. Ortiz placed into the record a letter from Rocky Mountain Consultants to Mr.Alles addressing the Ditch
Company's concerns. Mr. Hesemann continued with regard to mitigation. Mr. Hesemann stated the water
outside that slurry wall will not draw down the waters in the surrounding properties as the proposed mining
operation will be entirely within a slurry wall,therefore the level of water within the site will stay the same as
to not affect the ditch.
Fred Walker asked if just a letter was distributed to the ditch company or if the applicant had contacted the
ditch company in person. Ms. Ortiz stated that she has contacted them and given them a shorter version
of the presentation. Mr.Walker stated that the Board of County Commissioners has asked for outreaching
to the referral companies and he would like to see this effort continued. Ms. Ortiz stated that they could do
that. Mr.Walker asked about the Kammerazell well with regards to the project. Mr. Hesemann stated it was
to the west of the section line and they will do a base line for that well to determine what impacts if any the
proposed mining operation will have on adjacent well sites.
Michael Miller asked about the projected life of the mine operation and availability of the resource in tons
to be mined. Ms.Ortiz stated that the life of the mine will be thirty five years and 27 million tons of resource
is expected to be mined.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ken Poncelow, Weld County Sheriffs Office, stated that he Sheriffs Office has the following concerns. The
Sheriffs Office would like to see a fence placed on the property and it be chain link. This fence would assist
with the safety of the public children. Also the Sheriffs Office would like to see them cover the trucks prior
to leaving the processing plant area. Mr. Miller stated that the issues would be fencing in the flood plain and
how fencing inhibits the flow of rising flood waters. Mr. Poncelow stated that it would be acceptable to chain
link whatever it could be done.
David Padgett, Patina Oil and Gas, stated they have entered into an agreement that identifies all the assets
for both the companies involved. Both above and below ground assets will be identified in the agreement.
Mr. Miller asked about the time frame. Mr. Padgett stated that the issue at this time was man power and the
hope is having the agreement in place prior to the Board of County Commissioners Hearing.
Mr. Ogle, stated that there is a draft agreement which is exhibit 12.
The chair closed the public portion.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change the language in 3.A.3 and add 3.A.10 that is to amend the"plat to delineate
the locations of the flow lines, pipelines,wells, the well heads, production sites for Patina Oil and Gas shall
be delineated on the plat", and to amend Development Standard #32 and#38. Stephan Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the concerns from the Sheriff Department with regard to the fence by adding a
Development Standard. Mr. Ogle clarified that the sheriff wanted them tarped immediately. Michael Miller
provided some clarification with regards to the fencing.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add Development Standard #22 to address the tarping of the trucks being done
immediately upon exiting the plant processing area. Stephan Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1354, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments, the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she hopes that Aggregate Industries realizes the attractive nuisance that this
poses for children and hopes they deal with it accordingly.
Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello