HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011860.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 19, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, June 19, 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, Cristie Nicklas, at 10:10 a.m.
ROLL CALL 77
Cristie Nicklas Present -'
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Absent
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Absent for a.m., Present for p.m.
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Julie Chester, Planner III, Chris Gathman, Planner, Sheri
Lockman, Planner II, Robert Anderson, Planner, Department of Planning Services; Trevor Jiricek, Director,
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Services; Don Carroll, Diane Houghtaling, Public Works
Department; Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Wendi Inloes,
Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 5,2001,was
approved with changes on page 23, on a statement from Michael Miller to say convenient and not
inconvenient.
CASE NUMBER: 1041 Regulations(Matter of State Interest)
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika/Bruce Barker
REQUEST: The site selection and construction of those major facilities of a public utility
consisting of transmission lines,power plants,and substations of electrical utilities.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of Planning Services, requested that the 1041 Regulations case be
continued to the July 17, 2001, hearing date, to have a few more weeks for review.
Arlan Marrs asked if this continuance is for this case, or will others be affected in the future. Monica said
that this continuance will only affect this case.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom moved that the 1041 Regulations, be continued to the July 17, 2001, hearing date. Stephan
Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Revocation of Amended Z-374, Z-464 and Vacate USR-960
APPLICANTS NAME: Bob Easton
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Revocation of Amended Z-374, Z-464 and Vacate USR-960
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 65 West of the
6 P.M.Weld County,Colorado, lying south and east of the Gilmore Canal.
galena"Q nda_,
6-7 -0 R- P.DO 1 2001-1860
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 2
Monica Daniels-Mika,Department of Planning Services,presented the revocation and explained the process
of the case before them and the uniqueness of the case. Ms. Mika went over the information in the packets
on the processes Mr. Easton has gone through. The Department of Planning Services is recommending that
Z-374, AmZ-374 and Z-464, be revoked and that USR-960 be vacated. Previously, Mr. Easton received
approval of a PUD Change of Zone,but due to the requirement to purse the PUD Final Plat within a three year
time frame, Mr. Easton has chosen not to pursue the PUD zoning. A non-conforming use has been
estabished on the property for an aeronautical agricultural airstrip,and this activity still exists and will continue
to exist. Mr. Easton has asked to recognize the historic use on this property, and vacate all other uses
returning the land back to agricultural zoning.
John Folsom asked if all the changes were taken out by Mr. Easton's father, and for revocaton reasons,does
Robert Easton has authority to make the current changes. Monica said that he did as he had been involved
with the cases, and is the current property owner.
Michael Miller asked what USR-960 was granted for. Monica Mika explained the proposed use was for air
aeronautic school for the maintenance of airplanes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Easton stated he would like to change the use back to agricultural and continue the airport and agricultural
uses.
Michael Miller asked if other airplanes can land at this site,and if this was included under the non-conforming
use. Monica Mika stated yes it was included.
Michael Miller moved the revocation of AmZ-374, Z-374 and Z-464, and the vacation of USR-960, and
recommended the case be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along 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; Arlan Marrs,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Amended Boundaries For St.Vrain Sanitation District
APPLICANT'S NAME: St. Vrain Sanitation District/Mark Peterson
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
REQUEST: Amend St.Vrain Sanitation District Service Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various
LOCATION: Various
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director,Department of Planning Services,presented the St.Vrain Sanitation District
Service Plan, reading the comments recommendation for approval into the record.
Bruce Barker,Weld County Attorney,added that along with amendment to the service plan,there are three
issues needing to be addressed:the increase in the capacity of the plant from 1.5 mgd up to 4.5 mgd, being
requested as an amendment; discussion regarding a drainage authority; and a modification to eliminate a
requirement for the population of 5000 people to be included into a metro district.
Lee Lawson, consultant for St. Vrain, addressed the question from Mr. Folsom regarding his question on
the liability of the people served by the district under a metro district, and if the district failed to meet the
obligations would the liability of the debt be put on the people in the district. Mr. Lawson explained that the
district does have some general obligation debt, and when the district was created, there was an election
of all landowners in the district. The members assume debt on their property in order to create the money
to allow a metropolitan sewer/water system. The debt has been refinanced a few times and each
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 3
time financial advantage has been decreasing the debt. The debt is becoming diluted as the assessed
valued base becomes larger and larger. The service plan was developed in 1985 and approved in 1986.
A modification of the plan later deleted many acres taken by another sanitation district. Mr. Lawson stated
that with Firestone, Frederick, Mead and Longmont annexing into district and the communities picking up
safety and road responsibility within their cities, the Weld portion of the district is becoming smaller and
smaller. The second criteria as written requiring the plan of the expansion of the waste water treatment plant
from a half million gallons to a million and a half gallons. Originally the district obtained enough land to do
this in a rural type function, but since then have experienced tremendous growth that a million and a half
would not be enough and would soon be a three million if not more. So the amendment of the service plan
was for 3 pods with the capacity of a million and a half gallons each. By 2002 the district will exceed state
requirements and needs to move to a 3 million gallon plant.
Mr. Lawson than explained on a map the boundaries of the district that will be served.
John Folsom asked Mr. Lawson about a letter he acquired from the City of Longmont, and their objection
on the capacity of the plant. Mr. Folsom read this into the record. Bruce Barker added that this letter could
also be talking about a different proposal, and that Longmont may have different comments. Mr. Lawson
explained that the letter was a reply to a comment on a Site Plan Review by the North Front Range Water
Quality Planning Association and was founded without merit.
Monica Mika provided clarification that the City of Longmont has not yet commented, but will forward
comments to the Board of County Commissioners as they were not able to get comments in time due to the
quick turn around time, but did speak to them verbally on the phone.
Mr. Lawson went on to explain the storm and surface drainage. Title 32 for sewer districts has a provision
that a sewer district can be both a sanitation and a storm sewer provider. In the regional service plan it
allows this to happen in the future, but have not done so as of today.
Stephan Mokray asked how the storm water effects the disposal system. Mr. Lawson explained that storm
water has not been a problem,and they have more problems with irrigation water. Mr. Mokray asked if they
were processing the storm water into the disposal plant. Mr. Lawson said they are not as it is a separate
system, and it currently is flowing down the natural channels into storm water detentions.
Cristie Nickles asked about the storm and surface agreement in the application, and the involvement with
working with other entities. Specific things about the services area,functions,and operating principles may
be why there are letters of objection. Mr. Lawson explained that they have ran into things that were not
intended.
Mr. Lawson referred to the City of Dacono and their concern about two properties on the border with a
portion being in Dacono Sanitation and a portion in St. Vrain. One of these has been completely resolved
and the other is currently working on an Intergovernmental Agreement to resolve issues in the future. Other
comments address storm water issues that have yet to be done.
Bruce Barker asked to clarify what the points on the amendment should be,with the first being with respect
the metro district,and the request is to drop the condition all together. The second is to increase the plant
from the current 1.5 million to 3.0 to 4.5 with lagoons having the capacity up to five with the capacity of 5.5.
The third is to modify the service area to add the pink area as indicated on the map, and delete the yellow.
The last issue concerning the drainage by changing the language from may provide to will provide, as
requested by Mr. Lawson.
Mark Peterson, Manager of the St.Vrain Sanitation District,who had prepared a letter that he read into the
record, accordingly he explained that the group chosen from each entity to represent the district will make
the decisions.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 4
Arlan Marrs asked Bruce Barker if he is recommending changing the language from may provide to will
provide. Mr. Marrs expressed concerns that this would the other entities look at this to say that it is the sole
responsibility of the district instead of leaving may to be more of a cooperative effort. Mr.Lawson said what
they were trying to do with the service plan is to describe the will and how they will go about it,and they are
comfortable with this as the Board of Directors is committed to do whatever is required.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tony Onorato, representative for the Tri-Area Sanitation District, said that this application was submitted on
March 27, and received on June 4, and does not feel the seven days allotted was enough time for adequate
review. Mr. Onorato also said that although it is stated that St. Vrain agreed to be part of the agency or
authority,there objectives exclude the Tri-Area basin. Their service area overlaps the Tri-Area basin, and it
is unclear if St. Vrain is including them as a agency or authority. By this application they are accepting
operation of maintenance responsibility which conflicts the nature of the authority agreement under
consideration. The Tri-Area District disagrees with the statement on page 15.f.that states adequate service
will not be available to the amendment service area within a reasonable time. They have not objection to
boundary amendments, but object to the inclusion of the storm water component. They believe the
acceptance of the storm water components page 12-16, may conflict with the formation of the authority that
the various communities special districts in this area and Weld County have spent time and expenditures on.
Mr. Onorato asked that the decision on this portion of the application by delayed or the portion of the storm
water by deleted.
John Folsom asked Mr. Onorato if the presentation by St. Vrain would change his comments, Mr. Onoroto
said it would not.
Mr. Lawson than read into the record the first sentence of the section regarding participation of the St.Vrain
Sanitation District of the storm drainage program.
Monica Mika explained the timing for referrals is different from most land use applications with 45 days, but
this case is different as it falls under a 30 day time period.
Michael Miller asked how long it would be before the Board of County Commissioners will hear this case.
Bruce Barker said that the case will go to the Board on June 27th for a setting, and heard on July 25th.
Monica Mika clarified in staff comments that the Colorado Revised Statutes criteria was listed for review and
approval. Additional comments based on suggestions can be added in relationship to plant capacity and
intensity standards. It is unclear whether Planning Commission must make a recommendation on the 5000
population base or wait to bring this issue up in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
Bruce Barker said that the request was to get rid of this requirement all together,and has been discussed with
the District and Sheriffs's department, and the law has since changed, and it has been clarified that the
provision of law enforcement services by a metropolitan district is not what was being considered and it was
providing safety equipment for roads and highways. In the past few years the Road Impact Area takes up a
large portion of the area and the roads are being addresses through this program. The area itself is also
being substantially annexed by Longmont,Frederick,Firestone and Dacono and at the time this plan went into
effect, could not have projected the annexations that have occurred. Mr. Barker said that it could either be
eliminated or put it off and discuss options with the district.
The following additions were made to the staff comments:
2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed District is adequate for present and
projected needs. The commitment for participation in the regional drainage agency, as cited in a
letter dated June 15, 2001, from Mark Peterson, District Manager ensures that adequate regional
drainage will occur in this area.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 5
3. The proposed District is capable of providing economic and sufficient service to the amended
service area within its proposed boundaries. The Planning Commission recommends elimination
of the requirement for the establishment of a Metropolitan District.
7. The proposal will comply with the 208 Area-Wide Wastewater Management Plan. The Planning
Commission finds it is appropriate for the St Vrain Sanitation District to increase its maximum plant
capacityto4.5 MGD as referenced in a November 1999 study conducted by Rothber,Tamburini and
Winsor. Further increase in the intensity of this use will require additional land use approval
including but not limited to an amendment to USR-766.
Arlan Marrs moved that the Amendment to the boundaries to the St. Vrain Sanitation District, along with
changes to Conditions #2, 3 and 7, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
John Folsom commented that he has two concerns that he hopes St.Vrain can come to an agreement with
the other jurisdictions in the Boulder Creek drainages,and that each participate in discharging there effluents
into those creeks for the betterment of all the communities. Also, in regard to drainage,which is a cooperative
effort between various jurisdictions, that they do not limit their participation only to the Godding Hollow
drainage but participate in the Tri-Area drainage.
Bryant Gimlin commented that when the language is changed on#7,that for the service agreement it provides
for a greater number beyond the 4.5 MGD, so long as they modify there USR.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1337
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Lost Creek Land and Cattle Company/TowerCom
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a
Public Utility(Communication Tower) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 62 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of Interstate 76 and east of Weld County Road 386
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, requested that Case USR-1337, be continued to the
August 7, 2001, hearing date, so that the applicant has time to propose alternative sites.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1337, be continued to the August 7, 2000, hearing date. Michael
Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 6
CASE NUMBER: USR-1332
APPLICANT: Philip & Bonnie Johnson
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a business permitted
as a use by right or an accessory use in the Commercial Zone District(Parking of Vehicles
and Equipment and Repair Shop) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE 1949; being part of the SE4 of Section 2, Ti N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 12 and west of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 35.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, requested that Case USR-1332, be continued to the
July 17, 2001, hearing so that Legal Notice may be published in accordance with the Weld County Code.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1332, be continued to the July 17,2000, hearing date. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1327
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Cockroft Dairy Farm c/o AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment and a Livestock Confinement Operation(1,350 head Dairy,along with three
mobile homes for employee housing) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15, T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
LOCATION: Adjacent to Weld County Road 388 on the North and South and west of and adjacent to
Weld County Road 57.5
Sheri Lockman, Planner, presented Case USR-1327,reading the recommendation and comments into the
record. The Deparment of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about the non-conforming use (NCU) no longer being valid due to
improvements being made without permits, and if this permit were denied would they lose the dairy? Ms.
Lockman explained that if denied, it would go back to a use by right. This would limit the number of acres
to 10 acres on the south side of the road, and due to a road right of way that splits the property,they would
not be able to use the acreage on that side of the road since it is non contiguous. Lee Morrison explained
that when roads make for purposes of calculating animal units,those properties are discontinuous if there
is a public road between the properties.
Cathy Clamp asked Ms. Lockman about the existing violations and the nature of these. Ms. Lockman said
the violations are the amount of cattle in addition to derelict vehicles,and as far as the discharge problems,
this is a State violation.Ms.Clamp asked Don Carroll of Public Works,about the mulitple accesses and how
this would be handled. Mr. Carroll explained that all existing accesses seem to have a purpose to the
operation to the dairy, and did not see the need to close them without closing accesses to the dairy, but
would like to have only one crossing on the north side of the dairy if approved.
Tom Haren,representative from AgPro Services,explained the dairy has been in business since 1947,and
that four generations live on site today. Since this application was turned in, it has been characterized as
an expansion, and in fact is a compliance issue with the county. The Cockroft's were confused as to what
the NCU does. Prior to zoning they have documentation of more cattle on this site than was allowed. They
are planning on moving the drainage from the north side of the diary to the south, and no additions to the
dairy are being planned. Mr. Haren stated they are going to update the environmental issues and milking
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 7
parlor, and that additional animals will be young stock. The area surrounding the dairy is an agricultural
area with 1/2 dozen feed yards in the vicinity. Regarding the NCU,they are confused that if the permit is not
approved, the NCU goes away and dairy is shut down. Mr. Haren said he thought the applicants had been
working with Department of Planning Services,only to find out that there was a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Haren then cited sections of the Comp Plan that the dairy does comply with. The Cockroft's are willing
to do whatever is needed to bring the dairy into compliance. They have had the flood plain surveyed and
the pond's will be set upon electric pumps.On top of 250 acres of dairy,the Cockroft's farm over 1000 acres
in the immediate area.
Michael Miller asked what Mr. Haren planned to do with the lagoons to prevent runoff. Mr. Haren explained
that they are going to line the basin. He went on to further explain that with the lay of the facility, the size
of the lagoons can be reduced, and a lot of engineering would need to be done on the pond. Mr. Miller
would have liked to see a plan for the engineering of the pond to ensure it was flood safe. Mr. Haren said
they had nothing in the file,but AgPro's engineer has been out on the site. The engineering is going to cost
a lot of money, and if this application would be approved, they would spend the money. Mr. Miller has
concerns of the pond flooding and going into the river.
John Folsom asked Mr. Haren about providing protection against the 100 year flood plain, since a base
elevation had not been established. Mr. Haren explained there is not a base line elevation established for
the area, and that an engineer must survey and scale off the area and put his stamp on it. They currently
are five feet above the normal.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the lagoon is in the same location as the one shown on the map. Mr. Haren said that
is was, and that they are looking to improve it and it will be reqiured to be lined to standards. Mr. Gimlin
asked if it will be the same size as the existing pond? Mr. Haren said it should be roughly the same size.
Mr. Gimlin asked if a majority of the pond will be lined with a portion being concrete? Mr. Haren said the
whole thing will be lined as required by State, and inside will be a concrete structure to house the pump.
Mr. Gimlin than asked Mr. Haren to go through the amount of cattle their will be. Mr. Haren said that if they
completely pushed it,900 head of dairy cows,being extremely optimistic,with the remaining 450 head, 100-
150 would be dry cattle.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Haren about the retention pond and what the lining will be. Mr. Haren said it will
be lined with clay. Ms. Clamp asked since they are pumping under the county road, what monitoring will
be done to ensure there will be no ground water contamination? Mr. Haren said they did not really have a
plan, but would basically be line pressure and a back flow prevention device on the down side. They plan
on installing a sewage pump, and usually do not have any type of clogging problems.
Ms. Clamp asked what the number of existing head of cattle on site is now. Mr. Haren said roughly over
1000, and they are proposing 1350, and this takes into account seasonal fluctuation. Mr. Haren estimates
there has been approximately 1100 to 1200 on site recently.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Haren if there is one lagoon on site or two. Mr. Haren said there is one existing
and another Mr. Cockroft has started constructing, but stopped construction when they came up with an
alternate plan. It will be filled.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tim Schofield,who lives five miles east of the dairy,has been associated with Cockroft's for many years and
has worked for them many times. Mr. Schofield made a comment on the electricity concern,and does not
feel this is really an issue as there are several feed operations in the area that have fail safe plans in effect.
Mr.Schofield stated the Cockroft's are good farmers,and will be able to do whatever it takes to make things
right.
Eric Williams, surrounding propery owner, referred to flood plain and that WCR 388 has been built up so
the water sets up higher in the valley. As far as the dilapidated vehicles, Mr. Williams said the Cockroft's
have an extensive amount of vehicles for the operation that are stored out of site and do not intentionally
leave things setting out. Mr. William's has dealt with the Cockroft's since the 70's, and they are good
neighbors.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 8
Stow Whitwer,surrounding property owner who owns land across the north side of the Ogilvy Ditch, stated
concerns regarding the location of the lagoon being 200-300 feet from his house,and the Cockroft's have
offered to move the lagoon over, and he feels this would be more approriate. Mr. Whitwer has had good
conversation's with Tom and Scott Cockroft, and commends's the Planning Commission for working with
the County on such issues. Mr. Whitwer asked whether this was an expansion or just tidying up the site.
Mr. Whitwer said he was not aware of non-compliance issues and was disappointed and said they should
not be looking at a non-conforming use as he does not want to see them go out of business. Mr. Whitwer
stated that the Cockroft's are doing a good job with their current situation, and this is an agricultural
operation and it is becoming increasingly difficult to run agricultural businesses.
Jack Holman, has a farm east of the dairy, and also northeast of the dairy. Mr. Holman has concerns with
traffic being created by the operation also being on the north side of the road and all the outlets they have
to handle the operation, and Mr. Holman stated one access on the north would be plenty. The location of
lagoon is also a concern being '/, mile from his home.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Holman if more signage on WCR 388 would help or what would help. Mr. Holman
said signage could help as there is a curve in WCR 388.
Cristie Nicklas asked Don Carroll of Public Works, if there were any signs out there currently. Mr. Carroll
said he does not believe there were.
James Holman, lives 1/4 mile east of the dairy and is against expansion of the lagoon as a creek runs
through his place which he has seen the Cockroft's pump the lagoon. Road 388 is a busy road, and a lot
of dirt and mud are created on the road.
Lavern Glover, neighbor of Cockrofts's for 22 years has farms around the dairy is the closet to James
Holman. Mr. Glover stated the Cockroft's have been good neighbors and he has no complaint's with the
lagoon, as there are several other feedlots in the area. Mr. Glover did agree there should be signs up
addressing traffic and animals on the roads. As far as dirt on the road, there is also an oil company with
large trucks that contribute, and it is not all from Cockroft's.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Glover if the lagoon is pumped, how steep of a hill is it coming back down river?
Mr. Glover said he can't say, but it is not that bad.
Dave Dyer, lives to the north and has been neighbors to the Cockroft's for 35 years, and stated that they
work harder than anyone he knows, and that they will take care of anything they are asked to do.
Bob Wardlaw, lives 1-1/2 miles north of the dairy and sells and grows feed. Mr. Wardlaw stated that more
people are moving houses into agricultural areas, and Mr. Holman built his home out there after the dairy
had been there,and said Mr. Holman should be careful on what he says about the Cockroft's pumping into
the river.
Doug Campbell, has known the CockrofFs for a while and has worked for them. Mr. Campbell has worked
at many dariy's and has seen development ruin ag land. Mr. Campbell hopes the issue is not where the
dairy is located, but that it is an existing facility and solutions can be done to fix any problems. The area is
not a big growth area and is very agricultural.
Wayne Grafis, has been working with the Cockroft's on putting together their loan application. He is
surprised to hear of all the compliance issues and the land was surveyed as a part of the loan and was found
to be in compliance with the county,and everything was adequate at that time. Mr. Grafis also said that the
USDA did an environmental assessment with approval. This is not an expansion as being funded currently
and the Cockroft's have made a big commitment in the last 1-1/2 years to improve the dairy.
Tom Haren addressed concerns of the lagoons and Cristie Nicklas asked what the chances are to move the
northern lagoon. Mr. Haren prefer it not be adjacent to WCR 388, but stated it can be relocated elsewhere
on the site. Mr. Haren said that borings have been done on the current area, and if moved, the size may
need to change but not the volume.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 9
Michael Miller asked if the lagoon was moved to the south would an additional pump need to be put in. Mr.
Haren said it would depend on the location and the alignment of the pipes. Mr. Miller asked about runoff
into the river and what are the plans to stop this. Mr. Haren said they have staked out a pit to alleviate the
runoff.
Scott Cockroft, manager of the dairy operation, thanked the Planning Commission and the surrounding
property owners who came to speak. Mr.Cockroft stated they are very pro on fixing any problems and have
the capability to do so and resources they need to achieve this. Regarding Mr. Holman's comment on
pumping into the river, he should be innocent until proven guilty,as there is no proof. Mr.Cockroft said they
do not intend to expand, but would like to run a tanker of milk a day. They have several farms in the area
and plan on moving the dairy eventually to a better location away from the river, but need time to do so.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Cockroft if generators will be able to handle the additional pumps being proposed.
Mr. Cockroft said they are planning for an additional one, but are waiting for approval before putting money
into one. Ms. Clamp also asked if they would be willing to clean off mud from the road from the trucks. Mr.
Cockroft said they would be willing to do this.
Lee Morrison clarified that they are not determining whether this is a non conforming use, but to evaluate
the proposal in front of them looking at it on its merits, and what would be allowed under the pre-existing
operation.
The Chair asked Mr. Haren if they are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Haren asked for the amount of days of recording the plat be changed from 90 days to 180
days. Sheri Lockman explained that they are asking for 90 days to ensure the compliance issues are taken
care of.
Tom Haren also asked that Condition of Approval 2A, be deleted regarding collateral,as it is not typical for
feeding operations. Sheri Lockman explained that Planning staff will ask for an improvements agreement
for any type of use whether a subdivision or a use such as this one, if they feel the cost is extreme and they
are unsure whether the improvements will get started quickly enough. This ensures it will get started and
not sit for two to three years. Cristie Nicklas asked if this is for the proposed lagoons. Ms. Lockman said
they are also talking about all the engineering work for the pond next to the river, and the Cockroft's will
need to come up with a lot of money and this is a way to ensure they can do it prior to starting the work.
Mr. Haren also asked for Condition J to be deleted as it was a duplication to Development Standard#8,and
is no longer necessary through the State. Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Environment Health said this
condition was added post their referral,partly due to a general permit issued by the State Department Water
Quality Division on a voluntary basis. Mr. Jiricek felt that this was appropriate due to the history of the
compliance in regard to the South Platte River, but is redundant to Development Standard#8 in that it will
become mandatary in about 2005.
Don Carroll added that condition 3A,that they get a permit from Public Works, could be taken out since the
pipe is already there.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Haren why the pipelines under the road were originally put in. Mr. Haren said they
were put in for pumping the waste water from the existing ponds up to the field for irrigation purposes. Mr.
Gimlin said that what this boils down to is moving the lagoon, and it looks like they have improved their
process and taken good steps toward mitigating any potential release into the river. Mr. Gimlin added that
he believes the Cockroft's have generally been good operators and the dairy is in good shape.
Michael Miller agreed that the business has been there a long time and they are good folks, but does have
concerns with the allegations that there have been knowing violations of pumping sewage into the river. By
building the lagoons and moving the water to the north this will alleviate the problems of getting it into the
river. Mr. Miller added that the County needs to step up and do some signage on the road,and also wants
a development standard to make sure the cleaning of the road gets done. Building lagoons and cleaning
up the waste water is a good step forward, and he will be supporting the proposal.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 10
Cristie Nicklas said she feels they are no different than other feedlot and dairy operations that come out onto
the road, but they will need to step up and keep road clean and safe.
Bryant Gimlin added that if they have one crossing point on the north side and gravel or road base the
aprons on the access,the mud and debris from the trucks can be cleaned off of their own property, it would
be better.
Cathy Clamp said that she understands Mr. Haren's concern on the Improvements Agreement and that
when you have a significant amount of money, that this is a safety to the County and resident, but in this
case is a little excessive since they have already entered into a loan agreement.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Haren when his services were retained and how many violations have occurred
since then. Mr. Haren said they were retained before the USR became an issue, and were retained to
address the lagoon issues, and in the process zoning violation issues became apparent. Mr. Haren
explained there had been one original violation and all the other issues are related to that violation.
Cristie Nicklas also asked that the applicant employ an education process to educate employees about
safety issues. Mr. Haren said this would be a small concession on their part.
Michael Miller moved to add a Development Standard#22,and renumber,to say:WCR 388 in front of and
adjacent to the dairy shall be cleaned of mud or debris as needed to keep the road free of such debris.
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cathy Clamp moved to remove Condition of Approval 2A, based on testimony, and re-letter. Stephan
Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp moved to add to Development Standard #20 to say: All accesses and feed alleys shall be
surfaced with gravel and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Condition of Approval 3A regarding acquiring a utility permit. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Don Carroll added that he will check into road signs, but they are not just able to go out and place signs
without studies. Lee Morrison added as long as they are not asking the applicant to reimburse the cost,this
is appropriate to ask for signs.
Mr. Haren expressed concern on the amount of time, 90 days, to get the plat recorded, and that the State
Health Department is behind. Trevor Jiricek said that they are aware of this also,consider the submittal of
the application sufficient.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 11
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1337,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-558
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Percy Hamilton c/o Intermill Land Surveying, Inc.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD with Estate uses for five (5) residential lots
and 4.7 acres of Common Open Space
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-2224, being part of the SW4 of Section 33, Township 7
North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 53; 1/4 mile north of Weld County Road 74
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services,presented Case Z-558,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this
application.
Steve Stencil, representative for the applicant, stated at that at this time he did not have any additions to
Sheri's comments.
Cristie Nicklas asked why prime farm ground was being taken out of production. Mr. Stencil explained that
this parcel is just under 31 acres, and economically it is not viable for Mr. Hamilton to farm the ground.
Percy Hamilton, property owner,added that the land is difficult to irrigate as it slopes,and a sprinkler would
not fit on the corner.
Cathy Clamp asked about the warranty deed when Mr. Hamilton took title from Travelers Insurance
Company, they withheld the mineral interest, and in his application packet Union Pacific Railroad is noted
as holding the mineral interests. Ms. Clamp asked if Travelers had been notified. Mr. Percy explained that
Union Pacific was only a railroad section and it would go back to land grab.
Michael Miller asked if he had mineral rights, Mr. Percy said he did not. Mr. Stencil explained that he has
been trying to track down the minerals on the property, and the Union Pacific sold their rights to another
company, and has sent them information and it is being looked at and needs to go though a few more
departments, but is in the process of being looked at.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hamilton if he has obtained water for irrigation for landscape. Mr. Hamilton said
there going to be using North Weld Water for landscape, and irrigation for the open space.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the requirement for paved roads for the internal roads being waved by Public
Works. Diane Houghtaling of Public Works said that since the external road, WCR 51,was gravel that the
internal road is not being required to be paved. Ms. Houghtaling added that Weld County does not maintain
gravel roads.
Diane Houghtaling requested that the note requiring the landscaping in the site distance triangle at the
entrance be left at 3.5 feet, the sign being proposed is 6 feet high, and Public Works does not allow this
height in the distance triangle.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Stencil said
they were in agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 12
Cathy Clamp requested the applicant add to the covenants from the Comprehensive Plan W.Goal 2., the
Right to Hunt, since there is a lot of birding in the area. Mr. Stencil said they would be agreeable to this.
Sheri Lockman added language as requested by the Board, for the mineral owners. Under prior to the
Board of County Commissioner's hearing #1A, with subsequent renumbering; The applicant shall submit
evidence that an agreement has been reached with the property's mineral owners or submit evidence that
the mineral owners concerns have been mitigated.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case Z-558, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amendments to the Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1336
APPLICANT: Mark& Phyllis Van Thuyne
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Use Permit for a use allowed by
right in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District (Maintenance and Outdoor Storage of
equipment for the installation of underground fiber-optic lines)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 9,Township 4 North, Range 68 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 46,approximately 1/2 mile east of Weld
County Road 5.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services, presented USR-1336,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application,with
the changes to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Mark and Phyllis Van Thuyne,applicants,gave a history of the land. Their family has been in the Berthoud
area for over 60 years. With all the changes happening in agriculture they decided to stop farming and start
this business. Mr. Van Thuyne explained that this is a utility business, and they are currently in business
with Qwest and subcontract to do phone lines. Mr.Van Thuyne said there shouldn't be a lot of changes to
what has been done on the property in the past, as two of the trucks they currently use have been farm
trucks.They are a small fleet of trucks that provide a service. As far as the dust concerns,they do not have
as many trucks,and the truck drivers have been informed about dust control. In the winter they start trucks
up 15 minutes early to warm them up,and this has been a concern with the neighbors. Mr.Van Thuyne said
they do not perceive to grow, and do not have plans on expanding at this time. Mr.Van Thuyne added that
they would like to keep the hours of operation form 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Van Thuyne if he would be willing to limit the number of trucks to eight. Mr. Van
Thuyne said that this would be more than fair.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack Gallegos,who lives%:mile down road,said that he moved to the area for its agricultural character,but
he know is thinking of doing a similar type use, and just wanted to see how his application goes.
Fred Weis,surrounding property owner,supported the request to do the business, but does have concerns
with what happens next, and asked where we draw the line on industrial businesses on agricultural land.
Mr. Weis also wanted an explanation of what a USR does. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney,
explained what the process is,and that it does not change the zoning and is only used for what is described
in the permit. Mr. Morrison added that the permit can be revoked if the Conditions of Approval or
Development Standards are not being followed. Mr.Weis asked if someone else bought the property and
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 13
had a similar use,could they continue the use. Mr. Morrison said that the permit would still be valid,but the
permit would not be portable if the Van Thuyne's moved to another property. If the permit sits for more than
3 years,the use would be vacated, but this process would need to be initiated. Mr.Weis said he would like
to see the area remain agricultural and continue to farm. If property stays the same, he has no objection,
but does object to other people wanting to do the same types of uses.
John Folsom asked to address the hours of operation. Cristie Nicklas asked the applicants what they would
like to see the hours to be. Mr.Van Thuyne said expanding the hours from 6:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.would be
sufficient, due to a lot of the work being in Denver.
Bryant Gimlin said if they limited the hours for washing and maintenance, this would address surrounding
property owner concerns. Mr. Van Thuyne said this would be fine.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Development Standard#3 to say: Hours of operation for maintenance and
cleaning of equipment shall be limited from 6:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Arlan Marrs
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Man's,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Chris Gathman added language to the Development Standard #15, with renumbering, for limiting the
number of vehicles to say the following: The number of trucks related to this operation shall be limited to
eight.
Michael Miller moved to add Development Standard#15. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicants if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr.Van Thuyne stated they were in agreement.
Mr.Van Thuyne asked to add landscaping to the side the Mr.Weis owns for buffering reasons for potential
future buyers. Cristie Nicklas said that landscaping is a condition,and that they would be able to submit this
plan to the Planning Department for approval.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1336,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and amendments to the 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; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: SCH-19
PLANNER: Julie Chester
APPLICANT: Scott Busker, Busker Dairy/c/o AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
REQUEST: A Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use (USR-1202, for a Dairy) and
request for a Substantial Change Determination.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 SW4 of Section 28,T2N,R67W of the 6`"P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 17 and North of WCR 16
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 14
Julie Chester,Department of Planning Services,presented Case SCH-19,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
substantial change application. Ms. Chester explained what the board is looking at today, and that the
hearing is only to determine a substantial change.
Cathy Clamp asked Ms. Chester about the procedure and if this application is approved will they have to
start over. Ms. Chester said that they would, and that once a case is denied by the Board of County
Commissioner's, an applicant can either wait five years to re-apply, or go through a Substantial Change
hearing, showing they have substantially changed from what they originally applied for.
Michael Miller asked how the repeal of the state statute affects this case. Lee Morrison, Assistant County
Attorney,explained that the reference to state law provided that a municipality not only had referral authority,
but regulatory authority over a number of uses, including dairies,within one mile of their borders. Although
this is not directly applicable to the land use case, it is applicable to the dairy,and the municipality to argue,
regardless of what the County did, could veto the County decision. This ability has been removed, but not
the ability for the municipality to comment and make a recommendation.
Tom Haren, of AgPro Services, and representative for Mr. Busker, presented the changes in the original
application applied for in 1998. The original application was for the addition of eight employee housing units,
4500 head of cattle,and growth happening to the north. At that time,the Town of Firestone drew their Urban
Growth Boundary(UGB) splitting the dairy in half. With the new proposal, they are only proposing to add
a set of pens for milking cows,young stock,and a lagoon for storm water for anything east of the ditch. The
additional 130 acres that is a separate parcel, will be treated as a use by right according to Weld County
regulations. Mr. Busker has done a recorded exemption, leaving the dairy site out of the Firestone UGB.
Mr. Haren then went through the criteria, explaining that from the original application, the number of cattle
from 4500 head on 130 acres to 1450 head of cattle on 80 acres, is a reduction of 68%. The cattle density
on the USR area has been reduced from 35 animals per acre to 18 animals per acres, a 49% reduction.
If the separate parcel of 130 acres would be included, the additional cattle on the parcel would be 560
animals, bringing the cattle to a total of 1990, and this is a reduction from the original application of 56%.
The number of stock pens has been reduced from seventeen to nine, is a reduction of 47%,and employee
housing has been reduced from eight to two,a 75%reduction. This is a substantial change from the original
application, and also the fact that the growth that was predicated to go north, has gone east. The
surrounding land use has changed by doing a recorded exemption and placing the dairy outside the UGB.
The requirement for the change of law is also a change,as a municipality had jurisdiction of anything within
one mile of the boundary, and this law has now been repealed,and the fact that the boundary change puts
the dairy out of the UGB. Mr. Haren stated that they believe they have met all three of the criteria for a
substantial change, and only one criteria is required.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
William Wimmer, surrounding property owner, does not feel the application has substantially changed and
as far as density, it does appear to be substantial, but is not. The surrounding land use has not changed
and you can see this with the growth that has happened.
Diana Evans, surrounding property owner, said that the Urban Growth Boundary has been in effect for a
long time, and it was the Intergovernmental Agreement that went into effect after the dairy. There is a
deeded ditch going through the property, but Ms. Evans does not feel this should be considered. The
Firestone UGB continues to grow, and it appears that Mr. Busker appears to be skirting the use by right
because of the deeded ditch.
Niki Rozean,surrounding property owner,shares a common property line,and has lived there for 17 years.
The growth in the area has remained the same, and Mr. Busker has claimed that the dairy is more
compatible. The compatibility issue was one reason that the Board of County Commissioners denied the
original application. Ms. Rozean went on to explain all the homes that have gone in around the area. Mr.
Morrison stated that Ms. Rozean is going into the issue of what the neighborhood is and the compatibility,
and that is beyond the scope of the meeting. The applicant is talking about the change in the urban growth
area, not surrounding land uses.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 15
Michael Gunesch, surrounding property owner, said that the same property owners are still there, and he
does not see how the surrounding use is a substantial change.
Dave Mallory, surrounding property owner, stated he has lived in the area since 1983, and is a full time
farmer. Mr. Mallory said there has been no substantial change to the surrounding area.
John Henderson,attorney for Albert and Violet Betz,surrounding property owners,questioned the number
of cattle on the dairy and the use by right, as this makes a more intense operation. He would like to know
how many milking, dry and immature cows are currently on the property, and how many they are intending
if the application is approved. This is important to evaluate a substantial change. Mr.Henderson also asked
about the split of the ditch how this affects contiguity.
Lee Morrison addressed the splitting of a parcel by a ditch with a deeded right-of-way through it. Someone
can do that to create a legal parcel, or they can waive this and reconfigure the parcel with a recorded
exemption and not take advantage of that line. That does not determine whether you can go to an adjacent
property and count that property for the purposes of animal units. The rule is the definition of a lot as defined
by the case of the Platte River Environmental Coalition vs.the Board of Adjustment, a public road cuts off
a areas available for a use by right, but nothing else does. You can use your neighbors property if you have
an arrangement with them to count for your acreage of calculating animal units. As long as you have the
legal ability to get across the ditch, they can count the other lot to calculate animal units, and Mr. Morrison
said he is not sure how this argument fits into the substantial change.
Cathy Clamp asked about the original application for 4500 head of cattle, and it has been mentioned that
this was amended to 3500 by Planning Commission, and at the time the Board of County Commissioner's
denied the application, what was the actual number of cattle. Julie Chester explained that when they
originally applied it was for 4500 head of cattle, and during the Planning Commission, it was moved to
amend the number to 3500, the vote was tied therefore sending the application to the Board of County
Commissioners without a recommendation, and Ms. Chester said the minutes from the Planning
Commission was negotiated to 3500 head of cattle.
Michael Miller asked how many acres were proposed in the original application. Ms. Chester explained the
original application was for 130 acres within the USR boundary.
Susan Black, surrounding property owner, bought their property in 1995. Ms. Black asked where Mr.
Busker's 40 acres of rye is which he plans to use for liquid sewage application,and would like to know more
about this 40 acres. Cristie Nicklas said that this question did not have to do with the substantial change,
and would be more for the USR application. Ms. Black did not think so either, but did add that she does not
believe Mr. Busker has added enough acres to have a substantial change.
Julie Chester wanted to clarify the IGA issues. Mr. Busker had been on his property since 1994, and the
IGA for Firestone, Frederick and Dacono was established on March 24, 1997. From what Weld County has
heard, the Firestone Comprehensive Plan had the UGB line established prior to Mr. Busker moving to the
property. However, until the IGA went into effect with Weld County, Weld County did not recognize the
UGB, but did recognize through the Weld County Comprehensive Plan,the UGB with the municipality. If
there was not an IGA with a municipality,it was determined to be''/2 mile from existing water and sewer lines
in 1995. Ms.Chester then read the repeal of the state statute and the house bill 99-1122,codified at section
31-150501.1D State Statue. Ms. Chester added the Mr. Buskers total number of acreage would allow him
to have 880 total animal units.
Tom Haren, addressed questions to the changes on site. From the original proposal, they are only adding
pens for milk cows, a corral for young stock, and the state required storm water containment area.
Questions on the numbers total 1990 total cattle,including the USR and use by right,and these are common
to mix. The recorded exemption was done to get the existing dairy out of the UGB only after the line was
drawn after the dairy was in place.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 16
Michael Miller asked Julie Chester if the proposal is for 1450 on 80 acres and 540 on the remaining acreage.
Mr. Miller asked if it is acceptable for the functions of the dairy that the Use by Right and USR is being
applied for to overlap half the functions being on the use by right area,or is there only certain things that can
be done on each part. Ms. Chester said that staff did have concerns that the entire dairy was not included
in the USR and that it normally contains all the uses. Ms.Chester has recommended that they draw the line
around the entire USR site regardless, and they have not wanted to do this because of the Firestone UGB.
Ms. Chester added that a USR and uses by right have been used together before.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case SCH-19,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with Staff
Comments with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the
motion.
Cathy Clamp commented she does not believe a substantial change has been demonstrated per the criteria,
and the state law. Ms. Clamp also does not believe the surrounding area has changed, as it is still
residential. Ms. Clamp also stated that the land use has not changed.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he does believe that they have shown a substantial change in facts with
changes in parcels, density, and change in the CRS. There is some philosophical issues that have not
changed, but factual changes.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
no; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Z-559
PLANNER: Julie Chester
APPLICANT: Steve Schroyer/Tom Livingston
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for eight (8) Residential lots, 7.35 acres of
Common Open Space and a 61.49 Acre Agricultural Outlot
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Section 25,30,and 36,Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the
6t P.M. Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 64 %,just east of WCR 23 3/4.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented case Z-559, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this
application,along with the changes to the Conditions of Approval. The Town of Windsor is recommending
approval with conditions. Ms.Chester added that the application could go to 9 lots, bringing changes to the
outlots. At this time Mr. Livingston is out of town and will make this determination at a later date.
Michael Miller asked how it was determined there were no aggregates on this site. Julie Chester said that
this is up to the applicant to prove there are not any aggregates, and that Division of Mineral and Geology
has indicated that the aggregate is located on the southern portion of the property and not where the lots
are located. Mr. Miller asked because Hall-Irwin is currently mining a bench on the same terrace 3/4 of a
mile to the east and there was recently a well drilled across the road with aggregate located. Mr. Miller
wants to know if a study or drilling have been done.
Steve Schroyer,representative for the applicant,explained why they chose the area of the outlot,mainly due
to irrigation purposes. Mr.Schroyer said that there is gravel on the site, and the site was determined to be
a school site, and no mining can be done on this area. Mr. Schroyer then showed on a map the plans for
the site. Mr. Schroyer addressed the Health Department's requirement for replacement septic envelopes,
and does not know at this time what type or size of homes are going in,and are asking to do this at the final
plat or time of building permit. They are also requesting to keep the trees in the right of way to create a
small neighborhood feel, and to slow down vehicles. Mr. Schroyer also asked that the requirement for
paving the road be worked out also. They are agreeable with paying for their portion. Mr. Schroyer is also
asking that they do a 45 feet right-of-way instead of the full 60 feet.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 17
John Folsom asked about the requirements from Windsor/Severance Fire Protection District to sprinkle the
homes,and if they were in agreement to this. Mr.Schroyer said they were in agreement to this requirement.
Don Carroll, Public Works,said about 5 or 6 years ago,Weld County purchased all the mining gravel rights
in Section 36, and does not see it in the application, but would like to pursue it prior to the Commissioner's
hearing.
Julie Chester added that this area is in the Windsor Road Impact Fee Area,and this was left out and wanted
the applicant to be aware of the cost for single family dwellings to be paid at time of building permit, at
$1878.00. Mr. Schroyer had no problems with this.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ken Tegas,who owns an oil well,wanted possible buyers to be aware of the close vicinity of the oil wells
and the noise. Mr. Tegas also wanted to know what kind of water was to be used to water the outlots.
Michael Miller asked Julie Chester if there is a requirement to do a geotechnical report. Ms. Chester
explained that a report has already been done at the Sketch Plan stage, and the applicant can address the
results of this report. Mr. Schroyer said they did do borings on the area where they are going to build for
gravel protection and foundations.
Cathy Clamp stated how she liked the design and the plans they have to water the outlot, and wanted to
know how they plan on watering the remaining pasture land and how are they delivering it. Mr. Schroyer
said that Mr. Livingston owns over four shares of ditch water that will take care of this and the irrigation.
Some of the shares will be deeded to the individual lot owners.
Michael Miller stated that he is concerned about the aggregate on the site, and the current information in
the application is not sufficient. Mr. Miller suggested adding language to address this concern.
John Folsom asked if the State responded to a referral. Julie Chester said that the Geological Survey did
respond with a referral both at the Sketch Plan and Change of Zone. The Change of Zone refers back to
the Sketch Plan referral stating it was unrevised, and the only issue still a concern was the zoning of
adjacent land parcels, i.e., potential commercial gravel operations.
Mr. Schroyer asked what he needs to do and what he needs to bring back to the Commissioner's hearing.
Mike Miller said he would normally need to have someone go out and drill test holes and have someone do
gradation analysis on the aggregate or whatever they find down there if they find gravel. Julie Chester
added that she will give a packet of information to Mr. Schroyer of what needs to be done and who needs
to do it.
The concern by the applicant for the road paving,Condition D, was addressed by Diane Houghtaling,who
said this condition was put on by Frank Hempen, Director of Public Works, and it is his opinion since this
is 95`"Avenue in Greeley, and when State Farms opens this road,traffic will increase dramatically, and will
need to be paved soon. They are asking that they participate in some way to pay their share after several
road counts for the subdivision are done. Mike Miller asked if this would be in addition to the Road Impact
Fee Program. Ms.Houghtaling said there is a provision in the ordinance that if you do other things you could
get a discount, but she is not qualified to say yes. Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning, explained that if
the developer is required to pave a road or a portion of a road,they are not eligible, but if they go above and
beyond what they are asked to do, they would be eligible for a credit. Mr. Schroyer said he believes
everyone is on the same page, he just has had no time to meet with Public Works.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 2001
Page 18
Pam Smith,Weld County Health Department, addressed the septic replacement envelopes,and does want
to see them on the final plat so they are recorded. Ms. Smith explained that they have seen failing septics
that do not have replacement areas, and it then becomes the problem of the Health Department, and with
all the growth, they are trying to avoid this.
Diane Houghtaling addressed the applicants argument of trees in the right-of-way and said trees are not
allowed in the right-of-way, unless there is curb and gutter, and trees are not allowed next to a roadway.
Mr. Schroyer asked for some give and take on this issue. Michael Miller asked if this was private or public
right-of-way. Ms. Houghtaling said it is public and needs to meet public standards.
Julie Chester went over the changes being made to the conditions as follows: 3.A.5., be deleted; 3.G. be
deleted; add under Prior to Recording Plat 2.B., with re-lettering the following language: A subsurface
investigation shall be conducted to determine if the development site has viable mineral resources; 3.A.2.
move to 4.D with subsequent re-lettering; and add to notes on the plat#23,with subsequent renumbering:
The development is within the Windsor Road Impact Fee Area.All appropriate Road Impact Fees shall be
paid at the time of building permits.
Michael Miller moved that Case Z-559, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amendments to the Conditions of Approval 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; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully sub ed
ti lad;
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello