HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010428.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (Corrected)
Tuesday, January 16, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday,January 16,2001,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 1:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Present
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Lauren Light, Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle, Robert Anderson,Anne Best Johnson,Julie Chester,
Department of Planning Services; Sheble McConnellogue, Troy Swain, Trevor Jiricek; Department of Public
Health and Environment; Don Carroll, Public Works; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney;
The summaries of the last regular meetings of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 19,
2000, and January 2, 2001 were approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1295
APPLICANT: Rincewand, Inc./Jerry and Lois Hilburn
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 5, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review Permit for indoor storage facility and vacant lot.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to SH 257, South of and adjacent to WCR 74 (Harmony Road).
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case USR-1295 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
requesting an indefinite continuance as the applicant is currently pursuing annexation into the Town of
Windsor.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1295 be continued indefinitely. 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1309
APPLICANT: George Walck
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4SW4 of Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Electrical Contractors
Business.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 1; approximately 1.2 miles north of SH 52.
0
2001-0428
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 2
Lauren Light, Planner, presented Case USR-1309 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendation of approval into the record. Ms.Light also noted that some additional wording had been
added to Development Standard # 9 to read "If flammable/combustible liquid tanks are installed on the
property,they must be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Any new/future construction will
need to have approval of the fire district before building permits are issued."
John Folsom asked Don Carroll if a 20'reservation would be needed for WCR 1. Don Carroll noted that this
is an arterial that is maintained by Boulder County and the request for a reservation would have to come from
them. John Folsom asked why no referral had been sent to Boulder County. Ms. Light noted that this had
been an oversight and that she would send one to Boulder County before the Board of County
Commissioner's meeting.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant had been in business since the violation for operating a business without
a permit in 1998 was closed. Lauren noted that the business had not been a violation and noted that the
applicant could better explain.
George Walck, Applicant, stated that he is an electrical contractor and that most of his jobs are large
commercial jobs and his employees generally go straight to the site, as do most of the supplies.
Bryant Gimlin asked why Mr.Walck wanted to permit his business if there would be no employees at the site.
Mr. Walck noted that his home office could possibly be a home business that would require a permit or
possibly not need a permit and he would prefer to keep this legitimate and permit the business before the area
becomes too residential and the business becomes a violation.
Michael Miller asked if the hours of 7 a.m.to 5 p.m.are going to be sufficient. Mr.Walck noted that these are
acceptable as he will generally be the only one who is at the site since his home is located on the site.
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 asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Walck indicated he is in agreement with both of the above.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1309 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and amended Development Standards to include Development Standard#9 with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1313
APPLICANT: VoiceStream Wireless (Larson Hudson Site)
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2/SE4/SW4/SW4 of Section 3, Township 1 North, Range 65 West of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of
a Public Utility(150'Telecommunications Monopole Tower)in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 12 and 1/4 mile east of WCR 43.
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented Case USR-1313 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendation of approval into the record. Mr.Anderson also noted that the application is
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 3
along WCR 12,not WCR 2 as is noted in some of the paper work. Mr.Anderson also handed out a letter from
a surrounding property owner and the Fire District.
Stephen Mokray asked if there were concerns from the Department of Planning Services about the setbacks
and television signals. Mr. Anderson noted there were not concerns.
Cathy Clamp noted that the receipt of the letter from the fire district made Condition of Approval#3. D a moot
condition.
Fred Walker asked if all Public Utilities required a Subdivision Exemption. Mr. Anderson noted that this is
common practice.
Michael Miller asked if Condition of Approval#3.A is required as well. Mr.Anderson noted that this has been
condition has been met with a letter received that is now in the file.
Michael Miller asked the applicant to address the concerns stated in the surrounding property owner's letter.
Joy Rutherford, representative for VoiceStream, noted that VoiceStream's Radio Frequency engineer could
answer questions concerning this. Chris Tenney of VoiceStream noted that the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC)regulates the frequencies and that cell tower frequencies and television frequencies are
separate. Michael Miller asked if there has been any past history of problems. Mr. Tenney noted there has
not been any problems at any site,
Jack Epple asked about VoiceStream's policy towards co-location on towers. Ms. Rutherford noted that
VoiceStream did look for a tower to co-locate on, but a new tower was needed. Ms. Rutherford also noted
that VoiceStream encourages co-location with other companies. Discussion followed concerning any need
for the applicant to come back in for a co-location. Mr. Morrison noted that this is not required, but that it
might be in the applicant's best interest to keep the Department of Planning Services updated on new
companies associated with the site.
Cathy Clamp asked Ms. Rutherford if there is anywhere else on the site that would work, to alleviate the
surrounding property owner's concerns. Ms. Rutherford noted that there is not another place on the site to
place 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.
Cristie Nicklas asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval. Ms. Rutherford noted that they are in agreement with the attached Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1313 be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1308
APPLICANT: Rose Mary Zeschin
PLANNER: Robed Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-68; part of the NE4 of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 65
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific and Special Use Permit for a Boarding Kennel (Dog Daycare and Boarding)
in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and 1/2 mile east of SH 85.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 4
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented Case USR-1308 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendation of approval into the record. Mr. Anderson did further note that the
Department of Planning Services is concerned with the number of dogs proposed for the site.
John Folsom asked if fencing would be required for the entire site or just for the kennel area. Mr.Anderson
noted that the application for the entire site,but that the Department of Planning Services would be aggreable
with just around the kennel area. Mr. Folsom asked about the height of the fence. Mr. Anderson noted that
the height would be dependant on the types of dogs, that a specific height had not been asked for
in the Development Standards. Michael Miller asked Don Carroll if Public Works is concerned with the
increased number of trips along WCR 28. Don Carroll noted that the additional 100-200 trips/day does seem
high, noting that he will look at the CDOT plans for Highway 85.
John Folsom asked why there were not more rules and regulations from the Department of Agriculture.
Robert Anderson noted that the applicant will be getting a permit from the state as well and that the state will
enforce their rules.
Rose Mary Zeschin, Applicant, noted that they are planning on having about 30-40 dogs for the daycare
instead of the 100 they originally requested. Cristie Nicklas asked how many dogs would be boarded at the
site. Ms.Zeschin noted that they would have about 30 dogs boarded, in addition to the daycare dogs. Susan
Horik, partner of the applicant, noted that the number of dogs in the daycare would not be consistent, ranging
from 20-30 dogs.
Cathy Clamp asked if there would be enough room indoors for the daycare dogs during inclement weather.
Ms. Horik noted there would be additional room indoors for these times. Cathy Clamp noted that she was
concerned with the height of the fence, especially being so near to Highway 85. Discussion concerning the
appropriate height for the fence was discussed. Ms. Horik noted that they currently have a 5'fence around
the area and that the State veterinarian had recommended cantilevering the fence. Ms.Clamp noted that she
still feels the fence may not be adequate. Mr. Mokray noted that it would be a waste to pull down an existing
fence just to put up another one foot higher and that the cantilevering should solve some of the difference.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Don Carroll noted that Highway 85 will not be improved for 5-10 years on that intersection. Mr. Folsom noted
that the applicants had agreed to limit the number of daycare dogs to 30. Don noted that this would not
require the upgrade to dust abatement.
Cristie Nicklas asked the applicant if she was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval as they were to be amended. Ms.Zeschin noted that she is in agreement with the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Stephen Mokray moved to change the number of daycare dogs in Development Standard#13 from 100 dogs
to 30 dogs,to reword Development Standard#14 to read"The applicant shall construct a fine mesh perimeter
5'fence with 1'cantilevering around the kennel related portion to protect the boarded animals as well as the
vehicular traffic of US 85 and Weld County Road 28.", and change the total number of dogs in Development
Standard#1 to 80 dogs that Case USR-1308 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 5
Michael Miller noted that he is concerned about the traffic in this area increasing, as the area is already
dangerous and would like Public Works to look into improving the intersection or having better signs.
John Folsom agreed, noting that he feels the curve in the road makes this intersection especially dangerous.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1300
APPLICANT: Eleanor Gail Speaker
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-435, being part of the SW4 of Section 23, Township 5 North,
Range of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Permit and Special Use Permit for a business permitted as a use
by right in the Industrial Zone District(Parking area or Structures for vehicles or equipment)
in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 33; approximately 2500 feet north of WCR 54.
Kim Ogle,Planner,presented Case USR-1300 and read the Department of Planning Services comments and
recommendation of denial into the record. Kim noted that the City of Evans was strongly against this
application.
Michael Miller noted that the referral letter from the City of Evans did not appear to be strongly against this
application, that they appeared to support this use if certain conditions were added to the permit. Kim Ogle
noted that Elizabeth Renford of the City of Evans had indicated that the City of Evans was strongly against
the proposed use.
Fred Walker noted that he agrees with Mr. Miller and noted that he feels the presentation of the City of Evans
opposition to this land use was presented incorrectly.
Stephen Mokray asked why the City of Greeley did not oppose this land use. Mr. Ogle noted that the City of
Greeley had deferred their wishes to the City of Evans as the site is bordered on both the south and east by
the City of Evans. John Folsom asked whether the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial
of both businesses or just for the recreational vehicle(RV)storage. Mr. Ogle noted the denial is based upon
the (RV) storage.
Cathy Clamp brought up a similar RV storage facility that the Planning Commission had approved a few
months earlier.
Michael Miller asked which adverse effects the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval the
Department of Planning Services felt could not be mitigated. Mr.Ogle noted the compatibility with surrounding
land uses,the residential area,could be affected by the business in the area. Stephen Mokray noted that the
property immediately to the north was already in the same business and that he feels this makes it a
compatible use.
John Folsom asked if the applicant would be required to annex into the City of Evans. Kim noted that the
applicant is not required to annex and has no desire to annex into the City of Evans. Jack Epple asked if this
USR is the result of a violation. Mr. Ogle noted that the site is not in violation.
Gerald Jorgenson, Representative for the applicant,noted that the site shares access with the property to the
north,which is also an RV storage lot. Mr. Jorgenson noted that the property to the west is in the process of
being annexed and will not be agricultural for much longer. Mr.Jorgenson further noted that there are several
car sales businesses to the north. Mr.Jorgenson noted that the nearby subdivisions have smaller streets and
many have covenants that do not allow the parking of RVs along the street. He noted that this seems to be
a compatible use as many of the subdivisions will be utilizing this service.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 6
Loretta Fleck, the owner of the property to the north that runs a RV storage lot, noted that there is a need for
this service, that her lot is full, that there is no longer agriculture in the area, and further noted that she is
willing to help the applicants create a good business. John Folsom asked if all the RVs were from the
surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Fleck noted that some, but not all, were from the surrounding area.
Arlan Marrs asked why this application is asking for 112 RVs while the adjacent lot has only 65 stored in about
the same area. Mr. Jorgenson noted that an engineer had planned the site and agreed that the setup would
fit the 112 RV spaces proposed. Eleanor Speaker,Applicant,pointed out where the access to the RV storage
would be in relation to the neighboring property.
Bryant Gimlin noted that he agrees there is a need for this service to keep the RVs off the smaller streets and
further noted that the City of Evans should have stated their opposition more strongly,requested annexation,
or been at the hearing to oppose this use.
Cristie Nicklas noted that the letter is not worded strongly enough, that although there may be an
Intergovernmental Agreement in existence,there does not seem to be enough evidence to support their denial
of this application.
Arlan Marrs noted that the adjoining property is used for the same use and is,therefore, probably compatible
with the area. Mr. Marrs further noted that this is a USR that does not ruin the site for a possible future use
as the identity of the area changes.
Michael Miller noted that he feels this is a service that the nearby community will need and that it is compatible
with the surrounding area, noting he feels this is an excellent use for this site.
Discussion followed concerning the hours of the two separate businesses. Final decision allowed for the dog
grooming business to operate from 8:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. and allow the access to the RV storage area to be
24 hours per day, as the renters would have their own keys.
Michael Miller moved that Development Standard #3 read "The hours of operation for the Dog Grooming
Business shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. seven days per week." 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Don Carroll noted that he would like to have the tree in the RV storage lot removed to allow for wider access
to the lot. Mr.Carroll further noted that he would like to see some of the spaces eliminated to allow for easier
turns and a circular pattern of traffic within the site. Don noted that he would like to see the eastern two
storage lots eliminated to allow a circular pattern, as well as the 4 storage lots on the west side of the north
row and about 2-3 storage lots on the west side of the center row to allow for better turning radii. Discussion
followed concerning how to word the Condition of Approval to allow for this.
Michael Miller moved to amend Condition of Approval#2. G. 5 be dlelted and that Condition of Approval#2.
G.6 read"The tree adjacent to the barn shall be removed and the additional storage area as identified on the
plat shall be eliminated. The traffic pattern and final layout of spaces shall be approved by the Department
of Public Works."with subsequent renumbering. Stephen 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, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
no; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 7
Arlan Marrs commented that he voted no in principle because he feels that this is overstepping the bounds
of the Planning Commission by setting the traffic patterns within this use. Mr. Marrs noted that Public Works
may have reason to request changes for entrances and access, but feels that setting the pattern within the
site is overstepping their bounds.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he agrees with Arlan Marrs concerning the internal circulation pattern.
Fred Walker noted that he voted no because the wording stated"be approved"and he would have preferred
to see"shall address" instead.
Gerald Jorgenson noted that the applicant is unsure of Condition of Approval #2. F as they do not own the
ditch by 47t Avenue and do not want to leave this as a possible way for the City of Evans to deny their
application.
Discussion followed whether or not the Planning Commission or the Department of Planning Services had the
authority to change the requirements for a road maintained by the city. Anne Best Johnson noted that
Ordinance 208,the IGA with the City of Evans, specifically agrees that no waiver will be given concerning the
street standards of the municipality.
Cathy Clamp moved to delete Condition of Approval #2. F. 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete the last sentence from Condition of Approval #2. C and change the word
"public"to"customers" on Development Standard #14. 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1300 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval, citing the that use is compatible with surrounding land uses and provides a
service to the surrounding land uses. Stephen 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple commented that he would like to add a sentence to the last paragraph of Section 22-2-80.C.2
following the staff comments on Section 22-2-80.B.2 Weld County Code. This sentence will read "In review
of the referral from the City of Evans, there is no recommendation of denial in the eyes of the Planning
Commission,"
Cristie Nicklas noted that she understands that there is an IGA with the City of Evans, but that their referral
stated mitigation would be possible with their concerns and Ms. Nicklas noted that she feels the Planning
Commission has worked to mitigate those concerns. Cristie Nicklas also noted that if the City of Evans were
as adamant concerning their denial of this case, they should have been at this hearing to state those
concerns.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 8
CASE NUMBER: 4th AmUSR-877
APPLICANT: Camas Colorado, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Section 7, 8, 17, and 18,Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Gravel Mining Operation.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 1; north of and adjacent to WCR 20.5.
Kim Ogle,Planner,presented Case 4thAmUSR-877 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendation of approval into the record.
Michael Miller asked Sheble McConnellogue, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,
if there had been changes concerning concrete wash-water at mining sites. Ms. McConnellogue noted those
only pertain to concrete batch plants. Mr. Miller noted that there is a concrete batch plant at this site. Ms.
McConnellogue noted she would look at the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards for the site.
Cathy Clamp asked Don Carroll how the applicants planned to increase the amount of material from the site
without increasing the traffic on the roads. Don Carroll stated he thought the applicants were adding land,
not capacity, but to ask the applicant.
John Folsom noted that he disagrees with the FEMA assessment that all flood plain lands are not prime farm
ground but lists them as other. Mr. Folsom also asked whether or not a CLOMR would be required for the
site. Mr. Ogle noted that a CLOMR would not be required for mining, but would be required for a Change of
Zone application of the Peschel property should Mr. Peschel decide to proceed with his PUD development.
Mike Reifer and Connie Davis,representatives for CAMAS,spoke on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Davis noted
that CAMAS will amend their application to allow for the roads and trails, and noted that the reclamation has
been worked through with the City of Longmont. Mr. Reifer noted that the gravel amounts are a range, that
there will not be a large increase in the amount of material taken off the site. Mr. Reifer also noted that the
stockpiles are placed parallel to the river or well out of the range of the river to avoid problems in case of
flooding.
John Folsom asked if there would be a new batch plant or concrete plant. Mr. Reifer noted that they would
be using the existing plants. Ms. Davis also noted that CAMAS would not be mining north of the river near
the landfill, only south of the river.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Refer and Ms. Davis if they were comfortable with the number of trees at the site. Mr.
Refer noted that they are comfortable with this number. Cathy Clamp asked the applicants to answer the
surrounding property owner letter concerning the dying trees, possibly because of the de-watering. Mr. Refer
noted that the trees that had died had been during a previous mining job and that they were working with the
City of Longmont on a long term reclamation project to replant the area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ted Cox, a property owner to the east of the site, noted that he is concerned with the lack of reclamation on
the past sites, as well as the noise, traffic, dust, and smell. Mr.Cox noted that he feels property values have
dropped because of this site. Mr. Cox also noted that the trucks have been hauling along WCR 20.5,which
is against the original conditions of the first permit. Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Cox if they were hauling along
WCR 20.5 consistently. Mr. Cox noted that C &M trucks were using it on a regular basis. Don Carroll noted
that he believed that the original permit had been amended to allow use of WCR 20.5 as a haul route. Mr.
Cox also noted that the City of Longmont had listed the area as a wildlife preserve in 1959.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 9
Tom Schell,a property owner in the area, noted that they had dealt with the company in the past when it was
owned by a smaller company and that the former company had worked well with the landowners, but noted
that he feels CAMAS is not doing enough to work with the complaints received. Mr. Schell also noted that he
did not feel that he received enough response from Weld County concerning his complaints. Tom Schell
noted that there is work occurring early in the mornings and that the dust is a problem, that the company is
not watering their stockpiles.
Kenneth Schell, a nearby property owner, noted that although CAMAS had mined his land, he still feels that
CAMAS is not doing enough to reclaim the land they have already mined.
Ed Seifert, a nearby land owner, noted that he does not like the amount of dust in the valley. Mr. Seifert also
noted that he is concerned that the amount of overburden may affect his property and the area if it is not dealt
with during the mining process.
Troy Swain, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, noted that there have been some
complaints, but that there were no problems at the time of his two separate site visits. Mr. Swain also noted
that if the wind speed is over 35 miles per hour, he is not allowed to take readings.
Michael Miller asked if concrete recycling is being done on the site as this causes a larger amount of dust.
Mr. Miller also wanted to know if the applicant is permitted to recycle concrete.
Mr. Swain noted that the portable machines are permitted by the state on an individual basis. Discussion
followed concerning the amount of dust allowed and the time required to respond to a complaint. Mr. Swain
noted that surprise visits are not always possible as many of the visits require certain personnel at the site and
noted that it is not possible to go straight to the site after receiving the complaint.
Mike Refer noted that CAMAS has been permitted to recycle concrete on site since 1995. Connie Davis
further noted that the recycling is done for a relatively small amount of time, possibly 2-3 months of the year.
Ms. Davis also noted that the State had received a letter from Mr. Cox and that the State did inspect the site
and only found one small problem, which was fixed immediately. Ms. Davis also noted that they will be
moving the prairie dogs per the Division of Wildlife standards.
Mr. Refer noted that the City of Longmont had asked for a different type of reclamation,which will take place
over several years to turn the area into something other than lakes. Mr. Refer noted that this will take a bit
longer than the original plan. Mr. Refer also noted that CAMAS feels they have worked with the neighbors,
even going so far as to replace doors and windows to lessen the impact of the sound of the mining. Mr. Refer
stated that they have changed from generators to electric power as these were creating a lot of noise as well.
Mike Refer noted that he has been authorized to try a new additive to lessen the aroma of the asphalt.
Kim Ogle noted the addition of Condition of Approval #4. F to read "The applicant shall submit evidence to
the Department of Planning Services that an agreement has been reached with the Top Operating Company
regarding oil and gas operations,"with subsequent renumbering.
Michael Miller noted to the surrounding property owners that dust is a side effect and that there is not a lot of
control over that. Mr. Miller further noted that CAMAS is one of the better operators in the area and that the
surrounding property owners should try to continue to bring their complaints to CAMAS,as CAMAS does tend
to address any problems that come to their attention,then complain to the county if they feel nothing has been
done to work on these complaints.
Jack Epple asked how large of a bond has been taken out for the reclamation. Ms. Davis noted that the bond
for the entire site is $1.5 million dollars.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 10
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Condition of Approvals and Development
Standards. Mr. Refer stated that they are in agreement with the Condition of Approvals and Development
Standards.
Michael Miller moved that Case 4`"AmUSR-877 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, no; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp commented that she is concerned with the continued placement of sand and gravel mining
operations within the floodplain, noting she does understand the need for the sand and gravel noting a
concern with the riparian areas being reclaimable to their current condition.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-820
APPLICANT: Kerb's Dairy
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 of Section 15, Township 6 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry, or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock Confinement
Operations (the redesign and expansion of an existing dairy and animal confinement
operation)for 5000 head of cattle in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 55, North of and adjacent to SH 392.
Julie Chester, Planner, presented Case AmUSR-820 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendation of approval into the record.
Brad Kerbs stated that he and his brother are spending quite a bit of money to get this dairy into a good
working facility.
Tom Haren, Representative for the applicant,noted that the applicant bought the property from a foreclosure,
noting that they understood the past problems with the site and knowing that they would have a lot of fixing
from the previous owner's non-compliance. Mr.Haren noted that the Kerbs have already placed a new lagoon
on the property and would have to work on the nitrate level as the property has not been farmed recently. Mr.
Haren noted that the site can handle 1,800 milking cows at one time, with 1,800 dry cows or calves, noting
that the Kerbs would like to keep some of the steers on the site to raise as well.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the application of manure on the south side. Mr. Haren noted that there was so
much to deal with that the land application had to be done on the south field. Mr. Haren also noted that they
would be moving the solid manure off the site and only applying the liquid on site. Ms. Nicklas asked if they
would be doing a composting area. Mr. Haren noted that there would not be enough land to have a
composting area. Cathy Clamp noted that the soil is terra loam and very permeable. Mr. Haren stated that
the new ponds are lined and that the old ponds will have to be assessed and retrofit as soon as possible. Ms.
Clamp noted that the application noted that the dead animals would be removed when economically feasible
and stated that this would probably not be acceptable. Mr. Haren noted that commercial rendering would
occur for all animals, not dependant upon commercial feasability.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 11
Leroy Leavitt,a property owner to the east,noted that he is uncomfortable with how the site is being managed
as he feels that the effluent was placed on frozen ground and that there are no tail-water pits. Mr. Leavitt
noted his concern with the pivot being able to work for the application of effluent as well as the level of nitrates
in the land. Mr. Leavitt also stated his concern of the effluent being placed within 150'of water sources,noting
he and the property owner have small ponds within that distance of the application area.
Dale Tanaka, a banker who is dealing with the site,noted that the Kerbs have just finally bought the site from
a bank and that they will be working to clean up what the past owners have done to the site. Mr. Tanaka
noted that without the Kerbs buying this property, this area would just be a weed trashed area.
Dale Dilka, a nearby property owner who bought his land in August of 2000 noted that there have been a
number of problems even with the current owners. He noted that raw sewage was running out of the trailers,
that there has been a lot of noise from the site on Friday and Saturday nights and that he would like to see
some landscaping of the site as well.
Eric Donaker, a nearby property owner, noted that he was concerned what type of fly and nuisance
management would be occurring,as well as the nitrate level of the ground. Mr.Donaker also noted a concern
with a subdivision in the area.
Brian Hedgewood,a nearby property owner in the process of a change of zone application for the subdivision
which Mr. Donaker spoke of, noted that he is in support of the dairy and feels this is a good location for a
dairy.
Kent Vance,an adjacent property owner, noted that there have been many problems in the past with this site.
Mr.Vance noted that there have been show cause hearings with the county in the past for this site. Mr.Vance
noted that the applicants do not have any contracts for applying the solid waste. Mr. Vance also noted that
he feels that this dairy will not be a financial benefit to Weld County and that approval of this dairy would make
him feel that Weld County was helping apply the raw sewage that has run along his property. Bryant Gimlin
noted that the dairy was at the site when Mr. Vance bought the site in 1994.
Tom Haren noted that the applicants knew that the environmental problems would be the main concern of the
site when they bought this site and started the lagoon right away. Mr. Haren noted that they were forced to
chose between allowing one of the existing ponds to run over or to apply the effluent. Mr. Haren noted that
the applicants chose the lesser of two evils and applied the effluent. Tom Haren also noted that they will be
upgrading the pivots. Mr. Haren also noted that the applicants were unaware that the septic systems and the
leach field had never been connected and that there is no evidence of a septic system for the milking barn.
Tom Haren stated that they are in the process of cleaning up a damaged site and moving to repair the
previous owners mistakes on the site. Finally, Mr. Haren noted that the fly, dust,and nuisance management
plan is a big part of this application and that there will be more trees and a shelter belt.
In response to questions asked by Dale Dilka, Julie Chester noted that the Department of Planning Services
did post a sign the required ten days before the hearing. Ms. Chester also noted that although a wrong date
was sent out to the property owners,when this was discovered the Department of Planning Services sent out
letters with the correct date on them on December 19, 2000, almost 30 days prior to this hearing. Trevor
Jiricek, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, noted that the state does regulate
application on frozen ground.
Cathy Clamp asked what the present nitrate level on the site was. Mr. Haren noted he had just recently
received that information and that the amount was high. Mr. Haren noted that they will have to double crop
on the land to fix the levels. Cathy Clamp asked what the time frame was for increasing the size of the herd.
Mr. Haren noted that the applicants are planning for the eventual size of the dairy, to avoid future
amendments,but that financing will keep the number of head down until they can begin to grow in size to their
predicted top number.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 16, 2001
Page 12
Ms.Clamp asked about the water available on the site. Mr. Haren noted that the water is there for the current
number of head, but as the size of the herd increases, the applicants will be forced to buy or rent water in the
future.
Michael Miller asked if the applicants had knowingly discharged the effluent. Mr. Haren noted that this
discharge did occur on to the land to keep the ponds from overflowing. Mr. Miller asked when the residents
of the trailer had been removed after the sewage had been noticed. Mr. Haren noted that the residents had
been discharged the day following a lot of water being discharged and noted that the sewage was pumped
into a vault every two to three days after this. The septic permit has been finaled by the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment.
Fred Walker asked if the applicant would be willing to build a berm to keep any future discharge from
overflowing onto Mr.Vance's property. Mr. Haren noted that they would like to work with Mr.Vance on berms
and ditches. Mr. Haren also noted that the more the surrounding residents helped to discover the possible
problems before they happened, the better the Kerbs would be able to clean up the site.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicants are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Haren indicated that they are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case AmUSR-820 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Arlan Marrs 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, no; Michael Miller, no;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, no; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented that he does not hold the owner accountable for the past owner's problems, but
does hold the current owner responsible for the new violations and noted that there were other options than
the ones taken. Mr. Miller noted that the applicants should prove themselves capable with the current size
before they request an increase in the size.
John Folsom noted that he agrees with Mr. Miller.
Cathy Clamp noted that she is still concerned with the proof of water.
Stephen Mokray noted that he thinks the applicants should prove themselves before increasing in size.
Bryant Gimlin noted that the new owners should not be held responsible for the problems of the past and that
this application will require the applicants to clean up the site and have engineering for any improvements to
the site.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitte
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello