HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011824.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Arlan Marrs that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
Case Number: SCH -19
Planner: Julie A. Chester
Applicant: Scott Busker, Busker Dairy, c/o AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Address: 7678 Weld County Road 17, Ft. Lupton, CO 80621
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 6TH P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Location: East of and Adjacent to Weld County Road 17 and North of Weld County Road 16
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has demonstrated that a Substantial
Change of the required criteria has occurred and recommends approval of the applicant's request.
2. The Weld County Board of County Commissioner's Resolution dated February 3, 1999 denied the
Applicant's Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (Dairy for 4500 head of cattle) in the
Agricultural Zone District, for the following reasons:
A. "The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposal is not consistent with existing
surrounding land uses."
B. "The Board finds that the applicant has not proven this proposal is compatible with future
development as projected by the Town of Firestone in its Comprehensive Plan...The dairy
is situated within one-half mile of the limits of the Town of Firestone, with approximately
one-half of the site located in the Firestone Urban Growth Boundary Area."
C. "The Board of County Commissioners finds the applicant does not appear to currently be
in compliance, nor has he demonstrated his ability to comply in the future with Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards necessary for the protection of the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants in the terms of the proposed Use by Special Review."
3. Pursuant to Chapter 2,Article II §2-3-10 of the Weld County Code, the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the applicant's request for a Hearing of
Substantial Change and whether within the concept of a new application, the facts and
circumstances of which are substantially changed from the initial application:
A. Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g.,substantial changes in lot size
or density, in internal or external roads,or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed)
= EXHIBIT
2001-1824
RESOLUTION, SCH-19
Scott Busker
Page 2
-The land use application has substantially changed by the reduction in the number of dairy cattle
from 4500 on 130 acres to 1450 head on eighty acres. It is unclear whether the number of animals
kept on the northern eighty acres is included in this number. The number of animals by right on the
remaining property is 540 (135 acres X 4 animal units per acre). Assuming the applicant is
proposing 1450 on the south eighty acres and 540 on the north 135 acres,the total number is less
than 2000 and, in the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff, substantially reduced
from the original total of 4500 head of cattle.
-The number of total stock pens has decreased from seventeen to nine, utilizing the existing dairy
area for the pens.
-The overall layout of the proposed expansion is substantially different to the originally application.
Calf pens and huts, the secondary manure storage and compost area and two ponds will be
relocated on the eastern portion of the N2 of the SW4 of Section 28. Originally a large pond was
located adjacent to Weld County Road 17 on the northern portion of the property. Two ponds are
being proposed, the larger of the two more centrally located on Mr. Busker's property. A small
portion of the current operating dairy will remain inside of the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town
of Firestone, including three pens, three small ponds, some of the existing homes for the dairy
workers and the manure storage/composting area. Staff would recommend that the Special Review
Permit include the entire dairy operation with the proposed expansion shown occurring only on the
N2/SW4 (the eighty acres in question), if the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners approve the Substantial Change.
B. Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed ? (e.g., has the adjacent land use
changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be
compatible with the adjacent use has changed)
-The applicant recently applied for,and had approved,an amendment to their Recorded Exemption
which changed the configuration of their parcels. By amending the Recorded Exemption, the
applicant adjusted their property lines leaving an eighty acre parcel outside the current recognized
Urban Growth Boundary for the Town of Firestone. The proposed expansion would be located
outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. The previous application was almost entirely within the
Growth Boundary of Firestone.
C. Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable
ordinance has been amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially changed)
-There have been changes in Colorado Revised Statutes (Section 25-8-205, C.R.S. 1973, as
amended) regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction extending one mile beyond the existing municipal
boundaries. The allowance of a municipalities regulatory authority of dairies was repealed after the
denial of USR-1202.
4. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has met the component of all three
of the criteria to show substantial change of the previously denied application. The Planning
Commission finds evidence to suggest that the information presented before you is substantially
different than the information presented on February 3, 1999.
RESOLUTION, SCH-19
Scott Busker
Page 3
Motion seconded by Stephan Mokray.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Cristie Nicklas Cathy Clamp
Michael Miller
Arlan Marrs
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephen Mokray
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Wendi Inloes, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution,is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on June 19'h , 2001.
Dated the o une, 2001.
teed
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
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 Marrs,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/do AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
REQUEST: A Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use (USR-1202, for a Dairy) and
ii request fora Substantial Change Determination.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 SW4 of Section 28,T2N,R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 17 and North of WCR 16
1 EXHIBIT
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 Nickles 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 1/2 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
31-150501.1 D 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 Nickles, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Z-559
PLANNER: Julie Chester
APPLICANT: Steve SchroyerfTom 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
6th P.M.Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 64 ''A,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.
Hello