The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About871719.tiff nom 6- Leg ,moatil - Y It 4 t5 ((4 , gsuV • • • 16 • -- — -re-frit:A-4Ft\ i 2 . l • . - a 4. ErLeur riou `t915 a. • e V ••rte Oa 6 ow.. Wile ft- Al a 00 a ab a I Pe •a • • • • a Le.a Wagr r • • • • IA on,• • • t r o e ••_ r, •. • • • , 3 imp 0 ,.. a goei MIS ale . 0 VP bill t b tfilibilrar' '- - . .. WAsre POPO • I. e i • .. I„, •••• AO b 413/4 .\ 1 �� e e - • V • • 1 • • • I o v , • a • 0 ro • ELtU . 4134f * es. • • • • • .. .. . ... I ea, Co vqk C Lri Y 5EC116UA4 Desit4 ( Ru' Sk2oc2 ? LIT X10O `t 52 1a• o �� ni ( 00 Yn. a Y ? H 2 ' As Pt Co o PERAT'nNc, LtVeL (PtcL ar) P. a , os A dptsr• 3 ' Qjtio WI\ ST6 ., • $ 4? laleck, Sto . r 00 i we? itQwohi‘ pot S a L 1 D Waste � o� 'i�— n 4) 41G tL44 ° `2 .- _. 2 / • ____ IN 6 N p-. •34 isk lot flt...kowvoi.) it? 4,4, A _ ____ _ dos _se.. . , , ass s ea 4010=• 0 I 4 ct ! be LiMebS Re GI) no rite • SeosPaev 'rArlou POND Ec€.uA'r, oU disci/4f I Rya �b s 1... T (it.4.9 foo yt 4tsout11 3rots Westrii _ . ; Atte cpfltc1TY * C49t3t* 1' 1 m NeeD tzoj000 SF of SWatt 14 f /x, 000 of S/vue F.A. 2Yoo *c+r0, Nee° Fir (.r+sr- 6 - 9o, Wo s& pouar ro © i2ao ttc�o = : Meers' d1 um tit termer) ( uo b.ose ILA.) 11/1 a 2 Actiai pelt. 9o04) N- TL. 2 ga/000 se poops pelt PI . Ponk , (6 C IC I OpeMt1oaL o..r�nroa `�r, co .,P., 0a p,r W — 5ra' s LIQuIDWAStt i Pi IA. (Sell,. C .USTh1 't 1d Po 4 D _ Rend O 4 o c-)1130 G N►-- -- 6W�'ioi+ `f4 29 � - - -' i ..._ _____ , ._ ......-- - 12 1 ?MortenCatA.042-0-Wee---"1"in assse RcGbO im PIt• rkal _ LIl0 WA3rt $ ', n1Pou ,. plot EXHIBIT IA ' A St g 11O LOUSf EXHIBIT 2400- COW DAIRY ANALYSIS SUMMARY APPLICANT' S SIZING OF STORM RUNOFF AND LIQUID STORAGE PONDS - 100- YEAR STORM 1 . T❑ be in compliance , Applicant ' s water storage ponds must be about 420 , 000 SF - NOT 161 , 225 SF as shown - an underdesign of 2. 6 times. 2. Diversion ❑f upstream (north ) rain runoff by Applicant ' s dikes and roads remove that water from historic waterways and put flow int❑ non - historic waterways (Road 15 borrow pit ). 3. Worst case runoff - Diverted Runoff Flow (100-year storm ) is about 30 cubic feet per second. By dumping into Road 15 borrow pit , will wash ❑ut Road 38/15 junction and cause major structure/crop loss t❑ adjacent farmers. 4. Diversion ❑f even average (2 " ) runoff int❑ Road 15 borrow pit will inundate adjacent downstream agricultural irrigation systems and cause crop damage/loss. REVIEW ❑F APPLICANT' S WASTE RETENTION POND' S SIZE From the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the standards required by the Weld County Planning Commissioner ' s staff for the Applicant ' s proposal , the following design criteria must be met : 1 . Facility must retain all storm water runoff on-site from a 100- year storm (relative only to the area of Applicant ' s facility ) ; Reference : Zoning Ordinance Section 24. 5. 1 . 5. 1 . July 1 , 1985. 2. Comply with all Colorad❑ Department ❑f Health - Water Quality Control Commission Guidelines , current edition. 3. Referenced Guidelines definitize, in general , all aspects ❑f designing large livestock containment facilities. In additon , the USDA Soil Conservation Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual - current issue - should be used as recommended by the Guidelines. The SCS Design Guide states that : 1 . A 10 ' ❑perating depth ❑f pond liquid is very necessary to minimize pond odor and maintain anaerobic action. 2. Prior to the startup of the facility , all ponds must be filled to their ❑perating depth. 8 71 71 9 - 2 - 3. Lagoons should be aerobic in nature to remove milk fats and protiens and reduce odor. If odor is of no concern, and milk fats and pro tiens can be satisfactorly removed from the liquid storage ponds , then an anaerobic system may be used. Also , from SCS Design Guide, a 25-year event is estimated to be 3.8" in a 24-hour period and 4. 6" per 24 hours for a 100-year event. From the above , and using data from the waste management disposal analysis, the following depicts actual needed requirements : FREEBOARD 10 OPERATING DEPTH Waste Disposal Storage Pond 1. Required capture storage capacity during 6 winter months : a. Barn Effluent 1 , 130 , 940 CF b. Rain capture (3"/6mos ) 381 , 150 CF c. *100-Year Event (4.6" ) 583 , 704 CF Total 2 , 095 , 794 CF * Worst case - saturated soil profile and occurs in non-irrigating season. 2. This alone will require a storage pond surface area of 139 , 720 SF or about 140 , 000 SF to contain the 100-year event , normal rain capture off-irrigation season, and average dairy barn and cantain- ment area effluent , assuming ponds were dry to start. In addition, to insure that the waste storage ponds will act in an anaerobic manner , the final storage ponds must contain a full 10 ' depth of liquid to function properly (at the beginning of the cold season to obtain maximum storage need ). It must be assumed that the sedimentation ponds must remain full and do not contribute to storage of liquids. Hence , the actual area required to meet all conditions is : Pond Required Area = That area above 10' of liquid required for anaerobic process - 3 - (5 ' depth ) Area = 2 , 095 , 794 CF Area = 419 , 159 SF or about 420, 000 SF for the three proposed storage ponds This is 2 . 6 times more than Applicant proposes. Finally , the provision of runoff from 100-year event rainfall from upstream (adjacent ) sources has only been covered in the Applicant' s proposal by mention of dikes and roadways transferring runoff to the Weld County Road 15 borrow pit , a non-ajudicated wasteway. No provi- sion has been made by the Applicant to store , capture , or divert the water runoff from the Road 15/Road 38 junction to the R❑ad 38 historic wasteway running east on the Road 38 barrow pit. This means overflow over Road 38 literal inundation of the residence and property south of Road 38 , with possible contaminated runoff and overflow into the yard, basement , and amenities and fields of the residence and neighbors. A sample calculation of the worst case runoff of the 100-year storm, assuming full soil profile and occurance during irrigation months (Ekerkenbeck Ditch Lateral at normal full capacity ) is as follows : 1 . Total drainage basin above proposed dairy (owned by Gray and Camenish ) is approximately 200 acres draining generally west- ward and southerly towards the proposed dairy , north property lane , runoff total = 4.6" X (200 ) (43 , 560 ) = 3 , 339, 571 CF 12 OR 24 , 979 , 983 gallons - about 25 ,000 , 000 gallons in a 24-hour period. This is equal to 39 C. F. S. (cubic feet per second ). Assuming 66% will now be directed as runoff overflow sweeping over the Ekerkenbeck Lateral Ditch onto the Applicant' s diversion dike/roadway and will now travel westward, instead ❑f historically south , emptying into the Road 15 borrow pit. This means a 100-year event diversion of (. 66 ) (39 ) 26 C.F. dumped into a non-historic wasteway. Since no provisions are made by the Applicant for retention or diversion at Road 38 or any other means or control , the results will be catastrophic to landowners and residents in particular downstream ❑r south to Road 38 at the Road 15 junction. More to the point , any runoff will now be diverted to the junction of Roads 38 and 15. 6.) ;-1414-2,----- PREPARED 8Y : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S.M.E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 Q ur and i 0 0 saws .. _., ._ ... _ .. . , , . _ A ii.—' ... ill' . , . .. . . , _ . . . . ,.. _ III H . . • • • - -. - 0_ _ .. 1 1 I . i �' y. r U., '1 4 ti .40r vs 4 s * \ , . , -1,_________ 1 i i 1 1 (rEXHIB1T 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS �-` SUMMARY DAIRY SURVEYS AND UNIVERSITY DATA 1 . Typical Daily Milk Cow Feed Ration Hay 18 lbs Corn 25 lbs (all types ) Silage 25 lbs (or Haylage ) Protien 3 lbs Cottonseed 4 lbs Miscellaneous 1 lb Total 69 lbs/cow (This is low - highest is 79 lbs/coLiday° 2 . Bedding Requirements - Average 7 lbs/day/cow. 3. Semi-Solid Manure Hauling - Average between . 04 and .06 ton/day/cow including soiled bedding. 4. Milk Production/cow/day will average between 55 to 70 lbs. High output dairies are in the upper 60 ' s. Rolling Herd avrorages of 70 lbs/cow maximum is available with slight use of chemicals and steroids. 5. Average Daily Water Consumption Drinking water per day/cow 40 gallons (low to average ) Barn use/day/cow 12 gallons Note : Wash , flush , equipment rinse, and all daily barn use varies from 30 , 000 GPD for 800 head (38 GPD/cow ) to as low as 3 or 4 gallons per cow for the smaller dairies without deluge flush. The University data appears the most reasonable at an average of 12 gallons per day. 6. Residence and Employee Daily Water Use Residence in area = 170 gallons/day. Medium employee levels 2a - 50. Employees plus daily visitors traffic will average 30 gallons/day per employee. a13 CD. - PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S.M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 } . af INDEPF:DE'9T SURVEY Name of Dairy --- (4, tee^71 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? qty 2. ) Number of milkings per d2;-;? ,2 11-1.)-it' s 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? /15- ,L /'at- eckeA e 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? Information approved, by: Date: 7 / 9.17 INDErL ps•'T SURVEY Name of Dairy --- (A)leot hAso- t 6/izeteii 660 1 . ) Approximate number of adt ' t milking cows? g01) Ht 4 2. ) Number of milkings per d:v.'? 3 7l Ale.) 3. ) Average quantity of pota' ` e water consumed per cow, per day? 5 3 G r op4'`e C Z woes 4. ) Estimated gallons of wa_t- u ed per cow for washing per day. 41/lb o VS. Information approved by: po ceJ e y R d 4.1c/ 5Ot `per.. TYPICAL DAILY RATION Date: Spwao �l �� `�b, i^a 42(7 eit Hay ..yy Ear Corn Silage G Cottonseed 5111 Protien Misc. salts , etc Total I@ fit* per cow/day • INDEPt' 'J)E?IT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- e c'l c7 eR 50 u opt ( 1 .) Approximate number of adut milking cows? 8vo Yr✓Ol ( 1u6 (O (p5 ) 2. ) Number of milkings per de-•? 3 3.) Average quantity of potab',e water consumed per cow, per day? liar Yt q5 M17610 - (Ase G clur e-ra fooh c3 & L . 4.) Estimated gallons of watr used per cow for washing per day? v // (;( S 5 /30. Q o 61\2, ,/O L evn, F(4,41-5 L� c�say, A. &us C eS 5 a bp (2 At)/OF\-11 Information approved by: C fij. LLA pout,/ by (R, O. <J/,U sai) p ��. Orr m S`fp tin Cy rL C/S TYPICAL DAILY RATION Date: Hay / OP g ' � 2c16otSpi—1 Ear Corn 7 20 . �+:::�:a��'J4� tr Silage.1/fin L.`'5: Za # Cottenseed kt Protien / * Misc. salts , etc ( /c Total 7341 per cow/day -M,• INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- /dr. Lan1 tot /1 � , v d1 / J / C� 1 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 2. ) Number of milkings per day? 3 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 4.) Estimated gallons of wate" used per cow for washing per day? Information approved by: Date: INDEPE'IDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- {� -AolkQ c9 1 .) Approximate number of adult milking cows? O(� 2. ) Number of milkings per day? <� 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 1--‘ C 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow/for washing per day? v C)\--L—c Information approved by: � \ 1 Date: H INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- j/L//1vl / g41-(g/ 1 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? <3 2 2. ) Number of milkings per day? 2 o U 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? ,3 )-- 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? / 0 Informat'on appr ed by: , Date: ,` - �� INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- //e _74,4 /17 ,2,27,3,40 1 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? . 2. ) Number of milkings per day? 4-ex 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? 5 C.. /l7 4 Information approved by: Date: / _ gp INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- (,l) ell zc_ 1 ThaAr�/ 1 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 90 2. ) Number of milkings per day? 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? d/5 , 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /0 4 Information approved by: Date: 1/g /87 y� INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name o£ Dairy --- 9u 1 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 561j 2. ) Number of milkings per day? j4 " — 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? 5 v g'en __ 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? 3-1 Information approved by: /i2/1.422, 11 Date: / _ _ g/-7 INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy Y 1 .) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 2-° 2. ) Number of milkings per day? "3 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? / 5 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? G Information approved by: � `nn// b/ 9n yy'/q, Date: _ g? / INDEPENDENT SURVEY / ) Name of Dairy --- r' 'G/J �� ./2 /7 1.) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 2. ) Number of milkings per day? • 3.) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? </Y) 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? /CI Information approved by: Jam, Jet:) / 1, Date: j - :; <- INDEPENDENT SURVEY Name of Dairy --- Iferace Aka Dig 20718 VW Oak a 17 Johastora, Cara 80534 1 . ) Approximate number of adult milking cows? 8� 2. ) Number of milkings per day? 3. ) Average quantity of potable water consumed per cow, per day? tg(/ rary 4. ) Estimated gallons of water used per cow for washing per day? efeta.fO, 1/ formation approved by: ^ i"QQ Date• / 91 7 Cooperative Extension Service Montana State University, Bozeman, MT rp 4 TABLES Table 42. Farm and Milne Maim Rsqutrementa Table i9. Water Consumption of Dairy Cate Ferro Water Requirements GaliDay .-___---- Set et Gallons Cl... of Can* Condition ear Day (.1 Beef steer f ....._...O cow 71.2:I(}3. ICS wt Sheep . . 2sneep morsa.n calm , .e0 13 to 2.0 l"r`e . . . 10-'S2e'se Plttste,n carves Z 'no : S to 2a Sows . . LS-hog .4, tn.." Calvet 3 mo 2 110 79 %.,hint Frig) hog p:yt,n cams a mJ 301o35 L:can,n9 • I hog O d,A f-Pad n9 . . . . . '-2 n,:g r., oval Niters S mo 3 6 'oil 6 . i.4 Manure 4.1.n •..,:t,t.n hMtrs 15.16 .no 5 9:0 2.1 1,1 s cow (Conk:rig; . . 3Y ,-4olslan near'. H Jr mo J mg6 Dry :0w . . . . . .. .. . . I? Cow _utility cowa 30 lb and ,day IC a 10 14 6 --' Cow washer. le cow ",tjonscr Cows 50,o m.oiday +71 ,0114 \ Hosing floor, . IS 100 tq ft Ay:%Mrt B.own Sw m*sa 30 rb .p/day 136 ,01$ 1 \ .-q.... Manure. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 .ow •"1 ..dtleen Cows 5914 r.wt day 2t 410327 'C caning rnmlk equiprnonl . . . . . . : caw (Jr', rows Pregnant 6.9 mo 910 13 Livestock watererf. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 5igal -mm ___..r.___.....-.. Cn,caeni (drinking) 5 till bards ;.I J•: umOt n?WI urea SO' IG BO's Turkeys (drinking) to 1D.t. twit Civil ling cages end pens . . . . , tC^7 .^i tt Dairy Reference Manual Conege of Agrfeutture. Rome Water Re Wrensanu I', Penntytvanla State University _._..._._9__ _.__.. . _._...__.._ _...__- Unitienrty Park. Penn. *Each porton for all purposes . . . . . . . 50 gal A,,tnrnabt Washer 3;. r,.i 'nad D:Snwasner . . ._. . . . . 5 '5 oar] Shower or tub . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 20$1%ea Hnae and nctzte. . 7a^ 3bn ^.p', Lawn Sprinkler . . . I,,C gph fi vtic>2c) p i KA 69/9 ki7 1 i k / 42 i Lt_lm ci 9 fr. h( I p -s-- a7 y ,/y1. , 2200.14 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY In conversation with Mr. Sill Wailes , Dairy Manager for C.S.U. Dairy , the following information was provided to Mr. Melvin Brown, 6859 Weld County Road 56, Loveland, Colorado 80557 : Milk Cow (milking ) Drinking Water 33-40 GPD Dry Cow Drinking Water 13 GPD Milk Cow Udder & Body Wash/Cow 10 GPD Barn Floor Wash/Cow 3 GPD Equipment Wash & Flush 2 GPD Total Daily 55 GPD In addition, Mr. Wailes stated that the Larimer County Public Health Department requires no liquid waste be stored in the storage lagoons ❑f the CSU Sophisticated Waste Treatment System. All wastes must be hauled away from the site, due to Public Health hazards and terrible odors. Mr. Brown stated his company hauls 200 ,000 gallons per week of liquid waste from the CSU dairy facility , keeping its lagoons in a virtual dry state - odor free. Mr. Brown disposes of this liquid in many areas of dryland farmland far removed from Fort Collins , Colorado. D5k 6 1,L1,44K, ISSUED AND REPORTED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E:. DATE : January 10 , 1987 2400/1200- COW DAIRY ANALYSIS ANDERSON 5/8"TAP FROM LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT Peak measured ❑utput of the Glen Anderson 5/8"by 3/4" residential tap , located in Section 32 - ❑n Road 15 , approximately 1/2 mile north ❑f Road 38, is 7.8 gallons per minute. This data is supplied by Mr. Barry Dykes , Operations Supervisor for Little Thompson Water District , on Thursday , January 15 , 1987. 6Z 6diitt,„- REPORTED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 15 , 1987 1 I •La tle ,Thomxpgon t�",1ate �i tr :;x ` j`a' tT` �� ~ 1^.. .7,74r 'x Pules and Ie nlaticns 5 LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS INDEX Section Page No. 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 100 . General 1-1 101.. Board of Directors 1-1 102 . Manager of the District 1-1 103 . Tapholders of the District 1-1 104. Future Changes to these Regulations 1-1 105 . Approval and Date of Adoption 1-1 2 LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2-1 200 . General 2-1 201 . Organization and Powers of the Board 2-1 202 . Duties' and Responsibilities of the Manager 2-5 203 . Financial Operations of the District 2-8 204 . Insurance and Bonding Requirements for the District 2-9 205 . Public Right to Information 2-11 206 . Legal Notices 2-11 207 . Fee and Rate Schedules - Procedures for Increases 2-12 208 . Regular. Scheduled Meetings for the District 2-12 209 . Special Meetings for the District 2-13 210 . Normal Working Hours for the District 2-13 211 . Place of Business 2-13 3 INDIVIDUAL WATER TAPS 3-1 300 . General 3-1 301 . Application for Service 3-1 302 . Installation and Location of Water Meters 3-3 303 . Relocation of Water Meters 3-4 304 . Requirements and Restrictions on Water Service 3-4 mmmippm305 . Additional Residences on Same Property 3-7 306 . Individual Tap Fees 3-8 4 ADMINISTRATION OF CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNTS 4-1 400 . Normal Billing Cycles and Meter Reading 4-1 401 . Discontinuance of Service for Non-Payment 4-3 402 . Delivery of Official Notices 4-6 403 . Returned Checks 4-6 404 . Customer ' s Payments 4-6 405 . Change of Property Owners 4-6 406 . Water Service for Rental Properties (Single Family) 4-7 407 . Perpetual Property Lien for Non-payment 4-9 408 . Special Rate for a Residential Tap 4-9 Page 1 of Index 304 .9 High Pressures and Damages to Customer ' s Property. The District operates main transmission lines at pressures up to 150 PSI . Individual meters have a regulator to ensure that the customers delivery pressure remains at 45 PSI . In the event this regulator fails , and over a period of time they frequently do fail , the customer will experience high pressure throughout his residence. For this reason , the customer ' s service line (all material and equipment from the discharge side of the meter yoke) must be designed and installed with the capability of withstanding pressures up to 150 PSI . The District will not guarantee that the regulator or any other equipment will not fail and the District is not responsible for any damage to a customer ' s property caused by high pressures . Additionally , any metered water lost because of a water leak due to high pressures remains the responsibility of the customer. 304 . 10 Pressure Settings on Regulators . All water taps installed by the District have a pressure regulator which is pre-set at 45 PSI . Customers are not permitted to adjust the regulator or accomplish any modifications within the meter pit. A customer experiencing high or low pressure should contact the District offices so District personnel can correct the situation. 304 . 11 Financial Adjustments to Water Bills . The District will not make any financial adjustments to a customer ' s bill because of high usage due to a water leak on the customer ' s service line or within the residence/business . As an exception to this policy, if special circumstances prevail and the customer feels that an adjustment is warranted , then the special circumstances should be documented in writing and the matter will be considered by the Board of Directors at the next regular scheduled meeting. 305 . ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES ON SAME PROPERTY . Customers have ` been permitted to provide water service to a second and y additional residence on the same parcel of property from one water tap. Although the District , in the past , did not encourage this type of arrangement, the previous rules and regulations did not positively restrict customers from adding on a second residence to an existing water service. Upon adoption of these rules and regulations , one water tap may serve a second or additional residence providing that there is only one owner involved and one specific parcel of property, subject to the following restrictions : \V 305 . 1 As of June 5 , 1986 no additional residences may 3 7 i.y rq. I I be connected to any existing water tap without ■ the specific written approval of the District , unless the size of the meter serving the property is 1" or larger . Customers desiring approval for this type of service should request same in writing to the District . 305 . 2 Water service which involves two or more residences on the same water tap generally means that both pressures and flows are inadequate during periods of peak usage The District ' s responsibility ends at the customer ' s side of the meter yoke in the meter pit and poor pressures or flows attributed to second residences are the responsibility of the customer. I305 .3 Effective June 5, 1986 , or upon adoption of these rules and regulations , whichever occurs later , customers having second and<'additional residences will be subject to a revised rate structure which will reflect the additional service being provided The revised rate structure will only apply to water taps smaller than 1" . ,The rate structure will be established as if there' were two or more taps/residences' involved and will be in accordance with Section 15 , (Rate and Fee Schedule) to these regulations. 305 . 4 Once a customer ' s water service has been designated as having an additional residence involved , the service will remain in this rate structure indef- initely , regardless of whether the additional residences are occupied or not . In the event that the additional residence has been removed from the property , or the water service line has been permanently disconnected to the additional residence , the customer may request that their rate schedule be modified . This request will be in writing to the District. 305 . 5 In the event that the parcel of property involving additional residences is sold , so that the "one owner - one property" rule is violated, a second water tap will have to be purchased to serve the additional residence. 306 . INDIVIDUAL TAP FEES . All tap fees will be as prescribed in Section 15 (Rate and Fee Schedule) to these regulations . * * * * * * END OF SECTION 3 • * * * * * * 3 - 8 EXHIBIT 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS _ `E-------- ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC INTENSITY INCREASE Currently, Weld County Road 38 has two significant peak periods of vehicular traffic - primarily light passenger and small pickup trucks traveling to and from employment at the Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant - from 6 :30 a.m. to 8 :00 a.m. and from 4 :00 - 6 :00 p.m. Density is estimated at 30 - 50 units per hour during those peak periods. Off-peak hours intensity drops to less than 10 light vehicles per hour. During summer and fall harvest , heavier traffic of average 20, 000 lbs gross farm trucks use Road 38 and Road 13 for hauling to market. Road 15 is a typical gravel-surfaced, narrow Weld County Road that normally is graded every two weeks in dry weather. Residences are light to the north from Road 38, but school buses travel morning and evening during school months. Vehicular traffic is very light and often , during daylight hours , there is no traffic at all. Night traffic is seldom. The following represents conservative estimates of the massive increase in traffic intensity on both Road 38 and particularly Road 15. Accurate estimates of vehicular weights are given to assist in the assessment of significant increase in road/bridge repair costs caused solely by this proposed dairy - particularly to Road 15. 1. Milk Haulinal based on three times per day milking , full-head production and mature cows - (70 lb/day ) (2400 head )=168, 000 lbs/day assuming 80, 000-lb truck gross load limit , about 60 , 000 lbs (6900 gallons ) of milk will be hauled per truck round trip (20 , 000 lbs empty weight ). This will require daily three (3 ) 80 , 000 lbs exit trips and 3 20 , 000 lbs entrance trips - not the estimated 2 trips daily. 2. Bulk Feed Handling - Baled Alfalfa - Hay requirements , on a daily basis , for 2400 head of heavy producing dairy cattle approach 15-18 lbs/head/day - or an upper limit of 43 , 200 lbs (22 ton ) while corn and hay prices are depressed. Because of volume, only 18-ton can be hauled on standard semi-truck flat beds (big 4' x 4 ' x 8 ' bales average 1800 lbs/bale ). With 20 bales per truck , the daily trips for hay will be two entrances @ 56 , 000 lbs and two exits @ 20, 000 lbs for alfalfa. 3. Dry , Ground Corn (or High-Moisture Corn ) - In the dairy ration will range from 20-25 lbs per cow or a total of 60 ,000 lbs/day for 2400 cows. If the corn is ground or flaked on site , one 80 , 000 gross-weight truck entrance and one 20 ,000-lb empty exit will be required each day. 4. Silage (or Haylage ) Requirements will probably average 25 lbs per day for each cow or a total daily need of 60, 000 lbs/day. All silage must be hauled in a 30-day period during harvest in the fall , so a total year 's need of (365 ) (60 , 000 ) or 21 , 900 ,000 lbs - about 11 , 000 ton per year. Most silage - 2 - trucks in the area will haul about 10 ton or silage or a total of 1100 exit loads of 15 , 000 lbs and 1100 entrance loads ❑f 35 , 000. lbs. This is the daiLy equivalent of 3 loads of 35 ,000 lbs and 3 loads of 15 ,000 lbs daily. 5 . Other Daily Nutrients required in the ration, such as protien supplement, cottonseed , and other nutrients , will weigh about 8 lbs/day/cow or 19 , 200 lbs/day. It is assumed that the equivalent deliveries will be one (1 ) truck per day @ 30,000 lbs gross in and 10 ,000 lbs take weight out. 6. Semi-Solid Waste Product Removal - From the daily animal waste analysis, there will be a total of 97 tons semi-solid waste per day scraped and stockpiled for removal . This is the equivalent of 6 manure trucks per day out at 50 , 000 lbs gross weight and 6 trucks in at 14 , 000 lbs empty. 7. Excess Liquid Waste Removal -- Liquid waste removal on an equivalent daily basis will be 12 , 300 , 000 gallons/year , assuming no 25-year or 100-year event (see Waste Management Analysis ). This is 33, 700 GPD or 5 7000 gallon tankers out @ 80 , 000 lbs and 5 tankers in @ 20 , 000 lbs empty. 8. Stock Bedding Transport to Confinement Area - Estimates given by SCS tables and data supplied by local dairies indicate average bedding requirements per cow/day is about 7 lbs - or a total annual need of 6 , 132 , 000 lbs (3066 ton ). This requires a daily equivalent of 8. 4 ton per day or one trip entrance at 27 , 000 lbs and one exit of 10, 000 lbs. 9. From the Water Source Analysis , 60, 000 GPD must be hauled into the site. This is an average daily trip into site of 9 80 ,000 lbs trucks and exit ❑f 9 20, 000 lbs trucks. SUMMARY The following summarizes average daily inbound and outbound trips , including weighed loads and axle loadings for all increased high inten- sity traffic to the proposed dairy site via Roads 38 and 15. Routes of trucks have not been established ; but , it would appear logical for hay trucks from Southern Colorado , Nebraska , and Wyoming (which is the current purchase practice of the Applicant for their 3500-cow facility on Highway 66 ) , to come North or South Interstate-25 , Exit Mead Exit 245 or Berthoud Exit 250 , continue on the Frontage Road to Weld County Road 38 and due east to R❑ad 15 . If ear corn is also purchased out of state, because of price considerations, these trucks would also follow the same route. Road 38 is , of course, gravel unimproved for two miles , very susceptible to drifting of snow in the winter for most of the two miles of gravel , with snow depths exceeding 5 ' at times. Normal County snow plows and grading efforts will leave Road 38 impassable for 2-3 days in severe conditions. - 3 - TABLE DAILY IN/OUT TRIPS TO DAIRY ACTIVITY # WEIGHT # WEIGHT TRIPS IN TRIPS AXLES IN OUT OUT MILK HAULING 3 20 ,000 lbs 3 80 , 000 lbs 5 HAY DELIVERY 2 56, 000 lbs 2 20, 000 lbs 5 CORN DELIVERY 1 80 , 000 lbs 1 20, 000 lbs 5 SILAGE HAULING 3 35 , 000 lbs 3 15, 000 lbs 2 MISCELLANEOUS (FEED) DELIVERY 1 30, 000 lbs 1 10 , 000 lbs 2 MANURE HAUL 6 14 , 000 lbs 6 50, 000 lbs 3 LIQUID WASTE HAUL 5 20 , 000 lbs 5 80 , 000 lbs 5 BEDDING HAUL 1 27 , 000 lbs 1 10 , 000 lbs 3 EMPLOYEES 35 4, 000 lbs avg 35 4 , 000 lbs 2 SALES/VISITS 10 4 , 000 lbs avg 10 4, 000 lbs 2 MAINTENANCE 3 7 , 000 lbs 3 7, 000 lbs 2 INSPECTION 1 4 ,000 lbs 1 4 , 000 lbs 2 POTABLE WATER HAUL 9 80 , 000 lbs 9 20 , 000 lbs 5 DAILY TOTAL TRIPS 80 80 NOTE : The above reflects the readily identified traffic to and from the proposed dairy. Additional heavy traffic will be cattle delivery trucks (potts ) gross loaded in and out with up to and/or 80 , 000 lbs gross weight for the removal of spent animals and replacement with fresh milkers. This will occur every yea: replacing up to 30% of the herd or 600 head/year. With 40 head per load this is about 1 .25 trips/month for a total of 15/year . It is quite obvious from the above that this intense traffic situa- tion is vastly different than the existing "A" District zoned useage. In addition, a significant amount of tax dollars will have to be allocated for repair of new chuckholes on existing paved roads and additional road base for gravel roads as a result of massive rutting caused by 80 , 000 lbs gross weight vehicles, which these roads were not designed to handle. The danger to ancillary traffic , farm vehicles and implements , commuter traffic , school buses , and other existing traffic is enormous , particu- larly with the huge trucks and gross weights involved. PREPARED BY : R. 6. WILLSON 6--(3 6) ,--- Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 EXHIBIT F F SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24 . 5. 1 .8 - Provisions for Added Traffic. APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATI❑N 1 . Applicant does not address serious traffic that his proposed facility generates; only states entrance and exit roads to his facility and assures only 2 milk trucks and one commodity truck per day. 2. Analysis shows minimum of 160 trips per day , 51 of which are maxi- mum axle loading , 37 are medium to high-axle loading , and the balance light passenger or pickup truck vehicles. 3. The volume and weight of traffic generated by Applicant ' s proposed facility will require , as a minimum : a. Widening and asphalt paving of Weld County Road 15. b. Addition of acceleration lanes and declaration lanes at the Road 38 area of Road 15. c. Traffic signs , markings , stripping , and warnings. d. Widened entrance/exit to facility e. Establishment, by Applicant , of a Weld County Reserve Tax Fund to pay for Weld County Road and bridge damage generated by Applicant ' s additional traffic. iy / Lis.) — PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLS0N Engineering C❑nsultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS WELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE LOADING REVIEW The Applicant has not addressed the problem of protection of the public safety due to hazards he will create from the proposed facilities demand for daily increased traffic on Weld County Road 38 and especially Road #15. This use will generate high traffic volumes , large number of large , slow accelerating and decelerating vehicles , and maximum volume delivery semi-trucks hauling massive loads of hay into the facility. A summary of the analysis of traffic intensity shows the following DAILY traffic compositions of the estimated 160 minimum trips into or exiting the site : 1 . Axle loading above 16 , 000 lbs 28 trips 2. Axle loading @ 9, 000 to 16 , 000 lbs 3 trips 3. Axle loading @ 2 , 500 to 9000 lbs 37 trips 4 . Axle loading below 2500 lbs 92 trips Daily total minimum estimated trips 160 trips The Applicant does not provide any means of solving his proposed facility generated traffic problems and in particular, none of the following : 1 . Widening of Weld County Road 15 from dairy entrance south to Weld County Road 38. 2. Asphalt paving of Road 15 from entrance of dairy to Road ?8. 3. Acceleration lanes east bound on Road 38. 4. Deceleration lanes/exit lane west bound on Road 38. 5 . Acceleration lanes west bound on Road 38. 6. Deceleration lanes east bound on Road 38. 7. Traffic signs , warnings , etc. 8. Lane markings. 9. Widened entrance/exit to dairy with culverts , etc. , to accommodate wide-turning trucks. 10. Establishment by Applicant of a Weld County Reserve Tax Fund to pay for damage to Weld County roads and bridges by facility-generated traffic damage. I , PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 2400-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS MISCELLANEOUS DATA 1 . Discussion with Harry Wiediman , January 7 , 1987. Typical Dairy C❑w (milkin4) Daily Ration Hay 13 lbs Corn 23 lbs (ear or shell - ground - high moisture ) Silage 25 lbs Protien 3 lbs Cottonseed 4 lbs Miscellaneous 1 lb 69 lbs/cow/day Rolling herd daily milk production average - 60 lbs/cow Estimated bedding per cow/day (Guess only ) - 5- 10 lbs/day 2. Discussion with Francis Gregerson , January 9 , 1987. a. Has Public Health Certified Stock Well - ample for all needs. b. Fills 10 , 000 gallon net capacity storage tank 3 times per day for vacuum-pump cooling , bulk tank compressor cooling , milking equipment , and line flushing and dump surge flush of facility floors. Use for 800 milkers is 28 , 000 GPD net. c. Scrape corrals and stock piles , produces about 50 ton/day from 800 milkers - spreads solids over 300 acres on adjacent farms. d. Pumps all liquid wastes into lagoon - dilutes w/irrigation water and flood irrigates on 10D acres with reused pool- catching runoff . e. Uses 1800 bales (4 ' X 4 ' X 8 ' ) at 1100 lbs/bale of bedding straw per year - 7 lbs/cow/day for milkers only . 3. Discussion with Ed Wiedimen, January 9 , 1987. a. Water requirements - All water used is metered by City of Greeley - data of 83 GPD for 400 cows is very accurate. b. Bedding use is 480 ton/year or about 7 lbs/day/cow. c. Liquid waste is bonded , diluted with irrigation water and flood irrigates sandy soil - no acreage given - area appears t❑ be at least 160 acres. / / • PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 EXHIBIT GO 6 SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 4. 2. 3 - "USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND" APPLICANT I5 IN VI❑LATION 1 . Surrounding land use is single-family crop-production acreage , scattering of residences , high-density housing development within three miles of proposed facilities - virtually no traffic on Roads except commuter traffic to and from St. Drain Power Plant . 2. Proposed use will generate constant , daily , high-intensity traffic on Roads 15 and 38. 3. Proposed use will develop odors and polution on a daily , year-round basis, that do not occur on surrounding land. 4. Proposed use increases intensity of people , livestock , vehicular, noise, and nighttime activity (24 hours , 365 days/year operation ) many times over - none of which is produced by surrounding , adjacent land. 5. This proposed use is totally INCOMPATIBLE with surrounding land. 6. Weld County Planning Commission denied Applicant' s Request for Special Use because ❑f violation of Section 24.4. 2. 3 (reference Planning Commissioner ' s Recommendation to the Board of Commissioners dated December 17 , 1986 ). > \ —)ki PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLS❑N Engineering Consultant , B.S.M. E. DATE : January 10, 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION OF SECTION 24. 4. 2. 3 - "COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND" . The use of land surrounding the proposed dairy site is specifically agriculture row-crop production. The Intent of the District in which this land is located is also row-crop production. All of the adjacent , touching land is prime irrigated farmland production high-yield agricul- ture row crops. Many. acres of the land nearby (to the northwest ) is prime dryland crop production farmland. As far as the eye can see in any direction , there are no high intensity agri-business locations. In fact , the closest small dairy (worked in concert with row-crop production) is several miles away. A very few small livestock containment feed operations are located miles to the north or south; but , again, they , too , form an integral part of row-crop production. One large livestock feed operator is located several miles to the north ; however , it is isolated from neighboring residences , located on totally non-productive land , and, again, this facility forms a part of a large acreage row-crop production farm. This operation, with SCS designed 100-year capacity runoff lagoon , is a virtually dry operation and compares in no way with the Applicant ' s proposed facility. It produces minimal traffic and odor due to its location and on-farm grown feed. The prior use of the Applicant ' s prime irrigated farmland - which he proposes to use as a dairy site - was , again , a livestock feeding opera- tion, worked in conjunction with row-crop production on the farm, as well as row-crop production on the next farm adjacent to the west of Road 15. The sales weight of feeders grown on this farm was on the order of 750 lbs . Total water requirements at peak conditions for stock drinking , residence , and farmstead use was 7.8 GPM. Again, a dry operation with minimal odor and on-farm grown feed that required little county road traffic. It was an all daylight-hours operation, all waste disposal on-site , with no employment requirements except for father/son work , and a possible hired hand for peak row-crop production requirements. In conclusion , the proposed high intensity dairy , 24-hour operation, with its inherent high-density traffic , heavy and oversize load volume feed deliveries, odor polution , ground water polution , light polution , and large number of employees , visitors , milk trucks , and general overall activity of business , to say nothing of the very poor visual image of this very high (21 ' ) earth work berms to contain liquid waste - cannot be considered to be in any way compatable with surrounding land uses. The very act of continuous sprinkling of liquid waste on former high- production row-crop land negates any compatability. The Applicant certainly bears the burden of proof to a high degree to even begin to show any computability. SUBMITTED BY : R. B. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant , B. S.M. E. DATE : January 16 , 1987 OZ 6 a EXHIBIT SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 4.2. 2 - "USE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH , PENT OF DISTRICT" APPLICATION IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Intent of use of the "A" District is agriculture - spi :ifically , crop production and livestock production. 2. All of Weld County is Zoned "A" District , except for use areas such as Municipal Districts , P.U. D. ' s, overlay use sui as air- ports , flood planes , etc. , and other Approved "Specia. Use Revier� " permit areas . 3. The Weld County Zoning Ordinance of July 1 , 1985 , pro, des ample recourse for any applicant to define his proposed neei select the best geographical location for his purpose (consi ent with the Zoning requirements ) and submit a request for "SpE :ial Use Review" in accordance with all Zoning Ordinances and ! le Planning Commission requirements. 4. The Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan of 1973 is verN. specific in this regard, requiring location of agri-business (t It not crop production ) facilities be located in areas of Weld Cm Ity that do not adversly affect the economy or environment. 5. The 1973 Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan also requires agri- business facilities be located on non-productive rura land in order to promote , enhance, and maintain the quality ❑' life and environment in Weld County. 6. This proposed facility is therefore in violation of Si :ti❑n 24. 4. 2. 2 if located in its proposed "prime " farmland location. It is recom- mended that a dilligent search for non-productive clar 3ed land be made - such as , east of Platteville. 0 -02k73• PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consult it , B. S. M. E. DATE : January 10 , 1987 2400/120.0-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION OF SECTION 24.4. 2. 2 - "INTENT OF DISTRICT" Since the Applicant wants to locate his facility in Weld County , his proposal must address all the issues , including that ofconforming to the intent of the district in which he wants to install his facility - in this case, agriculture district - prime irrigated farmland. Since all of Weld County is zoned agriculture (with noted exceptions ) the actual use of the ground for agriculture must be examined to deter- mine the intent of the "A" District. 1. For prime irrigated farmland, numbering in the thousands of acres , 99% + of all Weld County prime farmland, is and has been in continuous row-crop production. 2. For prime dryland farmland, numbering in the thousands of acres, 99% + of all Weld County prime dryland is and has been in con- tinuous dryland crop production. 3. For virtually all of the non-productive "other" classified Weld County land , livestock production by grazing of natural grasses (sometimes 25 acres/cow) is and has been the practice. 4. A very low percentage of Weld County land (many times less than 1%) has been or is now used for large confinement areas for livestock and feeding operations or dairies -- usually on non- productive land and forming a part of row-crop or livestock production activities. 5. Since its concept inception, the Special Use Permit Review process used by Weld County requires all Applicants to situate their desired facility in an appropriate land use location. 6. Highly intense agri-business facilities such as the Applicant ' s are required to geographically locate in Weld County in such a manner as to not violate the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. In summary, the Intent of the Weld County Agriculture District is to promote crop production - both dryland and prime irrigated farmland, and livestock production on grazing of pasture-type, non-productive land. The Intent of the Agriculture District is to als.o channel Agri- Business to land and locations in the county more suitable to their impact on adjacent properties and prevent the removal of crop production or live- stock production from the "A" District. The burden of proof that the Intent of the Agriculture District is anything other than the above is on the Applicant. &t3 CJ PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON , Engineering Consultant, B. S. DATE : January 17 , 1987 EXHI BIT SUMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 4. 2. 7 - "APPLICANT MUST PROTECT HEALTH , SAFETY , AND WELFARE OF INHABITANTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD" APPLICANT IS IN VI❑LATION 1 . From the Traffic Study Analysis previously reviewed , show no provisions Applicant for high intensity , high volume , maxi- mum axle loading traffic caused solely by his proposed dairy (SAFETY). 2. From the Available Water Analysis previously submitted , Applicant ' s 1 " water tap committed by Little Thompson Water District can , during peak periods , reduce neighboring existing water tap pres- sure to a minimum (WELFARE). 3. Applicant has not provided minimum required water storage ponds for proposed dairy ' s effluent (HEALTH). 4. Applicant has not considered the IO❑-year storm runoff require- ment of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore severely jeopardizes property and life south of proposed facility (PROPERTY LOSS - PERSONAL & WELD COUNTY). 5. By placing proposed facility in center of the proposed location, the facility will disrupt historic storm runoff wasteways and divert runoff into a non-historic wasteway (Road 15 borrow pit ) WELFARE - VIOLATION OF STATE CODES ON WATER WASTEWAYS) . These major points indicate that Applicant has no significant provisions to meet the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 24 . 4.2. 7. 6\e) PREPARED BY: R. B. WILLSON Engineering Consultant , a. s.m. E. DATE : January 1❑, 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS NOXIOUS WEEDS MIGRATION - CSU/WELD COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE : In telephone conversation with Dr. Zimdaul, Colorado State University Weed & Pest Research Department , and Mr. Ron Broda, Weld County Extension Service , Pest and Weed Specialist, the following data was obtained : 1 . Both Prosso Millet and Musk Thistle are being added to the Noxious Weed List for Weed Control Districts in Weld County. 2. Pross❑ Millet , in particular, is slowly invading Weld County , starting in the north end , as a result of inter-state seed migration, from northern states such as Wyoming and Nebraska. 3. Both Prosso Millet and Musk Thistle seed are found, sometimes in abundance , in cattle forage foods such as : baled hay (alfalfa or grass ), straw, silage, haylage , etc. 4. Weed seed will pass through all livestock , without harm to germination ability , and be retained in the animal wastes. 5. Spreading of animal wastes (with week seed inclusion ) on irrigated prime farm land is the most common and prevalent source of noxious week introduction to Weld County. 6. Prosso Millet is an annual weed that spreads by producing a tremendous quanity of seed which spreads by shatter - i. e. , impact by harvesting equipment with seed distribution into equipment that moves from farm to farm and particularly by lodging in the crop being harvested. 7. Musk Thistle is a perennial weed that spreads its seed by wind to neighboring farms. 8. Neither weed can be controlled at all - except in corn fields or roads and ditches. No control is possible in forage crops such as alfalfa , grass , or haylage without destroying the crop. 9. Cost of partial control in corn , subject to corn height of 21/2 - 3 feet , is a minimum of $25. 00/acre and requires at least three spraying trips through the field. Aerial spraying , for herbicide purposes , is not possible after a corn canopy is formed. CONCLUSION Migration into Weld County of Pr❑sso Millet, Musk Thistle, Canadian Thistle , and other noxious weed seed is a very serious and economical threat to Weld County agriculture - particularly row-crop production. - z - Importation of large quantities of baled hay , straw, and other dry forages from nearby or adjacent states into Weld County is particularly detrimental. If the cycle of weed seed import - cattle feed - waste to row-crop fields - silage or forage - back to cattle feed is once started, propo- • gation of the noxious weeds to all areas of Weld County is very probable. At the present time, no Prosso Millet has moved into this part of Weld County. Some Musk Thistle has been found, particularly on irriga- tion ditches , and roads and highways right-of-ways. If the cattle waste is dispos.ed of .on non-irrigated land - or non- productive land , the dangers are minimized. Weeds, like crops , require sufficient water to thrive. The Applicant has not even demonstrated knowledge of this problem; and , in fact , is purchasing large quantities of out-of-state alfalfa and straw that have no source inspection of weed seed contamination. No documentation or proof of preventing this problem has been sub- mitted by the Applicant to supoort the welfare of Weld County. \i WW SUBMITTED BY: R. B. WILLS0N Engineering Consultant , B.S.M. E. DATE : January 17 , 1987 : EXHIBIT 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS �K SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 . Applicant has provided no written or documented proof (only testi- mony and his submitted plans ) that he can substantially meet any requirements of Zoning Ordinance covered by Sections 24. 4. 2, 24.5, and 24. 6. 2. Applicant has the burden of proof to show complete compliance of all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Lack of proof of compliance for any one Ordinance Section must be the basis of disapproval by the Board. 3. Applicant has reduced his scope from the 2400-cow dairy as proposed to the Planning Commission , to a 1200-cow capacity as a direct result of denial by the Planning Commission and opposition testimony at the Planning Hearing - possibly with the hope of getting a toe- hold in the neighborhood to help lever his position back to 2400 cows at a later date. 4. Will the Applicant again reduce his herd size to a theoretical 644-cow dairy (conforming land use) in his rebuttal period as a result of the expert witness and documented exhibits presented by the opposition? Incidentally , the actual land use area of this farm is 140 acres -- not 161 - as the Road 15 and Road 38 right-of- ways w/borrow pits , have to be deducted as well as the buildings, shops, etc. , and the Ekerkenbeck Ditch area or an actual conform- ing land use herd size of 560. 5. The ability of the Aurora Capital Corporation to operate a large, milk-producing facility has never been questioned. In fact , as far as milk production is concerned, they are one of the best in the state. The serious question of their waste management system, selection of location for their proposed dairy, and compliance of all elements of each specific reQuirement of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Use Plan, are the only considerations addressed here. 6. I ask you - Has the Applicant satisfactorily proven complete compli- ance with all Weld County Requirements? 7. Attached is a written confirmation of the availability of non- productive farmland just east of Platteville. 8. Also attached are comments made by Planning Commissioners during their voting for denial of the Applicant ' s Special Use Review Request. 9. Finally, I again urge you to contact CSU and tour their dairy and Waste Management Facilities before reaching any decision on this proposal. I promise you, it will be very enlightening and will - 2 - help dramatically in drawing together all ❑f the testimony ; and, in particular , all of the submitted documents. Thank you for your attention and patience on this lengthy (and sometimes technical ) review and analysis ❑f the Applicant ' s proposal. CQ*•••. (50 R. 8. WILLS0N , Engineering Consultant , 8. S.M. E. , for "Citizens ❑pposing Dairy" DATE : January 17 , 1987 2400/1200-COW DAIRY ANALYSIS AVAILABILITY OF NON-PRODUCTION LAND EAST OF PLATTEUILLE, COLORADO Extensive verbal discussions via telephone with Mr. Ivan Gilbaugh, Real Estate Broker and Owner ❑f Gillbaugh Realty located in Greeley , Colorado , revealed the following : 1 . Several reasonably level, non-productive grazing land properties are available for sale east ❑f Highway 85, adjacent to Platteville, Colorado. 2. One 80-acre and one 160-acre parcels have been listed for several years for sale. They are located on a graveled Weld County Road, very close to an existing large-production turkey facility , an excellent location in terms of no neighbors , available power, etc. 3. Central Weld County Water District has a very large water main feeder loop in this area; and, after discussion with the CWCWD Office Manager, it was determined that the Applicant only had to apply to obtain adequate (150 , 000 GPO -+ ) water commitment after the CWCWD Board of Directors approved the request. Line extensions might have to be run at the Applicant ' s expense at an estimated cost of $35 , 000. 00 per mile for a 6" diameter line. 4. Land sales in this generally non-productive farmland area have been well below $500. 00/acre. 5. Ample land is available for purchase to sprinkler irrigate for grass pasture producti❑n with no consequence of soil sterilization due to insufficient land. 6. T❑ Mr. Gillbaugh ' s knowledge, NO inquiries have been made about purchase of land in this area for many months. INTERVIEWED AND PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON, B. S. M. E. Engineering Consultant, DATE : January 15, 1987 • Summ of the Weld Count Plan in Commission Meeting ecember 16, 1986 Page 14 • The: Chairmancall'ed foraandiscussinn .tfrom. ,the.:,.members• -of;;wthe. "Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The Chairman reminded the Planning Commission members that since the recommendation is for denia , and the staff's recommendation is for approval, reasons should be given for their decision. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Lydia Dunbar - Yes, her reasons are very similar to the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Also, phis type of an operation should be taken into an area When a the=e nodular on andip would blend in better with other agricultural uses. Tan Gosnelj. - Yes, for the same reasons. He also feels there could be some potential traffic problems that have not been studied. Louis Rademacfiy - Yes. Because the landowners in the area are against having an operation such as this, and for the reasons outlined by Ann Garrison. Paulette Weaver - Yes. She agrees with the comments made by Ann Garrison. This may be a w ell designed___ facility, but well designed facilities must be located in appropriate_locations because as Lydia Dunbar stated, there are probab w man n t e Couni rh r is type welcome of develc a9t, but th s area, southwest Weld County, whether we like it or not is growing residentially and this type of usefts not- compatible_ with this current and utuie growth.. Holman - t son - Yau Jto A}fS ain because of a possible conflict of interest ecause he too 11 a dairyman. _Motion for denial carried with ft a vote for s and one abstainingthe motion The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Good Secretary • • EXHIBIT IT UMMARY ZONING ORDINANCE 24. 4. 2. 1 - "Proposal Must Be Consistent With Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan" APPLICANT IS IN VIOLATION 1 . Comprehensive Use Plan, Article 1 , states in part : "Agriculture must be protected. Any uses of prime irrigated farmland othen than agriculture will be critically reviewed. " 2. Applicant will take prime irrigated farmland out of production and will adversly affect the interests and use of the local affected part of the County (Reference Summarys presented on Zoning Ordinance Sections 24.4.2. 2 and 24. 4. 2. 3 ) (Article 2. violation ). 3. Agri-Business will be encouraged IF it does not affect economy or environment (Article 2 violation ). a. Drastic environmental impact to polution, traffic density , drinking water availability and other factors presented by all submitted analysis shows this proposed use will adversely impact the neighborhood ' s environment. b. Adverse economic concerns if proposed use is permitted include : (1 ) Cast to Weld County for providing widened roadways at Road 13 and Road 15. (2 ) Cost to Weld County to asphalt Road 15 for 1/2 mile. (3 ) Cost to Weld County to provide increased Public Health inspections. (4 ) Cost to Weld County to periodically inspect proposed dairy herd for maximum permitted size (2400 head of cattle total ) and to establish appropriate fines. (5 ) Cost to Weld County to establish appropriate special tax structures to assess Applicant for as yet undefined damages to Weld County Roads and Bridges on Roads 15 , 38, and 13, caused by Applicant ' s proposed high-intensity traffic. (6 ) Added burden of snow removal in this location. 4. By reducing neighborhood drinking water supplies to a minimum, creating water , air , surface, visual , and noise pollution and not locating proposed facility in a non-productive "A" district with minimal or no residences , Applicant is in violation of Articles 4 , 5, and 6 of the Weld County Comprehensive Use Plan. PREPARED BY : R. B. WILLSON 6. Engineering Consultant , B. S. M. E. DATE: January 10 , 1987 - n WELD COUNTY COMPncHENS.IUE USE PLAN - 1973 Edition Pages 48, 49 , and 50. owner to be :able to expand his agricultural activity and productivity and, at the same time , be able to take maximum advantage of the inflated land and water values. Further, these policies should provide and maintain a quality living environment for the agricultural citizens through t_ they county. The following is a statement of these policies and objectives. 1. Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County which must be pr.otected_-from adverse impacts result- ing from uncontrolled and undirected_ business, industrial and residential growth. In Qrder to maintain and pro-. mote this important segment of the county' s economy, the cultural and human values associated with farm life and the overall benefits of an agri- cultural environment, any uses of prime irrigated farmland for__uses other than_agricultural will be cri- tically reviewed to insure the pro- posed development will notadversely impact - the agricultural interests of the county and that the development will positively contribute to the over- all economy, environment and tax base of the county. -- 2 . The expansion and development of agri- business and agriculturally oriented do ustry will be encouraged, provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or environ- ment. 3 . In order to minimize conflicting land uses and minimize the cost of new facilities and services to the tax- payer, industrial, commercial, business and res dential development will be encouraged to locate adjacent to the existing 27 incorporated towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans - 48 - .. �� and stated .aS.: t-,: cf each community. Where ne:,, d,,v?.lcthin•-nts desire to locate t:. t ? .3." .... .. away f:'earn the e::. i.:;+. i.n..i tiir;.. . ..;'. .:! ..F .':s , they will be r-c.; 1 to u t-._�.t:y their d evelo III::.",1. .r' l c t..:t, d plan (Pla.'tneci + rl acc:oin panieci by an-.. . :�: _<:. . rr. 'a.ct sta In :nf. and m i e::Ji::.:. n:eh s:ri , Lilpa;:t statement p]:eT^.•cI .:i b• re,:.nun z 1. r•C1 r::xra::r ts, 5.t: u:i ,.+ 1:'. :!-:tr3...:! c; of how the propose . Prurtse<:� <<.. .. :�.o].I.tF.'.Itt': would affect the icc.- J 4nd county' s eco- nomic base, the 7.ax avenues and cot of pub+. ,' :a'.:..r.v `,e.y such as school Ott: .s i3: t.es roads and • health se='v _ <, and j:h.e immediate and longterm impat on the existing e.ItviroIlinent.. 4 . jr't3causC c._?G�Ju;t". Lc .. •. I es cl;:e essential fe:r a. .,:'�._::+ ?.i :.: i.i proauct.ion, cie i.opme it. will !.>e encouragclq c:bti.0 its necessary water:' from sent,:c:: w'", :-:h are consid- ered no.ries 3en1 :i. 1 Ic the ;maintenance of agricuP.Iu'.-:tit pr' th , ..io.f:, in the par•- ti.cular ar.ea.,. in suI ,•err:t of this con- cept, highest i;.ri_c,i.-ies will be given t') thog-e d.cv ;'.o..'m.. :its Lh t. have low rates of watr• r:,,; rumpt.ii: pur- suit pu suit o` o 3 ! tive19, it. will be the policy to :b t... ii i i from those d.a_::CE: _ . n c -� ..,":.r: 7:1?source L_L'Ce ago n- - . w =.r t ... r= .. .fit +? 1:. and con- trol the `r as� er of %e.Lr proper ties • 5 . Lec.:c,I,use :'ater; air an(% ruxface peal - lut on a n o? vzta . c:•nr:.ern to all res.c 1c≥nts of the cc ';.11/ ,, the state and the nation, it will •)e: the policy to encourage only those eevelopments that can show that they wi:J not con- tribute adversely to pollution ; or if they do contribute to the pollu- tion problem of the area, that they are prepared tc either build appro- priate control devices at their own' . expense or will pay sufficient 4<3 - revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper 'treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system. 6 . In order to promote the agricultural economy and to enhance and. maintain_ the quality of life and environment in Weld County, developments that utilize nonproductive tural land and water surpluses will be encouraged,_ particularly where productive irri-- gated farmland can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts and oPen space. Construction in flood plains, seep areas, geological fault areas and other dangerous or undesirable build- ing environments will be discouraged. However, development of these same areas as parks, recreation areas, water and land reclamation areas , sand and gravel sources, commercial feed lots, and areas for hunting, fishing and other activities which contribute to the economy or improve the environment will be encouraged. 50 I EXHIBIT WEATHER HI Lo L_ L L December 10 -7 December 12 43 3 December 12 43 13 i December 13 38 10 December 14 44 18 December 15 44 18 December 16 49 20 OFFICIAL LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR WELD COUNTY 250 1ljjj1c: IN I I �� p �wr I 'Si i :ir ', i1�� ii,� e ,, Johnstown THURSDAY Weld Co., CO DECEMBER 78, 1988 illiken Area Since 1904 Vol. 82 No. 47 Paving work continues despite winter , Although the paving is over for this annexation. winter season, there is still lots of ❑ Trustees passed a budget and work being done in Milliken's $1.54 appropriations for 1987 which includes - million street paving project.All curb, a general hind of$262,950;water fund basecoat,utilities and sewer,and most of $175,827; capital improvements grading, have been completed on the fund of 81,085,205; conservation trust "m P2, gJ i Np p fund of$12,121; and the policeman's south side of Broad Street, according t a report to the board Oct. by pension n fand of According e- 4 engineer lisp mai Work it signs,d towg Gayle sets a v«- r di t s4 new multiple mailbox units and burger, the budget `represents a very a /S. tight budget."We have basically cut to m^�,,, 3} yp• finishing work are now being donego•' R. over i the as cold months Grading and the bone to add oraisingt prkeep hy e ' .:+ tot a Y. .. 3'* drainage a been the water on the taxes." The board chose s. keep the south side and all the water will go 1986 levy of 31.250 mills. S "k where it's supposed to go," said Also approved was the transfer of Couch. in the spring unpaved streets $27,939 from the general fund to the will be regraded and work will be Police department for salaries. That , Ja finished up. money is the last of the town's 4'7 The winter months will also give revenue sharing funds Couch and the board rime to go over The 1986 budget was also emended *l-. t n_ s just what else needs to be done and to reflect unanticipated expenses ` how much it will cost to do it before within the police department,$160,822 ` work commences in the spring. "The for water lone and equipment repair ' way it looks now is that we're pretty and$1,075,091 for costs in the$1,52 \ - much on track (with expenses)," said million street improvement district. Couch. "We don't expect too many Monies for the transfers have been at ` surprises on the north side with obtained by the street project bonds, • y4t. construction in the spring."Construe-Construe- the revenue sharing funds transferred , lion will also begin on Special to the police department and from a 1, ... Improvement District No. Three, in revised projection of revenues for the conjunction with the State Highway water fund. Department,to rework Hwy.60/Broad O 108 acres of land by Hwy. 257 St and give the downtown sector a and Weld County Road 54,belonging Slit, new look. to Edith Hankins,could be subdivided, 1 Board members, at their meeting, but should be annexed into the town , gave approval to a $171,652.35 of Milliken so that proposed develop payment to Best-Way Paving ment of the property could be Company for work done on the paving monitored by the town. That is the Y project to date, and paid Couch the recommendation that the board will 1 fail rest of his total amount due on the make to the Weld County Planning ,p}4 ll, - n project, $11,435. The council also Commission concerning a request by approved $20,390.23 worth of con- agent Ramon Moore in behalf of Mrs. ,traction changes by Best-Way. Hankins. The request would be to Jennifer Grable, 6, visits with Santa. The jolly O A petition will be prepared for subdivide the property for develop- circulation which could get the ball ment and Moore said there would be old man in red made his appearance Saturday at rolling toward a vote determining no problem with annexation if the the Chamber of Commerce Christmas promotion. whether or not Milliken will have town wanted it liquor sales for consumption on the ❑ Approval was given to a 1987 premises — allowing drinking nub-contract with the Weld County Charlotte bridge finished,paperwork continues . lishmenu in town. A petition signed Humane Society for emergency con- by 15 percent of the town's registered Vol of animals, if needed. matter of borrowing to pay for the ekcton could repeal the prohibition O The town board will be the Johnstown trustees met in special bridge. created in town since the 1950s. applicant agency for the Milliken session Friday afternoon to work on Trustees present at the meeting The board is seeking repeal of the Sanitation District's application for the matter of paying for the new (Debbie Arndt and Jim Vohs were not ordinance which bans liquor con- EPA grant hinds and Gayle Packard- $40,000 Charlotte Street bridge. The in attendance) voted by ordinance to sumption in drinking establishments Seeburger was given authority to sign town hired Western Construction, transfer $40,000 from the water fund because of the possible annexation of the grant application. The saotatton Inc.,of Greeley,to build the concrete savings account to the general fund so the Ehrlich Mad Russian Restaurant, district has applied for funding to box bridge and it was finished two that the bill from Western can be paid which is currently outside town limits build a waste water treatment facility weeks ego, but financing has not yet before the end of the year.The board ❑ The council o to send a to increase the town's sewer treatment been completed. will then complete the purchase,if it is letter to the Weld County Planning capabilities and to meet state regula- The bridge because was deemed okayed at the special hearing, by he i bons. an emergency because of advanced securing a bank loan to repay the lit Commission opos d as stating that properly O Dan Gonzales of 310 Harriet deterioration of the structure and the r Roads 15 and a dairy at enoughWeld County water fund savings t account balance, { m 38 is farnot away asked the on hi o assessment faces wl done chose to have the the heiditch which now stands at 81006 through gh p from town limits as to impact beGreen done f his house,not be eh done low. the water level in ditch budgeted of the loan will moncoies s Milliken. The board made no recom- with(which side paved)s. was low. Now the ht construction finding n is through generasal fund and ple. d eodatiofn for either acceptance m but a street address. finished,however, board is any that nts to the people. dmiai of a special use permit by Gonzales' house, and several others, that a loan cannot be secured until A date for that hearing has not been } Colorado Dairy Farms. The 2,100 has a side street address and is being there has been a public hearing on the set. f bead proposed daisy operation k only assessed for the side street paving Ia few mile from the Milliken Wilda[ while Green St will not be paved. 1' lt, in Z z I. �i I 1., / , , 1 41 b, 4ini _Typo O i i r' 1 _ , I ` x o L. 3 Nv. 'I ci a - 1 I I,: C- J f n L - - ---- 1 . : I t1 1 1 1 I 6e. ^ C', •, :� - yN N •m �� : �/ n V WI a g y w _ .•.mss ._�_ - z _ - ° Z ii I MP N . l�' o e 306 M ` 3 [u ' Q {: •p• Oty I..l W �E , 0'�s�� e '� O1 w ' i� "1 . M v z a I 3 K, w3 I� Q ## ZU a Q _ i., Z 4 Z T. .I l 5I, QdOa t,i l } "11 ti 1 V1I\\`^. _ - +.;.... -gym` i l 'ill ' ; I ; i,.I ,I9 p• $ 52 CC i C ) `''a & o 45/S c ' W cc/O O die �: Ye D -------.--- in *+ )co •••• •*: , r /7 ...E.t.. 3:: nz . i \_ � Y 3 e ) ... ,„ I 59 73 --.., il s9 \ \ ° \••/p a b a1 C'�iOl 3w l •, rtD :la f W 1 Pc‘i /tl o is - j , 1 %* r4; L/osnLJ6d",t <i 'AN O g1 IDIar ri 3 ,N ` ~ U -,Y it1 'hl<174.,�� 0 v� `Jib Q cv p� N II 1 4 C) Za 61 o �� X rwh ] a a � r ya 4 ` F 96- E77 d6 -e17 k 2 PN. ':' (it ( aiN ,9 �I Nh01 �, + o� N 4 N w> 2 [ ; m M I� O J W O 0 4) F Lk d h N iri.:.vSv-w cc-F .- L 1O "1"dig? *9AOSF .anodS Ie� kittil D 4,I 1 Qo-- 1 I N) p O h n m V, �m p � cc; c 3 � 0m O 0 "; ...) ,:z3 , V ) e _ inQ — v > RN LJ "9 `^�u ` ti fEg0 =" 7 � x'10 C Vl ^ N cdz n 4 u`) a.... ..-; .., b ..�%� �i Q D6-E11 c •E n W sV � N �I , Pr) i ' ki_p l' u f— 11'4 tl C i I W Q (h N r, ' �m� J \ - r EXHIBIT J ,n -1 u h = I ,, 5 F ♦ 99,. EOC-__ . z 9- ' OE *-- c.i to ui///J i ,r•,) /^� - 40S�BItU1� 0 /� \\ Ill AYOJO,y' !�Ifh 01 �I J\ 1 i EXHIBIT +. •..lam i.i � � \ al: \'IC'. .5. ... 1 • jU J Q_n . \ a 5. 3 , \ 3C' _ . \ .'5.r-7-, 3('M 1_ ,�7 cri 0.2c-.. 1GJ$ 3- 3. M . , ,,\,..,.. . V'' '..6.."3 . 5 ,,---.s\ s_<,?,.,c,,:<--.1 , -, CC, e.5. - -7 . v�m 3 Jl 5 _ .seer-, c: 2-; \`-)64- 4 . Q Q ..-...5 (2;, ul ig 84- _ 5r at. .6Qcn - Q .-) c3(:)c--) c- _ . ..1984- - . 1 - .3e c‘-‘ • . 3- . 3e,c-, 1 '? � c-� viz G Cx' _ _ - \.s ue _ 4. c5c3c,n _ P 1 5 . 9cr► cs, . _ .... ‘5121-(0, . _ . . 3.1 __ . _ . ._ .1 .55 .53c-n . t Oc:sr _ _.\...G. .l • 1. . . O , c..„..?,,-, _ _n. . . . _ 1913'7. .0. 8 crcYl. °'{' .tea . ___\_ ___.\-....1r7.-_ _ cl> _ .0 5 o mss- O EXHIBIT 0OO LIND & OTTENHOFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE LAW BUILDING (Oil ELEVENTH AVENUE P.O.BOX 326 GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 GEORGE H.OTTENHOFT TELEPHONE KENNETH F.LIND (303)3531323 January 19 , 1987 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR-770: 86: 51 (Aurora Capital) Dear Chairman Lacy : Pursuant to the testimony given in the above referenced application on Wednesday , January 14 , 1987 ( and , presumably , additional testimony to be given on Monday, January 19 , 1987) by Mr . Robert Willson , this office had an opportunity to review certain State Statutes concerning the registration , licensing and the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado . Our investigation determined that the right to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado is a privilege granted by the State of Colorado through the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors requiring ( among other things ) examination , admission and the issuance of a Certificate of Registration , being a license to practice engineering in the State of Colorado (See C .R. S. 1973 12-25-101 ) . A Certificate of Registration and license means the formal legal permission to practice engineering as granted by the State Board. The practice of engineering is the performance for others of any professional engineering service or work including ( among others ) consultation , investigation evaluation and planning . (See C.R.S. 1973 12-25-102 T8) and ( 10) ) . Additionally , C . R . S . 1973 12- 15- 105 states that unless an individual is licensed in Colorado it is unlawful for any person to use the word "engineer, " "engineered , " or "engineering" in an offer to the public to perform the practice of engineering. Copies of the applicable Statutes are attached to this letter for your reference. Based upon the testimony given by Mr. Willson , this office caused a transcript of that testimony to be transcribed and a copy of the first five pages of that transcript are attached for your reference and appropriately highlighted concerning statements by Mr. Willson. Board of County Commissioners January 19 , 1987 Page 2 Specifically , at Page two , lines one and two, Mr. Willson was introduced as "Our engineer" . Immediately thereafter , at Page two , lines twelve through seventeen , Mr. Willson stated that certain neighbors (the public ) asked Mr . Willson as a "consulting engineer " to review the proposal . In other words , certain members of the public asked Mr . Willson to review, investigate and evaluate the application from an engineering standpoint . Furthermore , at Page three , lines six and seven , Mr . Willson specifically stated that his testimony was to perform a "engineering review" . Mr . Willson further indicates that he performed an "engineering analysis" at Page three, line thirteen of the transcript . Shortly thereafter , Mr . Willson again referred to himself as a project engineer and engineering consultant at Page four , lines fifteen through eighteen . Finally , Mr . Willson specifically stated that he intended to address the "technical scope " and the "engineering " of the applicant ' s proposal at Page five , lines twenty through twenty-three. Quite clearly , Mr . Willson is representing himself as a qualified engineer in giving public testimony and by investigating and evaluating the application he is specifically engaging in the "practice of engineering " as defined by the State of Colorado. Based upon the transcript and applicable State laws , the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors was contacted on Friday, January 16 , 1987 . It was determined that as of 3 : 00 p . m. on January 16 , 1987 , Mr . Willson is not currently registered in Colorado as an engineer and has never been registered in Colorado as an engineer. Furthermore , Mr . Willson stated that he was a "certified consultant" at Page three , lines sixteen and seventeen of the transcript . This office then had occasion to contact the Commission for Certification of Consulting Engineers of Colorado . As of 4 : 00 p . m. on Friday , January 16 , 1987 , it was determined that Mr. Willson was not listed as a certified consultant. Based upon this information , the applicant must therefore object to Mr . Willson ' s investigation and evaluation of this application as an expert engineer . Obviously, you can consider his comments as a citizen but you cannot consider them from a Board of County Commissioners January 19 , 1987 Page 3 technical or engineering viewpoint as Mr. Willson is not entitled to engage in the practice of engineering in the State of Colorado as defined by Colorado State Statutes. Very truly yours , LIND TTENHOFF Ken eth F. in KFL/cg Enclosure HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I OF WELD COUNTY C f 1 A public hearing was held , pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning ordinance , commencing at 2 : 00 p . m. on Wednesday , January 14 , 1987 , in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County , Colorado , Weld County Centennial Center , 915 10th Street , First Floor , Greeley , Colorado , concerning the Matter of the Application of t Aurora Capital Corporation , Docket No . 86-82 . 4. This is a transcript of the presentation of Robert Willson given on this date , which is to be continued on January 19 , 1987 . COMMISSIONERS PRESENT : 5!: : Gordon Lacy , Chairman nti Jackie Johnson Gene Brantner Frank Yamaguchi Bill Kirby APPEARANCES : For the Board : Bruce Barker For the Applicant : Kenneth Lind For the Opposition : Thomas Hellerich Barbara Billings , CSR 800 8th Avenue , Suite 315 Greeley , CO 80631 ,y+a 356-3306 Page 2 1 MR . HELLERICH : I would like to call our 2 engineer , Mr . Robert Willson , and his testimony .will take 3 more time than the other speakers . 4 MR . BARKER : Will you have any exhibits? 5 MR . WILLSON : Yes , I will , and I will request 6 exhibit numbering at this time . Mr . Chairman , 7 Commissioners , Mr . Barker , and friends and relatives , or 8 neighbors , that are still with us here , my name is 9 Robert Willson , two L ' s , 4200 Weld County Road 38 , 10 approximate distance three miles west of the proposed 11 facility . 12 Shortly before the planning commission ' s 13 hearing , my neighbors came to me and asked that I sort of 14 get involved . I really wasn ' t too aware of this , and as 15 we got involved , they ultimately asked Alit. as a 16 consulting engineer , to simply review the applicant ' s 17 proposal with respect to the applicable Weld County lb documents , and of course , it has been mentioned there are 19 two principal documents , the Weld County Zoning 20 Ordinance , latest issue , July 1 , 1985 , and of course , the 21 1973 Comprehensive Use Plan , which is the overriding 22' document rather than the 1986 plan . 23 This has all been previous testimony . I had 24 documents hand--carried to each of you as commissioners , 25 including Mr . Barker , the attorney , with copies of my Page 3 1 transmittal letter . It ' s dated January 10 . This 12 document is in your packet , but for purposes of the 3 exhibit , I would like to re-enter it , even though you 4 have copies of it . 5 The letter refers very briefly to the 6 opposition . My request for approximately a half an hour 7 to 45 minutes of testimony as an engineering review , it 8 includes the summary of those areas of it -- I can ' t read 9 my own notes here -- the summary of the zoning ordinances 10 and those specific sections that the proposal as 11 submitted in the case folder are in violation . 12 It also lists the data source list of all the 13 information that I utilized in my enyineering analysis_ 14 and it covers two pages . I ask that be entered as part 15 of the written testimony . 16 And finally , my credentials as a certified 17 consultant , just apparently since everyone does , I will 8 give you a very brief background , even though this data 9 is available to you . I have 20 years of experience in agricultural 1 rowcrop production and livestock production , and current operation has been anywhere from two to three hundred acres . I have had six years as a research and design engineer with General Electric Nuclear Facility at Hanford , Washington , in which I specialized in waste• •.,, Page 4 1 treatment facilities , lagoons , soil contamination , and i 2 nuclear production systems maintenance . 3 I have nine years of combined experience with 4 two corporations , Martin Marietta Corporation based in 5 Denver , Colorado , as missile launch systems installation , 6 ground support system . I have additional experience with 7 Chrysler Corporation at Cape Canaveral in which I was the 8 engineering manager for Chrysler at their launch vehicle 9 complexes , and my staff generally , for a few years , went 10 up to 45 accredited engineering personnel . As a result , 11 I was responsible for the design and installation of 12 Saturn IV B , Appollo launch , tower support systems , 13 ground support equipment , waste retention ponds , and all 14 other related systems . 15 I have nine years ' experience with Hensel 1G Phelps Construction Company here in Greeley , Colorado , as 17 my base , as a construction manager , project engineer , and 18 engineerinaiconsultant . In the aggregate , the principal 19 projects that I was totally responsible for included 50 :0 million dollars of work at Eastman Kodak in Windsor , 20 : 1 million dollars ' worth of construction at Stapleton International Airport , 12 million dollars for a hotel and office building across from the airport , 6 million dollars ' worth of a Veteran Hospital in Boise , Idaho , and at the Aurora Mall , 7 million dollars ' worth of Page 5 1 compressed construction schedule designed with J . C . 2 Penney ' s , and finally , treatment , water treatment plant 3 for the City of Greeley , that ' s located near Fort 4 Collins , and the aggregate value of that is 5 one-and-a-half million dollars . 6 I am currently a full-time farmer , but I 7 continue to provide engineering consultant work for the 8 major construction companies in the area upon request , as 9 well as steel fabrication . 10 I think that probably covers qualifications , 11 and I ask that an exhibit number be assigned to that , l2 Mr . Barker , if you would , please . 13 MR . BARKER : It already has . It ' s noted as l4 Exhibit Y . 5 MR . WILLSON : Thank you , sir . I prepared , hopefully , a very brief summary on the proposal , because 7 we have been here a lot of number of hours and we have h heard expert testimony and other testimony , and I would like to just kind of get started . I will address simply the technical scope of 1 the applicant ' s proposal , the substance of the applicant ' s special use request proposal , and his engineering , and of course , the data that was given to us today which we will have to adjust my figures somewhat in dropping it from a 2400 to 1200 head facility . N _s :x E= a =N n n ., c r,n y n Do > DA Y C >'7 "J Y " Y C t.. O -C 5 173— CO• O yl V C _cc L = L Y 0 L 9 > r L 3 C Y C V - a n •L .,J L n. Lr.. > > r _c n L G LA -, s �.0L c Y t Y Lc.. C to Y > Y 1-1 Y > Y Y ° L C " E L. L -s rl !II r 1IIt • 7CC E ! iiT !' a. L1l -0 CY fluij c Y > Y .E - i 7 ° ❑ C . c CS 'J'J C= L T i. G.C T O2 .J j Y '„ C .�.. N C C• Y L L C , L -0 E >, +# _ C O C- _ U 0. 9 � ,C Tr 0n_ 0 >.v Y j - 3 C ° C U = Y.a -1Oa �96�-r L.+ ° -a -. ca -, ,E ,. 0., V -0U _ ,_ 0O O � > >E 1) :a 0sca - L = c.) = o ry n O Y 4 ._Thn L C. Y n GA > Y ` .. = 5 a 7 Y Y -C. n . C 0 E T a a 2 - u �a Y O L 0 ° C =o� _4 N ? c'C �_ � - : E ° C O C 0 0 LE � C ic�' '�ea7� 'tb. L. .°n CC ° .= � GVY nUL J � .a! ° Lcz 'i. �. ., 0 '�_ Yon 3 ,0 A . O c „ cu - 3 O '- Y .C Doc 0 n • 1.- - rl ,w O > u 's90A=c=a- — .to Ev s `—' Cana CE E .44ELz 0. = :° c — _ o > c = O.cyy >0 QC 2 Cp C. V CI > > CO C .wY = Ca) •0 '0 r "' aalnOtan F. . 0. c 0 a V O h > A 0 C O a F V L L c Yez, o t .G Y C a L a O O (C - ` Ca. - N 15 > .-0 VN .0 Eecc ,n O n y . vet") E :e O c V cc()(4:0 ° c J E t Y y a�l e " CI C L L > 0 i O o„ S V = N V O u 0 vu 0 " DAL .� :C Y a 3 i._ ^ g5 � c o "� cc i, -ci- 7 .E CI N ',u, � ,�.. . COo� ;sqF' _ c � C.Y0 Y i � o.L per u .'7 ..0 > YO OE ° >, u _ n o cc — a Gy = va :a - o > Y V a . 2 a Y Y a) E N L et--5 3 5 0 : --e - U .-'o t o y _ 'r , U > Y - . 'w a 'o l a E m.` 0 ° " s '-.2 C.0 E c - L Uw - b J c Y ., -, E ,'A. > o C m a „ n o . C O 0L ., Co.C 0 O UI'�"-• .. -Cum N s .. 2 eu C „ U E c o m < Y n n o. c •via Y` c . A Y c ^ ca .•L ° c s L _ -to N t n . h' a Ea " T.-`0 `u -0 c''' n .l? aa - cEUc - o _ R °.ECttocr°'oE ' E r ° cc. c., >. oN9 c � c .2 H sclvc cy cY 'Yca'-' a „ .- ._ uY Lccn '�' YEc Y V U 3 9 V r0 v a „ — w :a n Do E V Y X c c c Do 1.. — Y Y DA U „ -a c c 1 E .- o ° 3v = acv = ., ao ocnEEQu : v � a .3UE - v .,- - ° cs "° 'v : .° : " tau cc u s2 = ° 7, .C a) G Do.— L ._ C0.` Oo 00 V >" - " >cv V Y Y c •1.. Le :a C C U C a " 1.. ° z n3 aret7 E •2 -" ,c . CI u E c Y G .C r co Y . . o u ... s- 0 g t � 5- G ` v u 0 ,- I,' a`C U a• `Y v 0 0 Ea 3 a Dot r ` C. CI `o _- r, '- .y ' Y `o u V a p.., C-. V G C .r 0 c Y 0 c m o.. c .0. C U G 0 Y - v -' .., c 0 ,._.13:,= ,-€1. ,..- - 0 c C c e A a o C N 3 O" V. ." ` Do ° y a Do'O .E F0' 00 -' 0) 0 ,, U n u •O .-c 7 .E Y .n D9 n CS L - 'n E C A O E a 3 0 C O a Y '0 Y C V O c c Do a - Y c fA G ,a L e GL- L C e '. fi :.i O - y ? Vu 0] 'oU CYWn WcCW 'o a-a c as YG :a ° F ,a c .. <..., WY ,- o ' a -0 -`, .. .e, c e in : C : - C : 0c "0 : C °' : Y Q 1.. ca U 1_ F' t L . Do W 0 : E a' c E DY = ct .. :ic in c SC _ Y - ` OC t o - nuic00 = -a -' tC ` `tP `� F' o - c70C ; _ ` .-. 00 _,G _ Y -L L -�J - C 'CL =L E7 p. r- Y L i - Y i .] - CI S- ; r 1 ' J - C T L' _J v -] ] . � L 7 U :4 V J •� •7 � C.C S C 1-. - V x . - . " Y a c _. i r c. i i `_- -, L .�, c. , u St : _ .. -1 Y ti .? c c ^ .1 V - -1 r1 - ' = c c - .. 3 e C .. 'J.. e _tt at _ N e �. 0 E 7 = sE � rs - O _ _ 2 . V -ie °1 m O ` .. 0 X aSv h e C.s col o I 0 V - O V J V 'J o c. G e •^.. '4 l 'W „ aP a r V.- c - V I O ��= v- J = o a v I. r0� E a 0 o Q u 3 c E o - o 0 o C ._ t v 7 .`^ ' o 3 n m C - ^l 0 ... m `O o 0 o V -- = a C.- c A. 0.- '- CC > .. O0. oUE' O Two C00� 0C0u 0.- ^ `a „ ..fin ^C! Er, > . N O O .� C O a a O C T O C C O C I ' C >. O L > a c V E N a o-C x a O E o-o o 8 I c m y ^ ..i, E a c . `- - u - v a o - 3 u S O „ .u - u c aa - < > a -3aEoau `av4o na cl.--. .0.a.-0 t_9CIAn 0 ;,_ ,.., > c - y .O a '3 v a• ce 00 0 1 EE m I O n 0 o r . co a e c :a a s_ a ti t- a E ` o _ .' C am „ -• o e — . 7 x O a o c O a e-"- a .. c'--- o V V o E 0 9 3 C ,- Ci a c „ az b ti 0 a W k. C A. In ❑ < W O' W O' J fl.d a` i- O ,E , o 0 y...1°` DA 1 4• n C .C V V U <a Or. = —N n< v, .o r- x -a 0 — N ,n v h.o r 00 of = NZ Q GOO ri N N N N N NN N N N N NNN N N n 9 _a n ; C Y L - NNNN N N N N NN N N N N NNN N ^." yC o WQ v a • U ] V V - 'J E N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N — W J ` O = C ct cG Iz� o • ;c° ��y CO) .C. C V 4 2 . L I L O 0 C C N C .O (a v c . V (n L u N C .°s E o a = C c . i° . iL 0 o 0 z '"� y C a `0 a -. �.,, c 4 `o o d o v . 'N W te 3 },.: c u gym, ; E s . I H cl y o 1=-0 2 e u o c. a 0 o � •'� :p L "Zr N E O N `_' .'m VEv- V c u c Va •i 0. < y 0. `n c ou o A u u ` E9 •• u O t.. o c o a .'O .� x,:! hv ti m � � E 0 a °,,o, o ` `o u0a - ay':. o a-y In -..v, 0 s? uia _ oa > oe•2e ` ° oc ° C °>, u c ` c ua0 c 112 t 'Iv c c E V,c V.E > ≥ F [Wcl cr.= o`oe aW `m � i° • cut' 4 u � c4 •c=v ° `o I a c >. o LI; ' N ' c`a vin.e or. a 00 . 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 V ott o V o E W oDu:u. rn a u) o< L1 a al a :.l Lc. o. E A. . G . 6'0 c ym,F c o i:4 o O ':rn u m - i v r 00 Cl"o - ri r+ , . r 00 0: ljl G t0. cca c L ' @ o ac E°' 0000 0 0 0 0 0 — — N c m v c a o ° a IA a = h h h v, LA n ry v, v',d, •v, h v'i -.n h v,v, v, ry N > G G O E a o N O > a. 1 1 !04 N N N N N N N N 1 N N N ° <9 V n' . ` V C C 1 A A A A N N A A A A N N N N A ,"' G - 3 5 A. — — .. Y ,a ° NO v c u V v u L -. 3 = C ,•—o° o .L.: = C t C 7 c`i, C c • t.., C N ..,-vn F — = a O v — O c - r G O v 3L r _� > y y 2 o- -CrE c ° m a -a a w > L . >, V_ — - u r r n -0 -o -� _ _ � 7 ❑ Juo -t .. z V 'j Lv C " .CL c 1 U CL o C T t' . U L E L O v - L — v a C ,a a -8. .U. c. c c J . r - J ▪ _ .tL- m G c. `,- 'J r' U '- o O .-.. C _ C v n t C - L c - :.' 1-1 1 C J. > E. O G u " C • ,_ -, a - O r C -- = .7 u -J rs� n LvpL a v, 'En u ❑ - 0 � E0.z . cv - yc _. _ O U v n U 3 L O N V -s u O R a U • 7 .� 7 - a -- .v, v U L a) V c R - „p„ a a-' v >, o v v J > J ? C c p 6 -- V L O C L - L 4' ❑ m U L. ... tic a 3 t' L - ^J 'L c a 1, ' a a ,_ .s, O 'J ." 0 E 0 02%c c v C L:. L _., C 1 - ^ G L L O _ C O C L o T v• aa) L O :L .. p -7. C '0 'E .. '� L v = •C 1-•.O '`' 'y uL c O `c C• L .n U'' ti .^ = nL :0 V "� L C �Lin - m"' ,V 3 C_ a d. La 'Ls M C O V A C p n C 3 .... L y y c • V ` 5. U_ > A _ > " .C ` y -DU ''"' 5CL CrCv .Oa `. L .C �' ` v ov • = .,, 4 E n t C C a C 1_ E O O C IU-, .O L., N ca ^J v) v O .O ^ a.En > E -a v ^O ,a V a �a Cr T p a R 5 _ 6 w u 3 ❑ C A L ° C p r O c n. % .C u r .1- c C 7 E .1, ym Lo c c u R v u "� u 'cnu J r-0 - v c a. o ._ .. = `- _' v u o >,.= v :n aa) o _. o Jo " �- n N Loo L, o. o v v t ` - C Q - o c _ V O O - F NE R LO C •" = O *, O. "Cr" • i ... 0 R O p y R p v m n y O A V .1-• t. L L L v. c .Z ca. W-) a Cam r-1 N .Cado Eus .ct--.: c ❑ vmo °' L „ soE3 T. O T p -c .O O c 0 - C m ❑ O n � C - D O U C L " ..C CO y V0 v v v E v L O v aL. - a C 'e r T ti > G0 > v U N V R '•"' v L v C — y _ . 'L r 9 :204) 0. V W '_- '- ._ — Em v — E R L -o ._ '^?o mL L L m o v 3 ❑ v c o c• '.- v c ; C ii :6 0VAL a tCo d LOC .V vc5 aLL va.Cc O. 3 ,7 'c3 G etc▪ d o E `t o o E >. .., o R ° '^ -'. 4" .° c i 02 u cE ` c •v vEL m � r Ls y u com — - - OvaaLv = cL � N = OO 'ba• v .C p. ---0L3tct': ,- LO� N .7 0o0 3c a .. = I:- _ E a a 3 'u '- .a E'2, a uLw v c _ Vus — tic) w u ° c o ° o. m c avi p t E on O O 4 L O .. A T ¢ y i = 0 4v .W :d C O p C v ' s_ Y a ,C b = O xR. 33rv " 3CR co � a • nt- 0G E ° Go ,v, oyr' �n3aE � c .? � uocu u W ,� L :n .`-f` w a 1.... c m YY VC"C. Eta L O R a'O C m �' T Cm U O p .0 C W '1 E v c c `' u C n O ..'� v p Cr. O v • U a v C R R a O .� v a' 9 � = .• ° 0o „uc„ Lo ` oo02ua " a`, �S zwocvovvc `vv � E � ccoou - 5 E ° ae Lv v c A v vv � ,-,'-• ou` o v t N r � n. L ? ` : ; m y .E cat. L o c v —'‘0` a m a n yp ' a � La. aa. c ma R3 La ¢ o0 - t C tia nc7. ' c u'` L o N -1'tL R L• ; C H w _ O C _t.._ -` U T_ ; '�'-^- N Vd. U o C L C R V J C U w ! I) �u .- U _ y 1 .1:4 ^ ...._J L ` C -J C V y C_ C4 V L R 8 �I Cr•C '� V '1 GL ` a ,- L ,U c C c c - � !_ r. L Y . L= LS S c 5 . . - .. . - �1 10 E V C 3 J Y - Y i C L " J 4... C S U - L 1 .: v f 1 3 L y % ! ? j . v J ; E A I E - " J L y E C E - ; V C C o c - U _ u r .o- °� 5t(, c o - C E v cL .) c • c' r m� CO 1. 7 - Lp v L C U 8';�£ .hut 0 $ ? - L •a ra c j gj r o C o .C - . c . m R •r { :e e c v , 3: c v E C O o _ c _ ` � � aJ m� .C cl > ULVN. qy 'CL k, g .� JO � rm�.070 ,_ �',- i 1=tw C.7 C LCC. R w R 4: a a U C,U >•':- .' 1' ':.vii J u.C N u ` J .U.. CrCwj 7 0 C� �r, ✓ a 0 O w rn O .C • .. a R L O C C L m a /to L. .474 71 v C roc vp y a � 3 - {: .pc0o•:° ocRn'a._ o c-= ° ° .7ve m jp C o. v v C O C L C m : C m ,n •C u._ a_ .. ' 7 v e•-•1 c'- C o N 'Ft, 3 v 'N ti.) > c C "c o • { 'a ,,,,. A R o E.c = N 0 v al o- .E y u5 � L,,, v N a m v R x a O T-• L "O C v v :45 t n L V C a v > i L U w Y ca .vi, O 0 'O 'C D u a'- ;� C y N L U t v L , J R p L C �, y i' L 'DLit 'C C C O p v o L C v O ' L T rj T ' i a._ V v O w a) ,111-0 v y L p C o v 'C L too) C a C - O m-C L ,1 v, t: c H U 1 v R U c c o C c c c -2 o o U M t > u o p 3 p p L L C 0 r T OU L Y � L L L . ] L y u a v m a O O 'CU'G0 � � o� L .c. a' Ea ° o . _ 1 L as La °'> >�� 3 c v aL' cvC. .,., n ,, u `c° c ovC c >` �_ �, uu a c T -. .`? yH vo `: �, 'o C T RC °' c 0 0 0 . '� 0 " O C 7 O C S .1'�' 0 0 •0 V O d '^ .� " O 'C L v L .v- Eau, 9 O C R 0 1/1 VI C Co - p - 11 v 0 " L O , 1.. ._ C C 0 .1) 461) R O c G O .a: 9 `v .. C N �a v v C U w •-s • ..,V `-'N `L 4p h 9 'CN C a u- 0 R R L L G — To o oso C cal ' 'jLLvn' � 'cOocoovo.cuc ? 0v0 mmLcc � � v � v Eo .3o0E -c .0X - "> o V - N , .- a; o. n' o .c �o >.,« o c i. , . 0-0 o 5 .:o a_o UM ' c :v ., v OL w -CO m o o R O J a m O ' Z L C .C 0 ,/, • f, .- O c= � N N .C U N 7 gl VI C tLa ttl a> O. a O ,n c h ^ . v o 0 • ≤O N $ R L a c C c - C v E._ L c .,•: v, mN - o 'C ≥ TLc3 ' v n �, TLLvo v muo � u CO oc o 0, c mu v ,0V•33oa, ct R.a o ,_ Tv 51 Coos s No5;_,... o . c ,ouNo a . 'ov vy 'yc .-1 U I R H R 3 y X — E v ati- u o T L v o .` c ti w c ._ U v a v L ya� 1a R • > ._ O RUC . UyNV Grn mOr CO Uv a. U ` OVTo.C. '«. iO v, .ON ca .`U—, yO H W 'O r.1 'C .L+ t: p n v c o c ° 7 R _ R o -$' *'.Nu ?. 4" 0 E yw.C _ my V .L- U C C.9v vce u del-, Ca •H'.0 •v c v v aR o `.. ?� EL °>>. u ` r_ > u c eui ai C•E C C 1ua 0 o 'o 'm 'm `L° .n R = o 02$ t 7 N ti " ca.L U a j = a .. a c m a a L a c a c c v 1-,.... C am- A o 1 0.0 G a O CX L 0,E CO ''1 E_., cnoF � `, F9F � oFF .Scc .. roLoB - S ,. nom _ °'. y� vm.gvLo.`pp,,: •� • c : �' � � u O• O U ^ V C M >s> .--. C F E74 ^ ^' L F 'D o fl`: C 3 _66.-2._ L O.N 7 a C0 G N C r�1 O V - 3 Ls in .o ov3 'OR _? @COOL L ^.=' .s--. .�- tC _ -' • 0Cv .- 3 _ ' '- v - - '- v - LT a, T .--_c R ,q C .�.�'D v .r 'T u a v o ❑ .� m n._, o — v m N L .E 30` o o C v ? � a:_" > m.E � E ° � aa� cvv v cal 3oL - - 7r ° C ' � .0 > OL - > " C L OLLLEp � : 'U ,,.co= s, .E C. C .7 C 7 O G °. Y V — L N r. Y L v .y r C n _ v- J E ` h 5_' O ❑ _ ` d C ,≤ _;J ql. E v 'u — O N >`_ T J 7 •J w C 0 E O v 0 ,--,, L a 'J <I o. ,-o ri J °' CLrJCj -' lY � C _ C � CCnY - ter Ur �.J " �yd L JC 4. -, 0 C .. O - _5 c Y C 3 5 :-. > -;, o .= C V "Jcou U - L G n _ J C J L d L h V L Y r N ,r - T y -o .. - O a C Y -a 'C -a y L o2 7 -c n C - v ro ° a L t r _ cnr' Ey � � Yy3 Cr5 CLG ` mOC ELY > 7EJ JT CDJ C ao 7 C .�' n O m u T in v r, y v � > O v ° : V C T `O r - r y, Y d✓. .L G y t L V L. � v v L _ 1 • v 0 n C. - J 0 t v � `t r. w v C = - J •-" A >, L. a te _ if. n n _ 0I- u L T- c 'E E d=_ r .+ 0 04 0 -T G C y O �. C n � yEELyns % � � t '" t Er ,a .. YO .`^ `= � � Lov 1.cv _ CG vn � UJ ° ° y - E n :! W .� Y L' Y Lr. ° L_ -a w -5, J ,,,, E •� 4, _ y L L u r C L OO L O `. Y u c r E o ., -0 Ca r pL J E '. ---.= . T yc -` uncc• c 3E :aE �`'.C �� ?oF � cLL o 2-2 ° Los t- .7._ .o• L �a 0430 v ?� occYc - v �, Twv1 ?J — o Er vays UY � voyo 0, 0rn R E w v U S L >,_0 p c ci E O j ° C C r 3 L v 2. L d ttru c.- �'= c — — ia_ -• — '� v L ≥ L E C) L „r. (%] C v .y �, L 3 E d O v rCii at r t y .� L L ;JJ >'+J _C ° y o " X C n v LO L.— 'G c4 w 9 3 E s vy 3 � � Es v ° yw mw u c - acUr.. c C .C ° y •• •—C oCJ ° r 0 y O L C .E L ° ,... = . — E — v m o O �' 00 u L L < E > E � L :a Ca L m j' n L = co q v n ri n ... :a a . p S r, .. ,_ „ 00. 0 `E E ELL y v n C _ O R C t G C 'JV al O % op .U ; � 0CCuUVC E OC) K WLICT o .'3ut L 0 ° ' T CC0 .� 'nRyca C VLL .E .nE � 7TO � � r dLCE .Cvay 33y �' -Gy OC ^, a va_m •O n' OO vwwNbO LI v U r C C °' N V C V N V y 'n 0 CO .n = 1- 2 a- j T L C o 3 0400 0 o n 9 = C L. O o C ;a wo _ � osccc9.c � m � or' �.rno ` a) -• 0 ' tL 0Cv ° 00 ^ it} °a :°: E .ONa.° °`-._. oga C. o - 3A, `' aAJ C .° c E A •J el> • nw -, — ECcaU0 las c-"a aViM E � tat ai � ° v 'c :ou r cc � � � " � � 0 . m�aJc c " cv»`oY ..>05 c � °dvo Li] N oco �a �-oven c.0y oyq - c .2 E o Eo co El a `o = oastcC V a a d .. A > Ow c vo ." soVC 41 d•° � vv ? y .c C. Es' a .. c `a `aJ3 — n � �2i "' `-_`J ° aus d � �.= C,v ' CL C.` O` O y CL� v .t M ao E E ° 1 C LQ r. 0 = `aCC . aO v � ,! r r .9 = .C.-..) ,-. 6) 614) 0. 11 y Yu 'o Gv rata v .. C >. aaOj . 'L Cr. — C ' I ' ..• v ; G _cc... L Om C L — Y r:N C Lid ,u y V -. 0 4 Y L .J-- ,] > y L..I p ,Y `L , G C. • ` ^ f • L Z J Z ,. J F L y F 6 C C 0 G C L D i v 7 t � ' O ,� ` .., , c c ; C — N r 'll _ L V — r •y — ≤ cD ? 'J L (b . _ is "� C u -.'. Y i = pp H :Z r� .4 Y L' 1 L 7 -.Sc G .. L 'J = c � � . E+ C - cy •u �+ „ � - I' Y. i y � - `. - V ... u _[. C - i L .t.. L L L V L - t- • y 'J . 7. G : _ c E c L t - c y-7 z N ^ y c - o V C a E - s a C ,- e 4 " n o c N - J d ,J C U L i.A..,L j �' u C 7 .r O ° E 7 S v 7 C r C. C u VvO CE � u --- (t)d U .2 :3 so -5 vcpL Vp G � v . O V V C O .. E `7 L .J. `- L' o v o p u'E t C �' v ‘.1c, L ': C`"a V m .- . ` .� b y x Y O` v 'n `V d O v C C .v. n „ 74 Q. _ ° V y F u - ` U V 9 O.-O .C •❑ C, v O L n a v c oO n 'O C .C y •O v C Ca 0 v „ r -C n - v t- -4; n C Ca 0 0 - ;' on cu' av`J`w' o •rL °LOO •° > 3 v &I , •ca v ',C. L° f. y �. C C C y v ,n v ° v cat w H N O a w L Ca T C cO,..- - I-0 G a v • v V V Ca 0 GO - 'C � C CI L.. ° C v .0 O ° N 3 E U C [r.�•O' E d 6. p L O E • a ° � aG ?'E r °c 'Eo E EDP acs "--_, o° °—°—�� c° c°- �� 3 c u o �N L O . E N >` U „Iv _ d N ac c L h N p r ' d ° G O.R r^ E t, C• ..'ONI � C CI E 0 as �ca O'> L _ D zec csa C you u � N '.7 � 4 s v o, u v c c` a 04 '- =00 0r ° Cs c Y L. C c o u Y c v -,� ,v, vs ' C p. O .o'. ..: m o v p„ ° .. N c _ •- o o E 0 G c CI .C .° d a n0 L v c [] p v v v v C y C 1 O C a. N ' to v H <a p — E.. E a c. C ,C L V g Cr '' - 0 d0 0001 •,, z 'tab y y in N_ N N a a L Ca . CCa O 'd u y 'i' b0 u_ ?J u v y .. p,.C y C C .0 C L C 7 C .E' v •- 'y .. .0 ti Q . O '.. y t U ti - v °- oc se500 °J _ .oo _ > Ec . A v , 0s0 0 ^ 0 'D d O E G G .n w p C C6 Caw c C e ' ° ° C m c u :: a C .C >'L O > 0 0 0. p .' o .et c o = c Ca r .. C C •p ,�j O v 9 v v. C al p v r, L v .. C • rn y p'O L vv, n .s .E L f� G al l °.° C. ..V co, .. O C.aC O..ur. . LC L . drtn O(n « .L.. VCCaL �.. uu 'OON two 4.1� n. as ^ a� o..c' of a� d� c o • :c ❑ U _ o? ^ w as; -1-,044 0 o uNN y C P c c L. v o d o -c- v T e' x o c; 8 o a›-. c rM _,.0 _ ,_ v.4'o.c^ to 0 = N r!.n,y o 04� c O .. C CJ I ° rVi, n' v d N v t•' w N N Ca Ca OO v n C v > C O yC, ,O v G"O C. L. ,an. u . .. Ca 0 L v v t t C v to 1 O L v m L l) E 0.r v C ° m .r v C vt _ y p'O d c a' cccs ° � Ca.Eu v uy `o 0.) 0 u.... u'g O O RL ^ N > L • EGCu owvt7 ° C- . w c ...= VCvC'C , vEcv, la .0 Lo •0uucd3cooeuayCv „. fi¢ OU t+ c u 3 > T. u o ii C v v . '-' 'M• 1 = •O ••••s v v 0 0 0 . c n >. C• c w L ¢r g, :3.E a — N a wo :° rt =y0 m0 -, o .a .>.w ...dLm04RIo 'cra? E .ocvm0E r_LIW Loy eam te c' • .. 6y CO•U °"� u .. CCh p �.° u— CVO � � v UO " >,Cp �.. 0ao a^• V] yP al ..c, oo •= •= yoov ° m° so � °> > oNcs > cddy � ocEO mr- r`e..; `vent: v,• yV ONv Vy 3 vo .mac o —co —0 w L T o E .CO p0 o Vm �' ^9.,Ayv CL « > o - � •caco v E .J ° YL u ° Guen •0sc 1- d c _ 0v, .+ .0 =wo u'1 0 O L. � c 4 , .� ca F C C TL ¢ v E" 'T Cd Co v u n E E H O d p N ."-' o V >` v - -� L. .O u 310U .° ° y •p C- C L 0 E V1 N 8 N 'n C .L.. .-. G L = t 'v0 �, d v L T Ca > W C L v — C E S _" -. c T C 0 N e Vcy = en °•EL `'o `ud� c '^ C ° _ To3Ceuo ° wy.c n QcoV oa .4y -. w ._, C C `ovur ac ° C. 0 t.C 04.E Ca. al cc.. H Ra L > h _ EXHI : IT DAILY WATER USAGE Q� BARN FLUSH 4 FLUSHES @ 800 GAL @ 3 SHIFTS = 9600 GAL PIPELINE WASH 350 GAL X 3 SHIFTS - 1050 GAL TANK WASH 150 GAL X 1 SHIFT - 150 GAL BARN CLEANUP 100 GAL X 3 SHIFTS - 300 GAL SPRINKLERS 600 GAL X 3 SHIFTS = 1800 GAL HAND LINES 100 GAL X 3 SHIFTS = 300 GAL COWS DRINKING 15 GAL X 1200 COWS = 18,000 GAL PHASE I TO LAGOON 13,200 GAL PHASE I ANIMAL DRINKING 18,000 GAL TOTAL WATER USED 31,200 GAL DAIRY HOUSES 170 GAL X 4 HOUSES = 680 GAL 31,200 GAL DAIRY 680 GAL HOUSES TOTAL WATER USED - 31,880 • WATER STORAGE 31,200 GAL BY 1440 MIN a 21.6 GAL PER MIN PHASE I 21.6 GALS PER MIN WATER STORAGE - 36 x 8 x 10 = 2880 CU. FT. 2880 CU. FT. X 7.4 GAL = 21,312 GAL STORAGE = 16.4 HRS. STORAGE WATER LINE ONE INCH = 50 GALLONS PER MINUTE = 72,000 GAL PER DAY WATER LINE 5/8 INCH = 12 GALLONS PER MINUTE = 17,280 GAL PER DAY TOTAL WATER AVAILABLE TO PROJECT 89,280 GAL PER DAY TOTAL WATER USED AT PROJECT 31,880 GAL PER DAY TOTAL SURPLUS WATER 57,400 GAL PER DAY t_.." • .gyp LITTLE fHOMPSON WATER DISTRICT DIRECTORS January 15 , 1987 Telephone 532-2096 Carey J.salomonson, 307 Welch Avenue President Drawer G Charles Allen Berthoud,Colorado 80513 Leo Bakel Keith Croonquist David McGee E.Thomas Ricord Dean Andersen ; EXHIBIT MANAGER'. John M.Gruner LIGQ Aurora Dairy Farms 7388 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado, 80501 Re: District Policy on 5/8" Water Taps Gentlemen: In accordance with a verbal request from Rocky Mountain Consultants , Inc. of Longmont, the following information is provided relative to the District' s policies on water taps . The District does not have any restrictions or specific rules which state how our domestic water service may be used. Specifically, domestic water service via a 5/8" tap, or any other size of tap, may be used for commercial or residential use. Although the District does keep a record of the primary use of the tap, there is no restriction on the use and in fact the use may change from residential to commercial . Additionally, as a matter of information, the rate structure on the 5/8" tap remains the same, regardless of the primary use. I trust this will provide you with the information requested by your representative from Rocky Mountain Consultants and if I may be of further assistance, please advise. Sincerely yours, J N M. GRUNER, Manager DREXEL, BARRELL & CO. S t \ / ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 740 WOOTEN ROAD#108 OFFICES: COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80915 BOULDER (303)591-5151 COLORADO SPRINGS January 13, 1987 EXHIBIT Mr. John Gruner SJ2 - 37,33 - - _ Little Thompson Water District 307 Welch Avenue Berthoud, Colorado 80513 RE: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS, WELD COUNTY ROAD NO. 38 Dear Mr. Gruner: We were asked by Mr. Ken Rollins with Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. to review a hydraulic analysis which they had performed regarding a potential tap on the 3-inch line along Weld County Road No. 38. We have reviewed the. information provided by RMC and concur with their recommendation that you. allow no more than 70 gpm to be taken from the 3-inch line. They also recommended that the tap be placed as close to the 4-inch line to the west or tapped directly into the 4-inch line if possible. We concur with this recommendation also. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Best Regards, Drexel, Barrell & Company • %. Ra ph D. Dwyer, III, P.E. Manager, Colorado Springs Office RDD/ms (GRUNER.LET) 4. It CI LA 41 .4, .......„. W -. f3 h A. t xx q1 Z W IIIIIIMIMOP g '4 vi o Z > ,;• tU NI R1- O -1 r,! 4 Q CJ ',c Q --' V) > Q_ i h 1 Wt VI cr w id i (1' !' W �" w o A 0 41 0C Cs' Q4 W 4 el —IL n .'i h 141 1L kr) V •' ,i 1 A 1,• -', N M. t o DPI II' I ., cc) (g r0- s\ v7 Li wi ,w Qc , ? w w c .• , f C. `' . 1 �1-0 I N Z: ` a- 1- Ui Q V z � ts- o r- c4 v) 0-- D { EXHIBIT ?RFD /C TED Abow vs L/riF S i Z 50 — &rN TA P5 (347 ®( ® Jojer ) 4 0 E 30 — 20 o3 E.c rn n bE @I. G 3pANa 3i, zoo to 2 3 Pi!'E' D/4/0 re j (ny s,'Est _- E�isir Jan. 8, 1987 Dear Barney, In reguards to your new dairy site on Rd 38 and Rd 15 I would be anxious in talking to you about the manure contract for the dairy. I own 320 acres and Lease another 500 acres in the area. Your dairy would be a convient haul for me. Please keep me in mind and contact me when you know more. SincerelyU/((14,/ . r LLL Jpe Gable General Manager Douthit Farms cU tcJhe re.-�. :cX 71' �_y, C< Y CkL' on; /-/3" a' 3 bc_x_c CA y_ _1 -yic,t_ . t, 6e-ry n"/rrcetit tJ)GZ 6 ,„ :„,c cc,: tiy_ -,4'-- ^Y._ -1`4-c-in 4 � Yc,-oiZ. it ��N.-- A) ar ,.,_ ,:;64:-It 7 `EIXIHIBIT EXHIBIT H I B I T HOME 785-2283 ■ CURTIS STRONG OFFICE 785-2255 ") P O. BOX 10 W � ii 317 CHERRY AVENUE PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO 80851 January 10, 1987 Mr. Barney Little Colorado Dairy Farms 7388 Hwy. 66 Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Mr. Little, If there is some doubt about the disposition of manure from the proposed dairy on the former Glen Anderson farm. You may be assured that we can handle all surplus . We had to cut the 1000 acres of our farms short last year in order to take care of some of our old customers. Any surplus could be added to our existing contract. Si - erely Curtis Strong Strong Farms Inc . CS/pm a,_ •-•• ., --41111 / . .. _go ..?4,. ..-- : • _. _ / —".. ) .f.....,,....::...*":.. .. s..7\_.-- --- X q SU IIIMMEmmimor 7' N. I _ za ----/ (-\. r,-,rit:,,,r„,,,I,4,1) i t 144: —-,..z''.,≥ty,,, , rrll'•i.‘ . ',. .---\ \ ......... . u• illiftWilliIIIIIIIIIIMOP'— 1 O r N ' .a i rn rss• .y i i. C, 4 I• I ,C1. 1 / r ,. ., i_ !(� - _ / / / 1 i I. 4) / / / / . /.. •• 1 ,1 \ '..) ‘ ..,. .i \ \ . \ ....., • , \ ) \ . \ °` sa, U x tzc cal W 0 kn • //:/// a. _ + • oa 8 O,• N CNI 0 t � O O [1' O.) ° C} V V V W • January 14, 1987 606 Ululani St. �4 sf JAN 2 01987 }Y::ai l ua, Hawaii 967.4 (808) 261-3751 C� • C?g, s, To: Gordon Lacy, Chairman , Board of Commissioners, Weld Cty. , P. O. 758 Greeley, Colorado (with cc . for members) Re: Colorado Dairy Farms petition for Dairy proposed for Glen Anderson Farm, Weld County We have registered our objections to the dairy proposed by CDFACC for the Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld Country Rds. #15 and #38 in a letter on Nov. 22, 1986. Subsequently we had an opportunity to visit the large dairy (3500 head) on Rte. 66 in Weld County in early December , and meet with representatives of the Dairy. The present dairy has one of the most serious odor-pollution problems we have ever encountered. I have served agriculture as a Professor in Horticulture and Genetics for the past 35 years, and as President of a 1100-member international tree association since 1980. As landowner of property bordering the Glen Anderson farm, I seriously doubt the ability of CDFACC to meet pollution standards of Colorado or any other State. The presence of such a dairy in the midst of Colorado ' s prime land would constitute a serious error of the Board. Some facts apparent to us in Hawaii ; o CDFACC is built on people new to the region who have no clear sense of the true value of this extraordinary strip of irrigated farm land in crop production , like a Texan moving into Hawaii o Weld County abounds in "junk" land; the Glen Anderson farm can produce 200 bushel corn or 38 ton beets or 120 bushel barley; the farm can , and should be zoned for that purpose o Glen Anderson was eager to sell and CDFACC simply got a steal for excellent farmland o There is abundant poor land for sale near the present dairy on Rte. 66, and it is the only logical place for expansion for traffic management , pollution management , personnel movement , and economy of their own operation o Despite beliefs to contrary, such dairies impact negatively , not positively, on surrounding farmland when it is of exceptional crop-production value, as is this land o A dairy needs only a fraction of a 160 acre farm for a 2400- head dairy, let alone the 1200-head dairy now conjured up to appease complainants o The CDFACC greatly underestimate problems with polluted lateral water movement on a slope such as Anderson farm has o Finally , and most important , expansion in dairying today-- coming as it does at a time of major federal buyout programs to reduce overstocked and overproduced dairy products--must be viewed with great caution , especially by Holding Corporations largely funded outside the region. 1 /7'y/ Aurora Capital Corp. was proposing a need for only 24 acres for its original 2400 animal herd , as I recall ; reduction to 1200 animals should bring this need down nicely to fit on their present dairy property along Rte. 66. Until they can show ability to reduce the gross pollution of their present catchments. and also an ability to stop periodic storm runoffs--a major hazard for which they seem wholly naive--it would be a serious error of the Commission to consider this development. We respect the tough decisions facing your Hoard in land use. After watching some of Hawaii ' s best farmland go down under asphalt and flag-waving tourists, we urge you to zone industrialized and pollution-belching agriculture as carefully as you would a pesticide factory or parking lot . The extent of community opposition to this proposal hardly needs mention. These people are largely long-term Coloradoans who know the value of this crop land, and seek a County of which they can continue to be proud members. Please support them in this search. Sincerely, },j� / 17r- . James L. Esrewbaker Prof . Horticulture and Genetics, Univ. of Hawaii President , Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Geology and Groundwater of the Site The site is a surface expression of a shale/sandstone unit which is overlain by approximately 48 inches of silty loam soil. There is a variegated layer of caliche and sandstone below the soil which causes a perched water table to occur during the summer when irrigation water is influencing the site. Below this layer is a fairly continuous medium dense sandstone unit which extends to a depth of 12 to 30 feet. Shale bedrock exists below the sandstone. Pertinent Observations - The groundwater table is perched upon the caliche and sandstone layer at 48 to 80 inches. The groundwater table is seasonal and influenced by irrigation on the site and up slope. - A french drain, constructed around the site as proposed, will lower the groundwater table and remove any problems from the perched water table. - More data is needed from the applicant regarding the direction of flow from the french drain and how it will influence the groundwater table at the point of discharge into the water table. - Potential for percolation and infiltration from livestock pens into the groundwater table is minimal due to compaction and small partical sealing. Phase I Run-off Containment Pond Evaluation 1. Total area of Phase I Runoff = 700,000 sq. feet 2. Total Holding capacity of ponds as proposed = 800,000 cu. feet 3. 25 year storm run—off (3.8" yeilding 2.65" runoff) = 154,583 cu. feet 4. 10 year storm run—off (2.9 at 20% of 2.35" run—off)= 27,417 cu. feet 5. Total storage required by State Statute = 182,000 cu. feet 6. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274.475 cu. feet 7. Total storage required for proposal = 456,475 cu. feet 8. Total site runoff expected for a 100 year storm = 233,100 cu. feet 9. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274,475 cu. feet Total pond storage required at 100 year storm = 507,575 cu. feet 10. Total pond storage available with 2 foot free board= 1,120,000 cu. feet — 507,575 cu. feet 11. Storage available for USR run—off retention = 612,425 cu. feet 12. Total evaporation at site = 240,000 cu. feet annually AExithg/7 AM/CE AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Biological Treatment Evaluation Annual waste flow = 274,475 cubic feet per year. Annual net evaporation at site = 240,000 cubic feet per year. Potential annual waste gain 34,475 cubic feet. Proposed method of waste treatment 1. Solids sedimentation (Pre-Treatment) 2. Breakdown of organics A. Enzymatic digestion B. Chelating agents to facilitate breakdown C. Aerobic aquatic algae flora Comments - Depends upon a delicate oxygen balance in the ponds. - Removal of solids strongly influences balance. - Cleaning sedimentation ponds will potentially disrupt balance. - Any significant run-off event will disrupt the balance. - Pumping could disrupt the balance. - No significant documentation has been provided by the applicant regarding the performance of the proposed treatment. - Opinion of staff - Proposal will probably work. Standards can be established to monitor performance. Pond Liner Comments - Clay liners are commonly used successfully. - Organic sealing of run-off ponds reduces the potential for leaking. - Groundwater will not be a problem if french drain is installed to remove perched water table. Odor Sources and Potential Impact 1. Livestock confinment pens - ammonia base odor - highest when pens are wet - low impact. 2. Manure storage area - odor impact less than pens and highest during handling. 3. Sedimentation pond - will probably be anerobic most of the time. Hydrogen sulfide organics odor impact will be high. 4. Holding ponds could be a significant source of odor if anerobic conditions develop. Odor standards can be established and, with proper evaluation and treatment, corrective actions are possible to abate the odors. y �/ mEmoRAnDU FEB 419871 To County Attorney/Planning Date COLORADO F,ojes Potter, Director Health Protection Services to . senirk Session with the Board regarding USR 770:86:51 The Board called the work session to discuss the various concerns that had been pointed out during the hearings. The questions that were addressed by the Health Protection staff were limited to the groundwater table at the site, potential sources of GW pollution, the capacity of the runoff containment ponds, biological treatment of wastes, pond liner integrity and potential problems, odor sources, and environmental impact of manure handling, stock-piling, and removal. A technical summary prepared by the staff provide pertinent data for the Board. The concerns or potential problems that were discussed by the Health Department centered on five points: 1. The problem of floodwater flowing onto the site and off from the site. The Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities states in section 8.3.4(2) : (2)" All possible means to minimize quantities of contaminated runoff should be implemented. Uncontaminated storm runoff from areas external to the feedlot should be diverted by means of interceptor ditches, earth embankments, etc. , from flowing over the drainage area." Therefore, it was suggested that a development standard be proposed to divert the floodwater around the site as much as possible. 2. The system for biological treatment of wastes is delicately balanced and depends upon regular cleaning of the settling pond which pre-treats the effluent by removing solids. Clay liners . in this type of pond are very exposed to mechanical damage during the cleaning process. The possibility of inadvertent damage to the liner during cleaning would increase the potential for percolation of pollutants into the groundwater table through the comprised liner. It was suggested that a more permanent, permeable, durable material (such as asphalt) be used in the construction. This material would also be resistant to chemical deterioration as well as resistant to mechanical damage. 3. It was pointed out that there is in fact a perched water table at the site. In order for the ponds to be constructed in compliance with the guidelines and to operate properly, the french drain was required. While it is possible to construct the french drain in a manner which would lower the water table, no data or specifications have been submitted which detail the point or configuration of the drain discharge and what impact f rum,T 33138 „� "a Page 2 County Attorney/Planning that discharge will have on the water table at the point of discharge. This data needs to be submitted and evaluated to ascertain the impact at the point of discharge. 4. Odor problems, potential sources and impact were also a concern. The staff has previously suggested an odor standard and the Board indicated that a time frame be considered for compliance and abatement of odor problems. 5. Nuisance conditions that could be potentially associated with the manure removal, handling and storage facilities were also a concern. It was suggested that standards be established regarding this potential problem. The major problems could be odor, flies, other insect pests, runoff, and groundwater pollution. AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Geology and Groundwater of the Site The site is a surface expression of a shale/sandstone unit which is overlain by approximately 48 inches of silty loam soil. There is a variegated layer of caliche and sandstone below the soil which causes a perched water table to occur during the summer when irrigation water is influencing the site. Below this layer is a fairly continuous medium dense sandstone unit which extends to a depth of 12 to 30 feet. Shale bedrock exists below the sandstone. Pertinent Observations The groundwater table is perched upon the caliche and sandstone layer at 48 to 80 inches. - The groundwater table is seasonal and influenced by irrigation on the site and up slope. A french drain, constructed around the site as proposed, will lower the groundwater table and remove any problems from the perched water table. - More data is needed from the applicant regarding the direction of flow from the french drain and how it will influence the groundwater table at the point of discharge into the water table. Potential for percolation and infiltration from livestock pens into the groundwater table is minimal due to compaction and small partical sealing. Phase I Run-off Containment Pond Evaluation 1. Total area of Phase I Runoff = 700,000 sq. feet 2. Total Holding capacity of ponds as proposed = 800,000 cu. feet 3. 25 year storm run—off (3.8" yeilding 2.65" runoff) = 154,583 cu. feet 4. 10 year storm run—off (2.9 at 20% of 2.35" run-off)= 27,417 cu. feet 5. Total storage required by State Statute = 182,000 cu. feet 6. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274.475 cu. feet 7. Total storage required for proposal = 456,475 cu. feet 8. Total site runoff expected for a 100 year storm = 233,100 cu. feet 9. Total annual waste flow from dairy = 274,475 cu. feet Total pond storage required at 100 year storm = 507,575 cu. feet 10. Total pond storage available with 2 foot free board= 1,120,000 cu. feet 507,575 cu. feet 11. Storage available for USR run-off retention = 612,425 cu. feet 12. Total evaporation at site = 240,000 cu. feet annually AURORA DAIRY FARMS TECHNICAL SUMMARY Biological Treatment Evaluation Annual waste flow = 274,475 cubic feet per year. Annual net evaporation at site = 240,000 cubic feet per year. Potential annual waste gain 34,475 cubic feet. Proposed method of waste treatment 1. Solids sedimentation (Pre-Treatment) 2. Breakdown of organics A. Enzymatic digestion B. Chelating agents to facilitate breakdown C. Aerobic aquatic algae flora Comments - Depends upon a delicate oxygen balance in the ponds. - Removal of solids strongly influences balance. - Cleaning sedimentation ponds will potentially disrupt balance. - Any significant run-off event will disrupt the balance. - Pumping could disrupt the balance. - No significant documentation has been provided by the applicant regarding the performance of the proposed treatment. - Opinion of staff - Proposal will probably work. Standards can be established to monitor performance. Pond Liner Comments - Clay liners are commonly used successfully. - Organic sealing of run-off ponds reduces the potential for leaking. - Groundwater will not be a problem if french drain is installed to remove perched water table. Odor Sources and Potential Impact 1. Livestock confinment pens - ammonia base odor - highest when pens are wet - low impact. 2. Manure storage area - odor impact less than pens and highest during handling. 3. Sedimentation pond - will probably be anerobic most of the time. Hydrogen sulfide organics odor impact will be high. 4. Holding ponds could be a significant source of odor if anerobic conditions develop. Odor standards can be established and, with proper evaluation and treatment, corrective actions are possible to abate the odors. 1 mEmORAnDU WIDt To Chuck Cunliffe, Planning Date January 26, 1987 COLORADO From Wes Potter, Health Protection Services 1149 I �� Subject. Proposed Development Standards for USE 770:86:51 1. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the site. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the site at any point. 2. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of a permanent, impermeable, durable material (such as asphalt) that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 3. The applicant shall submit a design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table to least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on groundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. 4. The odor standard can stay the same except for editing the time frame as suggested by the Board. A detailed explanation of the reasoning behind these Development Standards will be available later this week. aL3/4."4"1 mEmoRAnDum WilkTo Department of Planning Date January 30, 1 87 COLORADO From Health Protection Services - Wes Potter Subject: Aurora Dairy Manure Handling The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nusiance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. WP/djs AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION USR-770:86:51 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat prior to recording the plat. 2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. 3. Within thirty (30) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant/operator shall submit to the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, an engineering report, prepared by a registered professional engineer, demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities. The applicant/operator shall submit evidence of approval by the Colorado Department Health, Water Quality Control Division, to the Department of Planning Services within ninety (90) days of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the applicant has entered into a road maintenance and improvements agreement with Weld County. The agreement shall include provisions for dust abatement on Weld County Road 15, designated haul routes for vehicular traffic, and the maintenance of the designated haul routes. 5. The Use by Special Review plat shall be amended to: a. Show only those facilities designed for the 1,200 head dairy Livestock Confinement Operation. Any references to facilities designed for phase two shall be deleted from the Use by Special Review plat. b. Show the ditch day lighting immediately to the west of the confinement area and not to Weld County Road 15. c. Show the proposed cistern for water storage on the plat. d. Show a 40 foot turning radius at the entrance to the property from Weld County Road 15. Xene3.e eece DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 1,200 head dairy livestock confinement operation as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. The maximum number of cows shall not exceed 1,200 head. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the runoff retention and containment facilities in accordance with the engineered report, as approved by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. All runoff retention and containment facilities shall meet and be maintained in accordance with the State Health Department's Guidelines of Feedlot Runoff Containment facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional requirements issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. 3. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. 4. All stormwater and dairy operation runoff shall be controlled and confined within the boundaries of the subject property as identified in the submitted application materials. 5. No permanent buildings or structures shall be built within Panhandle Eastern's gasline easement or the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company's easement. 6. The addition of residential dwellings, including mobile homes or manufactured homes, on the property not shown hereon shall require an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit. 7. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the confinement area. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the confinement area at any point. 8. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of asphalt that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 9. The applicant shall submi- ies_-n for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes .ne perched water table and lowers the groundwater table at least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 Page 2 b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on the groundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. The design shall be approved by the Weld County Health Department. A copy of the approved design shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 10. Odor levels detected off-site which have been diluted with more than fifteen volumes of air shall be considered an odor problem and the applicant/operator shall be required to submit an odor abatement plan to the Weld County Health Department. The plan shall be submitted within five (5) working days of detection and shall be reviewed and approved by the Weld County Health Department. The odor abatement plan shall be implemented within ten (10) working days from the date of detection. If an odor abatement plan is required, an approved copy shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 11. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water—tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. 12. All alfalfa or straw stacks located on the property shall be kept safely apart to mitigate potential fire hazards. The minimum separation distance between the stacks shall be approved by the Johnstown Fire Protection District. 13. Any buildings or structures constructed after the approval date of this Use by Special Review permit shall be accessible to fire department apparatus in accordance with Section 10.207, Articles (a) through (f), of the Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition. 14. The required number, type, and location of fire extinguishers on the property shall be approved by the Johnstown Fire Protection District. 15. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Development Standards Aurora Capital Corporation USR-770:86:51 Page 3 16. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 17. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department of Health, Johnstown Fire Portection District, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County and State Regulations. 18. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 19. The property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. Ott; mEmORAnDUm JJAN 28 1987 Chuck Cunl i ffe Weld Co Naceie¢ Erdniuiet wine To Planning Department DBLe Ja ua 1987 COLORADO From Drew L. Scheltinga, County Engineer $u6ject Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR - 770:86:51 At the Board of Weld County Commissioners hearing further questions regarding storm drainage and road impact have been raised. My comments and recommendations are as follows : The 100-year storm drainage criteria as contained in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance under Section 24.5.1.5. 1. has been confused with Health Department criteria for the protection of livestock holding pens. The criteria in the Zoning Ordinance deals with detention ponds that collect non-contaminated overland flows when there is substantial increase in storm water runoff due to commercial or residental development. The dairy proposal will not change the runoff and therefore a detention pond for the overall site is not necessary. I will not address the retention pond required by Health Department regulations, except to say, I have reviewed the calculations and found that capacity to protect the livestock containment area exceeds the 25-year requirement. There is a proposed diversion dike and ditch along the north edge of the confinement area. It's purpose is to divert runoff away from the confinement area. The plot plan indicates a ditch would be run to the west and day lighted at CR 15. I recommend the plan be revised to show the ditch day lighting immediately to the west of the confined area and not to the road. Runoff could then flow south between WCR 15 and the confinement area. The proposed runoff collection dike on the west side of the containment area would protect the containment area. The plot plan shows the existing entrance is to be improved and widened to 30' . This is acceptable. However, I recommend the requirement of a 40' turning radius. The roadway width varies from 22' to 24' between the proposed entrance and WCR 38. According to criteria contained in the publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1984, as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the width of the traveled way for local rural roads with an average daily traffic count of less than 250 is acceptable between 22' and 24' . Therefore, I do not recommend the widening of CR 15. Page 2 Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation USR - 770:86:51 The amount of traffic that will be generated from a 1,200 head dairy has been disputed. I am sure the accurate number is probably somewhere between the high and low claims. However, the increase, even on the high side, would not change the classification of the road in terms or requiring paving, widening, or the addition of turn lanes. The geometry of CR 15 as it connects to CR 38, is somewhat irregular which is typical of gravel roadways. However, the road is 24' wide with roundings that give an access of 70' of gravel frontage against CR 38. A semi-tractor trailer can negotiate a low speed turn thru this intersection without creating an unusual hazard. As I indicated in my January 12, 1987, memo, a dust control program seems reasonable, although the average daily traffic will remain below the 200 vehicle per day category outlined in the fugitive dust regulation. In order to mitigate traffic impacts, the establishment of a haul route maybe beneficial . Two factors will affect road maintenance problems. If all solid waste must be hauled from the site the affect on roadway wear and tear will certainly increase. Also, if there are preiods of heavy hauling during inclement weather, the impact on the road can be dramatically increased. I recommend a road maintenance agreement be entered into between the applicant and Weld County. DLS/bf xc: Planning Referral File: Barry Little/Aurora Capital Corporation at MEMORAnDum To Chuck Cunliffe, Planning Date January� / 26, 1987 COLORADO From Wes Potter, Health Protection Services 1,1/f/,/q � Subject: Proposed Development Standards for USA 770:86:51 1. The applicant shall design and construct a floodwater diversion dike and ditch system that will divert any and all floodwater runoff around the site. The diversion shall insure that no floodwater flows onto the site at any point. 2. The sedimentation or settling pond shall be designed and constructed of a permanent, impermeable, durable material (such as asphalt) that will resist chemical deterioration as well as damage from mechanical cleaning and removal of settled material. 3. The applicant shall submit a design for the french drain which: a. Effectively removes the perched water table and lowers the groundwater table '' least two (2) feet below the floor of the proposed containment ponds. b. Details the diversion of the groundwater table at the point of discharge, addressing the effect of the additional loading on,tgroundwater table at the point of discharge, and demonstrates that no damage or impact will occur off site. 4. The odor standard can stay the same except for editing the time frame as suggested by the Board. A detailed explanation of the reasoning behind these Development Standards will be available later this week. PX\0- rte JAN 2619&1 Weld CO.Ma COMM* 4,40hic. MEMORAf1DUM wok To Department of Planning Date January 30, 1q877 COLORADO From Health Protection Services - Wes Potter I� Subject: Aurora Dairy Manure Handling The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile manure from the livestock confinement area in a manner that will prevent nusiance conditions. The manure piles shall not be allowed to exist or deteriorate to a condition that facilitates excessive odors, flies, or insect pests, or pollutant runoff. The manure storage site shall have a water-tight surface which does not permit seepage or percolation of manure pollutants into the ground. WP/djs L-7 JAN 301987 Weld Co. Phnom i;ommissior Hello