HomeMy WebLinkAbout991370.tiff ,Th r
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tiuesday, May 1 8,`196 0
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday May 1$'4199, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Buillding9•1q 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Cristie Nicklas, at 1:35 p.m.
Stephan Mokray moved to elect Cristie Nicklas as chair. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the Motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
ROLL CALL
Marie Koolstra Absent
Jack Epple Absent
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Absent
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Julie Chester, Planner II, Ben Patton, Planner, Anne Best
Johnson, Long Range Planner, Eric Jerman, Planner, Sheri Lockman, Planner; Department of Planning
Services, Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Jeff Stoll, Health Department, Sheble Mc Connellogue,
Health Department; Don Carroll, Public Works; Jennifer Mehring, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 4, 1999, was
approved with amended changes.
CASE NUMBER: Z-524 ( Cont. from 4/20/99)
APPLICANT: Western Dairymen / Idaho Creek
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural)to PUD (Residential) for 360 lots in the MUD.
LOCATION,: Apprcximately 1/8 mile south of State Hwy 119, and approximately 1/8 mile east of WCR 7.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning, asked to continue Case Z-524, to June 1, 1999 hearing. This requested
continuance was prompted by the applicant, based upon resubmitted items and several amendments to the
Change of Zone application, which has not been evaluated by the Public Works Department and the Planning
Department. The Department of Planning Services supports this request and recommends that this case be
continued. Ben noted that the applicant's representative is present.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephan Mckray moved that Case Z-524, be continued to the June 1, 1999 hearing. Michael Miller seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
('YLac'tyl ci 'n ; 991370
6//99
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 2
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson (Cont. from 5/4/99)
REQUEST: Weld County Zoning Ordinance:
1. Repagination, grammatical changes and changing the case of letters of words within
this document for County-wide consistency.
2. Revision to the text of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with FEN1A,
current practice and regulations, revisions at the request of the Board of
County Commissioners and the Weld County Departments of Public Works
and Public Health.
3. Updating the Official Weld County Zoning Map.
Anne Best Johnson, Department of Planning Services, presented Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Anne
handed out a letter received from John Folsom and noted that he had some concerns regarding FEMA. Anne
explained that Mr. Folsom's letter requested that this Zoning Ordinance Reading be continued until FEMA has
responded with recommendations to change the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Anne stated that Fred
Metzler, program specialist for FEMA, noted in a letter dated April 9, 1999 to the Planning Department, that
unless the adopted revisions are received and found in compliance with FEMA by September 21, 1999, Weld
County Would be suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program effective September 22, 1999.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services Staff that the proposed amendment as
presented today, Ordinance 89-JJ, proceed as submitted and confirmed by FEMA to be in compliance with
FEMA and required as a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Anne added that if FEMA
should make recommendations to change the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Staff will propose another
amendment, 89-KK, to the Zoning Ordinance in a timely fashion. Anne stated due to the time frame from
FEMA and the participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, she asked that the case proceed. Anne
then read the recommendation into the record.
Michael Miller asked Anne on component#2, if there are currently restrictions on how far you need to be from
an oil facility. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the regulations run at the State level as
against the oil and cas operator. Existing structures determine where the well can go, but there are no
regulations as to where the structures can be placed by a well. This kind of situation is an anticipated variance
scenario, if it doesn't interfere with the well, and the health, safety and welfare of citizens are taken into
consideration. The 350 feet won't be an absolute.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the 350 feet is an industry standard. Anne replied that this 350 feet is an Oil and
Gas Commission standard. Bruce then asked what other municipalities or counties go by state wide. Lee
Morrison stated that the Oil and Gas Commission has a two-tier setback, it is 150 feet in a normal
circumstance and 350 feet in what is determined as a high density area. Lee Morrison added that he believes
that Greeley along with other jurisdictions are using it, but 350 feet is the standard. Bruce Fitzgerald
commented that he thought that 150 feet would be the common standard. Lee Morrison explained that there
is a formula that determines if it is a high density area.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Anne if the result of amendments to component 2 of the Zoning Ordinance will be in
compliance with current FEMA standards. Anne answered that was correct.
Anne continued to read the recommendation into the record.
Stephan Mokray asked Anne if the primary intent of Dwelling Unit Orientation within component#2, is to be
able to identify the rumber on the front door. Anne clarified that the intent was to be able to identify the
address by the numbers on the front door. Stephan asked why the number couldn't be placed on the building
where it is visible from the road. Monica Daniels Mika, Director, explained that this request was brought to
the Department by some elected officials, particularly in Southwest Weld County. They were concerned about
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 3
the lack of uniformity that took place between the homes within the municipalities and the homes adjacent to
the municipalities. Monica stated that the concern from these officials was 1:hat when emergency personnel
would respond to an address based on a specific system that they could be certain to find the house. This
was particularly true fcr the fire districts, and they requested that the County entertain a similar system which
would enable them to find a house in a timely matter. There is confusion when addressing a house that is
placed diagonally on a lot. Monica added that this piece of the Zoning Ordinance is intended to address this
kind of an issue and would be willing to take into consideration any input the members may have. Monica
explained that the Post Office is also affected because the mailboxes are often placed on the opposite side
of the house. Stephan Mokray commented that he felt this was too restrictive, and felt that a number in front
of the house facing the street would be sufficient. Monica responded that Weld County is currently working
on a uniform addressing system that would be consistent county wide. This address system will be based
on where the front door faces as part of the whole process. That is why the direction the front door faces has
become an issue.
Michael Miller asked what happens when the house is a quarter mile off of the road, and the address on the
house cannot be reac from the road. The current county system bases the address to the nearest County
maintained road. Often the mailbox has the correct address, and the house is located '% mile north. Michael
Miller stated that a compromise needs to be made regarding the way the front door faces and the address that
will be issued to the house. Monica responded that staff is open to any suggestions for a uniform addressing
system.
Bryant Gimlin commented that his understanding of the county's addressing system was that first two numbers
identify the cross street, another number identifies the distance to the cross street, and another number
determines the side of the street you were on; therefore, the location of where the structure is located dictates
what the address would be. Monica responded that the addresses are based on the driveway and not where
the structure is.
Michael Miller stated that this system has potential to work, but an alternative option needs to be established
for the houses that are placed diagonally on a lot. Michael Miller added that perhaps a posted sign would
enable the home owner to place their home diagonally on a lot. Bryant Gimlin commented that there are two
separate issues. The first is determining the address. The second is making the postage of the address
visible. Monica stated that this is particularly true for older subdivisions because the lots are too small and
don't meet existing County standards, which makes them difficult to deal with. Michael Miller asked Monica
if the existing homes are the ones that they are trying to put numbers on. Monica stated that they are
concerned with new residential construction on lots in older subdivisions. This is where the majority of the
problems are stemming from.
Bruce Fitzgerald clarified that three issues were identified regarding addressing: the initial setbacks, the
addressing, and requiring postage of the address. Monica explained that both the County and Emergency
personnel require that all structures in Weld County have an address. After an address is assigned, Weld
County makes sure that the address is located on the structure when they go through the building permit
process. The same thing applies for a subdivision. If the subdivision doesn't have street signs, due to new
development, temporary street signs are issued. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the corner lots were the main
concern in these situations. Monica stated that these are generally the problem. Bruce Fitzgerald clarified
that the builder would not be restricted on their floor plan or orientation on the lot, and that the concern is just
the addressing. Monica said that was correct.
Cristie Nickles asked Monica how does EMS personnel get their information as to where houses are located.
Monica replied that EMS personnel have a data base system, which they download from the Assessor's
information file.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 4
Cristie Nicklas stated that the Fire District in her area mails out questionnaires to each house. Monica said
that the official department that assigns addresses is the Planning Department. Historically, if the assessor's
office finds that there are two houses on one site, the Planning Department will give two separate addresses
for each house.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there will be restrictions on placing a building on a lot. Anne said that there will be
some restrictions. Monica explained that right now there is flexibility if you can maneuver the building to fit
on a lot, because not all lots are square. The other outcome of this proposal is the placement and the
structure size which would have to be smaller. The only way to get some structures on a lot is to turn them.
Stephan Mokray asked if the Building code state that the identification number has to be on the house.
Monica stated that the building code does stipulate that all the structures need to be identified in an official
manner.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that this issue could restrict and change the floor plan. He stated that he feels
this amendment is more than an addressing issue.
Anne finished reading the recommendation into the record and stated that the Department of Planning
Services is recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance, 89JJ, along with all three components.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin commerted that the Planning Staff should be commended on doing a good job on improving
the document and improving the regulations, and meeting the objectives which include complying with the
FEMA regulations. Cristie Nicklas stated that she concurred with that comment.
Michael Miller moved that Weld County Zoning Ordinance 89JJ, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval, with the exception of the
dwelling unit Orientation, section 31.5.5, section 32.7.12.2.6, and section 36.3.12. Stephan Mokray seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved that the Dwelling Unit Orientation, section 31.5.5, section 32.7.12.2.6, and section
36.3.12, be sent back to staff for further analysis and preparation. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Ginny Shaw asked to speak regarding the FEMA issue. The Board agreed to reopen public testimony to allow
Ms. Shaw to speak.
Ginny Shaw, representing the St.Vrain Concerned Citizens, clarified that their letters would be adcressed and
taken into consideration with Planning Commission's decision. Ms. Shaw highlighted the major concerns
addressed in a letter to the Department of Planning from Mr. John Folsom, dated May 13, 1999. Ms. Shaw
stated that they found no efforts in the Zoning Ordinance to Federal Title 44, chapter 1, section 65.3, as to
requirements to submil new technical data which requires the community to notify and to submit technical and
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 5
scientific data relating to changes to potential flooding conditions. Mr. Folsom has not found evidence that
this requirement has been complied with, and suggested it be included with the proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Shaw also addressed that they found no records to Section 55.4 which requires
applications to the FEMA administrative for approval of encroachment on a flood plain. The third issue was
that Planning Staff was, not able to find Flood Hazard Overlay District Development Permits otherwise known
as Flood Hazard Overlay District Zoning Maps, which were referred to in Section 53.4.1 and 53.4.2 during a
recent visit. We would appreciate receiving copies of these documents especially pertaining to the St. Vrain,
Boulder Creek drainage in this area. Ms. Shaw stated that they found no evidence of enforcement of the
violation requirement. She concluded that under the definition to remedy a regulation, they would like to add
the word "Federal" to State or local flood plain management regulations.
Monica clarified that they do allow development to be located within the hundred-year flood plain, however,
development is not allowed to be located in a flood way. A flood way is the course in which the water will go
and the plain is the larger area. Monica added that in order for an applicant to have issuance of a building
permit, a flood study is required showing where the base elevation of the flood is going to be. Generally this
is located on the FEMA maps. If the information is not on the FEMA maps, then a more technical engineering
map is used. She explained that a Professional Engineer will sign off and then the building will have to be built
either one foot above the flood depth or it will be required to be flood proof. It is usually a technical case
where most of the data is provided from an engineer.
Lee Morrison stated that these regulations operate independently of the local regulations. If the county is
under legal obligations to do these studies, the studies will not be included as part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Shaw said that Weld County is allowing development near Boulder Creek, and the developers are
diverting the flow of the creek in several instances by building berms. She further believes that the maps
would be a good source to work from.
Lee Morrison asked if daho Creek was mapped. Monica stated that most of the FEMA maps are general in
nature based on site elevations. Idaho creek was mapped in 1972, and then re-mapped in 1985, but the
funding didn't allow them to finish that specific site study.
The Chair closed the public portion of this case and asked if any of the Board members would like to move
to change the original motion. No one wished to move.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1230
APPLICANT: Michelle Eicchorn
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 19, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for an Agricultural Service
Establishment.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 13 and approximately '/% mile south of Weld
County Road 80.
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning, presented case USR-1230. New comments were handed out to replace
the preliminary comments. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Eric then read the recommendation into
the record.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 6
John Eichhorn, applicant, explained that his intention is to sell light industrial equipment from his farm land and
build an apartment above his shop for his employees.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Eichhorn if he intended to have a repair facility. Mr. Eichhorn stated that he did not
have any intentions of repairing equipment at this facility, and that it would only be a dealership for equipment.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Eichhorn if this facility was currently operating. Mr. Eichhorn replied that they are
selling equipment from the office located at the site.
Stephan Mokray asked if the apartment was built prior to the Use by Special Review Permit. Mr. Eichhorn
said that the barn is built, but the apartment that will be above the barn still needs to be constructed. Stephan
Mokray then asked Mr. Eichhorn how many bedrooms the apartment will have. Mr. Eichhorn stated that it
would be one large bedroom that could be made into two, but one at the present time. Stephan Mokray
questioned how man/ employees would actually live in the apartment. Mr. Eichhorn said one or two
employees.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Eichhorn if the apartment would be rented to the employee or if it would be a benefit
of employment. Mr. Eichhorn replied that it would be a little of both.
Cristie Nicklas stated that she was aware that there was some confusion between which fire districts
jurisdiction this site was. Eric explained that both the Windsor/Severance Fire District and the Poudre Valley
Fire District were sent a referral. Both fire districts denied that this site was their jurisdiction. This site was just
on the line, but was determined that it was Poudre Valley Fire District's jurisdiction. Eric added that Poudre
Valley Fire District then agreed, and called this morning stating that they would send in their referral sometime
this week. It was also mentioned by Poudre Valley Fire District that their referral would read that they find no
problems with this application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Eichhorn if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Eichhorn stated that he was in agreement.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1230, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1231
APPLICANT: Bearson Dairy, LLC; do Thomas Haren, EnviroStock, Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 SE4&E2 SW4 of Section 27, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for an Agricultural Service
Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (Dairy)and Animal Feeding Operation
for 2500 head of cattle in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 16 and 1/4 mile east of Weld County Road 19.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 7
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning, presented Case USR-1231. New comments were handed out to
replace the preliminary comments. Sheri read the recommendation into the record and stated that the
Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application, along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. Sheri noted that the Town of Frederick and the City of Dacano
Planning Commission both replied that the use does not comply with their Comprehensive plan. However,
they did not specify why it does not comply.
Darrell Bearson, applicant, stated that they currently run a dairy and their request is to expand this dairy.
Stephan Mokray asked how many head of cattle Mr. Bearson currently has now. Mr. Bearson replied that he
has 900 head of cattle and would like to expand to 2500 head of cattle.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what the applicant's understanding of the landscaping due to the issue that in the
approval plans there were questions on the landscaping and then in the application it said that no additional
landscaping would be needed. Tom Haren, representative of the applicant, stated that in the nuisance
management plan under air quality and dust abatement, there is a condition that if management practices as
proposed do not mitigate any of those conditions as planned, they will incorporate living fences and additional
landscaping.
Tom Haren asked to discuss#2G in the Development Standards. He explained that in the past they have
accepted landscaping requirements to help buffer adjoining property owners, adjacent land uses, and county
roads, however, this landscaping is very central to the operator's facility.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what kind of landscaping is currently on the site. Mr. Haren replied that there is
minimal landscaping between existing mobile homes and the house out on the site.
Stephan Mokray asked Sheri why they were requesting landscaping internally. Sheri replied that it was mainly
for a buffer for the employee housing because the pens are adjacent to the employee housing.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there was an issue between the landscaping and the dust abatement. Sheri
answered that staff dic: not require the applicants to do any landscaping in regards to the dust abatement, and
the intent of the landscaping was to help buffer the employee housing.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if buffers were needed for the surrounding property owners. Sheri said no because
there are no close surrounding property owners.
Stephan Mokray asked if there were existing homes on the site. Sheri stated that there are seven existing
homes and the applicants were asking for seven more mobile homes. Stephan Mokray asked why staff was
requesting fbr a buffer now when there wasn't a buffer before. Sheri answered that they didn't have a Special
Use Permit before, they were a use by right.
Tom Haren clarified That these were not additional surrounding property owners, the land and the mobile
homes are owned by Mr. Bearson and he is responsible to make sure that their living conditions are suitable.
Mr. Haren then pointed out where the existing mobile homes are and where the requested mobile homes
would be placed.
Cristie Nickles asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Hares replied no.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 8
Michael Miller asked what Mr. Haren was not in agreement with. Mr. Haren stated that Condition of Approval
#1, having the plat ready for recording in 30 days is impossible. He added that there is a lot of analytical data
that has to be in place in order to record the plat.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the plat be prepared without all the final conditions and
standards throughout tie plat signatures, but the plat would not be recorded until the other requirements are
done. Lee asked Mr. Haren if he had a problem of meeting the requirements or getting the plat prepared.
Mr. Haren replied that the plat is basically prepared, the requirements are the issue. Cristie Nicklas
suggested that the wording should maybe be changed, because it reads, "ready for recording"
Tom Haren commented that Condition of Approval #2A#1, the 6-month retention pond is a large structure,
the amount of processed waste water generated on Mr. Bearson's property is not very large. Mr. Haren
explained that he is the director of Colorado's Livestock Association, and has concerns that if this condition
is approved that it will be apart of all animal feeding operations. Currently EnviroStock has designed
processed waste water storage for four months capacity. Mr. Haren added that the Bearson's are in a very
arid climate, they have approximately 15 inches of annual precipitation and 55-60 inches of evaporation and
they don't have perma frost winters. Therefore, he felt that this condition is excessive.
Jeff Stoll, Health Department, stated that they received comments from the State, and they felt that 6-month
retention period was a reasonable time period. This condition is just a matter of judgement between the 6-
month and the 4-month retention. From year to year the months between October and March are so
unpredictable that a 6-month would adequately retain the water.
Stephan Mokray asked why in the past the 4-month retention was adequate enough and now they are
changing it to a 6-month retention. Jeff said that the 6-month retention is a precaution because of the
increased amount of precipitation we have been receiving.
Stephan Mokray asked if the current 4-month retention are over flowing with the increased amount of
precipitation and that is the cause for the 6-month retention. Jeff answered no, but at times they have been
close to overflowing.
Stephan Mokray asked how much of an impact it would be to go from a 4-month retention to the 6-month
retention, in terms of capacity. Mr. Haren replied that the impact was determined by each specific site. In Mr.
Bearson's case, he practices waste management, and uses very little processed generated waste water
washing out his dairy parlor. There are a lot of facilities that will increase barns and flush systems that will use
more processed waste water. Mr. Haren stated that in his past experiences with cases there has been no
time limit specified for processed waste water storage.
Mr. Haren commented that on Condition of Approval #2A#51, the burden is placed upon Mr. l3earson for
property that he doesn't own nor have control of and would make him liable for other people's actions. The
State regulations nor the Federal EPA has the authority to address non source polluting which is essentially
for agricultural purposes. This condition will make farmers who will use Mr. Bearson's Manure, be on a list
that will potentially be regulated as to how they will use the manure. The farmers will then buy their manure
elsewhere, so how they will use the manure won't be regulated
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the present waste water facility was designed by Mr. Haren's company. Mr. Haren
replied yes. Bruce then asked if they had any problems with the last big rain storm. Mr. Haren stated that
there were some issues with the last rain storm and that Mr. Bearson had recorded and submitted his rain fall
as required by the state. Mr. Haren pointed out on a map and explained where the four lagoons were located
and where the current problems are. He added that Mr. Bearson technically has the capacity to hold 6-
months of processed waste water and a 25-year, a 24-hour storm. Mr. Haren stated that he has an issue with
the requirement, he felt like it was an arbitrary requirement that hasn't gone through any engineering or
technical scrutiny suci as the State regulations have when they were developed in 1992.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 9
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what the cost difference is between a 4-month retention and a 6-month retention. Mr.
Haren stated that a 6-month storage capacity over a 4-month capacity storage would be proportional but there
would be additional cost. He added that although they have the capacity at this facility, there are other cases
that will be coming through for review and he felt this requirement was a dangerous precedence for the county
staff to be setting at this point.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Haren if he would entertain the 4-month requirement. Mr. Haren stated that for Mr.
Bearson's case they have the capacity.
Bryant commented that:Mr. Haren indicated that 4-month was typical in the State Regulations and Jeff Stoll
had indicated that he had received input from the State that recommended 6-months. He then asked which
regulation from the State they were each referring to. Jeff Stoll replied that they have worked out through
negotiation four month retention periods, but they would prefer a 6-months and the State supports their
preference.
Lee Morrison stated that the State has certain restrictions, and what is being stated today are the different
views of expertise in the area. Mr. Haren added that the State regulations do not specify the design
perimeters, there are no time limits, because the State regulations are very specific about no discharge. The
only time discharge is permitted is in the event of a 25-year 24-hour storm. Mr. Haren explained that if
discharging takes place outside of the 25-year 24-hour storm that is permissible. If it was a 25-year 24-hour
storm, they would ther have 15 days to de-water.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Haren if he was correct to understand that at no point is this dairy allowed to
discharge out of the storage area unless it was an event of a 25-year 24-hour storm. Mr. Haren replied that
was correct.
Michael Miller asked Jeff Stoll to clarify that the 6-month storage requirement is required because there could
be six months of frost or saturation. Jeff Stoll said that the Health Department is trying to anticipate the worst
conditions to avoid the discharging situations to occur.
Michael Miller stated that he felt this Condition of Approval was unreasonable because one cannot design
retention ponds to meet every event possible.
Stephan Mokray asked that in the Health Department's decision making if they considered the design Mr.
Haren had presented to them in regards to capacity. Jeff answered that they considered that he was already
close to capacity and Celt that this request was not unreasonable.
Bryant asked the applicant what he would like the Condition of Approval to be changed to. Mr. Haren replied
that he would prefer for this condition to just disappear, but would agree with the State regulation of 4-month
retention.
Stephan Mokray asked who gives the certification of approval for Mr. Haren's company's design of the waste
water retention. Mr. Haren said that they have one non-certified engineer and they have additional
professional registered engineers in their office.
Michael Miller moved to amend Condition of Approval 2A#1, to read, "Demonstration that all manure stockpile
areas and waste water collection, conveyance, and retention facilities are adequately sized and constructed
in accordance with State regulations." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1999
Page 10
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend Condition of Approval#1, to read, "the attached Development Standards for
the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review Plat prior to recording the plat.
The completed plat shall be submitted to the Weld County Planning Department within 30 days of approval
by the Board of County Commissioners. Recording the plat with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder office
shall be done at the ccmpletion of all Conditions of Approval." Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to delete Condition of Approval#2A#51 from the application. Bryant Gimlin seconded
the motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Tom Haren commented that the residence was built and is still present on the property as a use by right and
the vacation of USR-513 is okay with them.
Michael Miller moved to delete Development Standard#14B from the application. Stephan Mokray seconded
the motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete Condition of Approval #2G and Development Standard #24 from the
application. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, no; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1231, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Cristie Nicklas asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas, yes', Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes ; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:37
Respectfully/
es/pel/ctfu l ly\)su submitted 9alf
Jennifer FJle ring
Secretary
Hello