HomeMy WebLinkAbout971758.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING'
Tuesday, June 17, 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission Was 'held June 17, 1997, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Ceq;epgial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Alan Mar -S.'
Tape 526
Glenn Vaad
Cristie Nickles
Fred Walker
Marie Koolstra
Jack Epple
Rusty Tucker
Stephen Mokray
Shirley Camenisch
Arlan Marrs
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Todd A. Hodges, Current Planner II, Kerri Keithley, Current
Planner, Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Bruce Barker, Weld County
Attorney, Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works; Trevor
Jiricek, Supervisor, Weld County Health Department; Tammie Pope, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 3, 1997, was
approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-248
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
APPLICANT: Varra Companies, Inc.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an Amended Special Review Permit for a sand and
gravel mining operation in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The E2 SE4 of Section 31, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of Weld County Road 15; north of Weld County Road 26.
Kerri Keithley explained that the Department of Planning Services' staff is asking for a continuance because
there is a conflict between the property owner, Harold Nelson, and the applicant, Varra Companies. The
conflict is based upon the legal right to mine the property, and the lease agreement between the owner and
the applicant. Ms. Keithley stated that the Department of Planning Services' staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission establish a time parameter for the continuance, and requests that the continuance be
held within six months of June 17, 1997.
Per Fred Walker's request, Ms. Keithley discussed how the six-month limit was determined. She noted that
because of its proximity to the Mixed Use Development Area, the Department of Planning Services' staff feels
that comments from referral agencies will still be valid in six months, but any longer than that will require
resubmittal of referrals.
Jack Epple asked if Ms. Keithley had a date in mind. Ms. Keithley did not want to set a hearing date until the
issue is resolved, if it is resolved. She noted that as soon as the conflict is resolved between the applicant and
the owner, they can be scheduled for the next Planning Commission Hearing.
Arlan Marrs asked if the applicant was in agreement with a six-month limit on the continuance. Brad Janes,
a professional forester employed by Varra Companies, stated that he would ask the board to consider that an
additional extension of time be granted relative to seeking remedy in the concern between the landowner and
the operator, Varra Companies.
971758
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 2
Stephen Mokray asked the applicant representative how much progress was made in the last three years. Mr.
Janes stated that the problem only recently surfaced during the notification period. The original delay occurred
concerning the Office of the State Engineer water rights and related affairs.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Harold Nelson, the property owner, discussed the continuance. He noted that that there is a sewer plant
involved, and he does not know how much of the ground can be mined. Arlan Marrs asked if six months is
adequate. Mr. Nelson stated yes.
Jack Epple moved that Case Number AmUSR-248, Varra Companies, Inc., be continued for a period not to
exceed six months. Rusty Tucker seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Stephen Mokray-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1152
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Horton Cattle Companies
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an expansion of a livestock
confinement operation (50,000 head feedlot, 12 accessory dwelling units).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The E2 of Section 18 and part of the NW4 of Section 17, T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 34; west of and adjacent to Weld County Road
51.
Shani L. Eastin gave an overview of the proposal. The feedlot currently has 22,000 head of cattle. It is
operating by Special Use Permit 112 (SUP -112), approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August
23, 1971. It is valid only in the NE4 of Section 18 and part of Section 17, all in T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado. This proposal would allow the facility to expand to 50,000 head, and increase the
acreage to 335, to include the SE4 of Section 18. It will also include 10 additional housing units, to make a total
of 12 accessory dwelling units. Ms. Eastin stated that the Department of Planning Services' staff recommends
approval of this proposal, and she read the reasons from her recommendation into the record. Ms. Eastin also
submitted a petition signed by surrounding property owners in favor of the request, and two letters in opposition
or with concerns regarding this request.
Joe Hoff, the Horton Cattle Company representative, stated that the purpose of this request is to allow for the
natural growth of this family owned and operated business, and to consolidate its operation from its other
locations throughout Latimer and Weld Counties. He discussed the history of the operation and explained how
this operation fosters the economic health and continuance of agriculture in this community by purchasing
nearly $2 million of crops from farmers each year, and they have 22 employees, with an annual payroll of
$500,000. The total payroll and benefits of all the Horton locations are in excess of $1.8 million. Current
livestock sales at this location are in excess of $32 million, and the economic impact to Weld County is
approximately $82 million. After the proposed expansion, the projected sales would grow to $82.5 million, with
an economic impact of $206 million. Mr. Hoff discussed the applicant's comprehensive manure and
wastewater handling plan, fly control plan, and odor and dust abatement plans. He has met with Don Carroll
of Weld County Public Works to discuss the road improvement agreement to reduce the number of access
points to the feedlot, and they plan to make access much safer than it is now. They have also agreed to the
dedication of County right of way on Road 51. Mr. Hoff discussed the future construction. He stated that Weld
County is ranked third nationally in terms of agricultural production, and Horton Cattle Companies is proud to
be part of the success of Weld County. They want to continue to support the local farmers and be a strong
employer, while remaining aware of their environmental responsibilities.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 3
Arlan Marrs asked if the Condition of Approval denying truck traffic on Weld County Road 32 was a concern.
Mr. Hoff stated no, that they mainly use Weld County Road 34.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Welch, surrounding property owner, stated that he is in opposition to the expansion. His back door is
approximately 600 feet from the property line, which will abut the expansion. He discussed the surrounding
properties, and how he feels this request is inconsistent with the current use of the area, noting that in a one -
section radius in each direction of the proposed site, there are almost 70 different properties, including a
subdivision. Mr. Welch stated that Shani L. Eastin told him that if this were to be redone today, they would all
be considered residential properties, not agricultural properties. Mr. Welch's other concerns were the lack of
a plan to deal with the floodplain issue, the fact that fly control is not being adhered to currently, and the
environmental issues of dust, smell, and water quality. Mr. Welch stated that the drainage ponds are in the
floodplain and he is concerned that they will contaminate Box Elder Creek. He stated that the zoning
requirements state that no septic sludge can be applied in a 100 -year floodplain, so what is the difference
between septic sludge and the sludge from 50,000 head of cattle. There was discussion between Marie
Koolstra and Mr. Welch regarding his expectations when he moved into his home in 1995, with Mr. Welch
noting that he does not have a problem with the existing feedlot. He stated that because of hills, he can't see
the existing feedlot, but after the expansion he will see the feedlot no matter how many trees are planted. The
hills also prevent dust from coming his way currently, but he feels that dust will be a problem after the
expansion. Cristie Nicklas asked if Mr. Welch has called the Health Department for a fly count; he stated that
he did not know that was an option, but he will do so now.
Shani L. Eastin clarified that there is a Special Use Permit for Mile High Turkey Hatcheries directly to the south
of this proposal and another Special Use Permit to the west for a dog kennel. The properties in the immediate
area were all created either by right prior to zoning, by 80 acre splits, or by Recorded Exemptions. The
subdivision Mr. Welch mentioned, Milton Lake Estates, is located 1-1/2 to 2 miles to the north. It was platted
prior to zoning. Ms. Eastin stated that she told Mr. Welch that if a residential subdivision came into this area
at this time, it wouldn't be done quite the way it was done back then.
Howard Franklin, surrounding property owner, clarified that he previously owned the property Ms. Eastin stated
has a dog kennel Special Use Permit, and Mr. Welch is the current owner of the property. Mr. Franklin stated
that the Special Use Permit was pulled at the time he bought the property, so it is no longer available. Mr.
Franklin stated that he is concerned by the past history of poor overall control, citing that the current permit is
for the NE4 section, but it is actually in the SW4 section, so it has been out of compliance since 1971. He
discussed his concerns as to smell, dust, flies, and the source of water for the proposed sprinkler system. He
stated that he heard bees could be used to control the flies, but he worried that bees would cause an additional
problem. Runoff into the lagoons is also a concern, as he feels their proximity to the road poses a safety
hazard. Mr. Franklin stated that the southeast corner is in a floodplain, and water will run into Box Elder Creek.
Mr. Franklin asked how the water from the lagoons will be disposed of, since the LDS Farm has denied
acceptance of the water. Mr. Franklin stated that he is opposed to the abandonment of Weld County Road 51.
He is not against feedlots, but feels that the proposed expansion will lower property values. Mr. Franklin
questioned how there could not be any manure storage on the site, and also questioned the use of water from
the retention pond on agricultural ground to the east. Cristie Nicklas asked if the effects of this feedlot are
going to be that much greater after the expansion than they are now. Mr. Franklin stated no, if it is well
maintained, but he is concerned with what will happen when the cattle prices go down.
Larry Madison, surrounding property owner, had the same concerns mentioned by Mr. Welch and Mr. Franklin.
He questioned whether bees are already used, as his sons have been stung. Mr. Madison stated that he is
very concerned with the possible contamination of his water from the holding ponds on Weld County Road 51,
and is worried there will be additional dust, as his wife and son have asthma. There was discussion between
Mr. Madison and the Commission members regarding the depth of his well (297 feet), and the length of time
he has owned the properly (three years). Ms. Nicklas explained how wasps, not bees, are used in biological
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 4
control at her feedlot, noting that they are no bigger than a gnat, and do not land on or sting humans. They lay
their eggs in the manure, and the eggs eat the fly larvae. Trevor Jiricek agreed with Ms. Nicklas' description.
There was discussion between Mr. Madison and Ms. Nickles as to how the size of feedlot effects the problems
of the feedlot. Fred Walker asked Mr. Madison how big his parcel is; Mr. Madison stated 80 acres.
Courtney Monaghan, surrounding property owner in Milton Estates, stated that he has lived in the area for 10
years. He stated that he signed the petition for the dog kennel, but there is a big difference between 50 dogs
and 50,000 head of cattle. He can see the feedlot all the time, regardless of trees planted, and he gets the
smell constantly. However, but he is accepting of this; his concern is the proposal to almost triple the current
size.
Diane Mildenberger, surrounding properly owner, stated that she signed the petition in favor of the expansion,
but has since changed her mind. She and her husband purchased their property in 1992, and moved into their
home in 1993. She has been in the agricultural/farming business since 1974, and understands all of the
problems that go along with animals. She discussed her concerns with Weld County Road 49, which she feels
is a very dangerous road, ground pollution, and property values. She stated she lives in Milton Lake Estates
on approximately 60 acres. She realizes that the feedlot was there long before they were, however, she feels
that the expansion is monopolizing the area with cattle, and would be a mistake for the people currently there
and the people that are not there yet. She asked that the smaller acreages be taken into consideration.
Pat Krautschun, surrounding property owner stated that she, her husband, and their two adult children are for
the expansion. The north end of her house is 44 feet from Weld County Road 34, which is a dirt road, and she
requested that some consideration be given to paving or spraying the road. She does not feel one person who
raises fewer cattle should say that someone else cannot make a living raising more. Ms. Krautschun
welcomes this proposal because these are agricultural -based people that have a working knowledge of what
it takes to feed people and be in agricultural. She would rather have a little more smell and flies versus a lot
more traffic and small acreages. Ms. Krautschun stated that her acreage (37.5 acres) is the smallest of those
parcels adjoining the proposal to the west. Her only question was what is going to be done with the property
in between the two parcels. The property owners on each side do not want cattle pens there, and do not want
the 12 dwelling units there either. Shani L. Eastin stated that the 12 dwelling units will be in the upper
northwest corner and the mid northeast section. Ms. Krautschun stated that she does not have a problem with
the placement in those areas, and added that she knows the feedlot has had problems keeping help due to
a lack of rental housing in the area. Ms. Krautschun voiced complaints about the dust from the dirt road, the
condition of the road, the narrowness of the road, and stated that the road should have a wider turn for trucks
and better signage for the feedlot.
Tom Herron, director of natural resources for the Colorado Cattle Feeders Association, spoke neither in favor
of nor against the proposal, only to provide information regarding management practices and to answer
questions. Dust will be controlled through pen density, regular manure removal, and a sprinkler system. Arlan
Marrs questioned how the implementation costs will affect the profitability of the operator. Mr. Herron explained
that these costs are no longer seen as an expense because dust is a health concern for the livestock. There
is benefit economically to raising healthy livestock. In regards to the concerns that there is not enough water
capacity for the sprinkler system, Mr. Herron stated that dust control requires considerably less water than
crops. Odor will be controlled through pen drainage, regular manure removal, reduction of standing water,
barriers such as windbreaks and fences, and land application timing. Mr. Marrs asked if composting will be
done. Mr. Herron stated that it is an option, but most of the solid waste is hauled off because farmers prefer
manure to compost. Flies will be controlled through regular manure removal, reduction of standing water, weed
and grass management, and biological treatments such as parasitic wasps. There is a Manure and
Wastewater Management Plan, as required by the State Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations, to
handle stormwater runoff and manure. Per Mr. Marrs' request, Mr. Herron discussed the responsibilities that
cattle feeders have to meet the changes that are occurring in Weld County with growth. In response to the
floodplain concerns, Mr. Herron explained the floodplain regulations, noting the distinction between a
stormwater retention facility and a process wastewater lagoon, which generates water other than stormwater.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 5
The Horton's have built a berm approximately three feet high within the County road right-of-way, and have
discussed continuing it all the way around the property. Stephen Mokray asked if the Horton's are receptive
to all of Mr. Herron's ideas. Mr. Herron stated that the ideas are the Horton's, they just need engineering and
development help.
Sharon Welch, surrounding property owner, stated that, during a meeting in March with surrounding property
owners against the proposal, Mr. Horton falsely stated that the expansion was already approved. When they
brought this to his attention, Ms. Welch stated that Mr. Horton said, 'Fine. I'm going to put in a 50,000 head
feedlot to make your lives miserable." Ms. Welch does not have confidence in an owner who would make such
a threat, and would like to know who will oversee the expansion.
Eric Angus, farm manager for the LDS Church, stated that the Church is neutral as to the expansion. His
concern is floodwater and if it will go across the road to their farm.
Dallas Horton, applicant, acknowledged his respect for his neighbors' concerns, the impact this proposal will
have on them, and expressed his appreciation to the people who signed his petition. Arlan Marrs asked if the
applicant can, after the expansion, reduce or at least not increase the current level of fly, dust, and odor
problems. Mr. Horton and Mr. Herron explained that the problems will not increase proportionately. Mr. Horton
expressed his sense of responsibility to himself, employees, the community, and the industry. Marie Koolstra
asked how long until build -out. Mr. Horton stated that the expansion will begin sometime next year and could
take until 1999. Stephen Mokray asked if the additional requirements will be a handicap in terms of being
competitive. Mr. Horton stated no and reiterated that some of the costs also benefit the operation in terms of
animal health. Cristie Nicklas asked if there is an alternate plan for wastewater since LDS farms has declined
to use it for irrigation. Mr. Horton stated that he is still in negotiation with LDS and with a neighbor to the north.
Ms. Nicklas asked why a letter was not sent to the Corps of Engineers since this proposal is in a flood overlay
zone. Shani L. Eastin stated that this issue is covered under a Development Standard, and any building in the
floodplain will be reviewed by FEMA.
Per Mr. Marr's request, Ms. Eastin explained how the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
address the concerns expressed by surrounding property owners, and also the consequences if they are not
adhered to. These stipulations were not attached to the old Special Use Permit. Regarding road dust
concerns, Ms. Eastin explained that paving has been proposed for Weld County Road 51 from center section
north, and on Weld County Road 34 from Weld County Road 49 to Weld County Road 51.
Fred Walker moved that Case Number USR-1152, Horton Cattle Companies, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Stephen Mokray-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1153
PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility for a wind electric generation project in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in Section 19, T12N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles west of U.S. Highway 85; south of and adjacent to the
Colorado/Wyoming border.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 6
The Chairman, citing a conflict of interest, turned the case over to the Vice -Chairman.
The Vice -Chairman asked for clarification as to whether this would be the final approval. Todd A. Hodges
explained that if the Planning Commission approves this proposal, it will not go before the Board of County
Commissioners. It will go before the Board if it is denied by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hodges gave an overview of the proposal. The preferred access is from U.S. Highway 85, but the
applicants are looking at alternative routes from the Wyoming side. Mr. Hodges explained that the changes
made to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards are minimal. The word "pipeline" was
replaced with "facility" throughout, and "property owner" was changed to "facility owners/operators" in
Development Standard #6. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends approval of this proposal.
Rick Thompson, applicant representative, explained the need for renewable energy, that the proposal is the
most cost effective technology available, and that the site provides an excellent wind resource.
Dale Osborne, president of Distributed Generation Systems, gave an overview of his background in the wind
generation industry. Mr. Osborne explained that there are four aspects to picking the best site. First, the land
must be privately owned, remote, and used primarily for grazing. Second, there must be a strong and reliable
wind resource. Third, there must be good transmission line access. Fourth, the facility must not cause any
significant environmental impact, especially regarding avian issues. Per Fred Walker's request, Mr. Osborne
explained the three proposed access routes. The preferred access, off of U.S. 85, is owned by the Lazy D
Grazing Association and the State of Colorado. However, Lazy D is reluctant to grant access. Another access
is off of I-25 and owned by the Terry Bison Ranch and the State of Colorado. The applicants are reluctant to
pursue this access because they would also have to cross the Union Pacific Railroad. The final access, which
is in negotiation currently, will require entering in Wyoming, and passing through parcels owned by the State
of Colorado and surface -leased by the Terry Grazing Association. Stephen Mokray asked if there would be
a problem with the flight pattern to Cheyenne. Mr. Osborne stated that they are currently waiting on FAA
approval.
Fred Walker asked if Public Service would use their power of eminent domain in order to use their preferred
access. Mr. Thompson stated that they would be reluctant to exercise their right because they want to be a
good corporate neighbor.
Mr. Osborne explained that only 3/4 of a section of the land will be developed, in phases, for this facility, and
he gave an overview of the facility. Per Mr. Mokray's request, Mr. Osborne explained that the noise generated
would not be louder than a speaking voice, and that there is no evidence of any noise impact on wildlife. He
added that there is almost no ground food to attract raptors, eagles, etc. Mr. Mokray asked if EMF is a concern;
Mr. Osborne stated no, all the cabling will be underground.
Cristie Nicklas asked how much of the project has been sold; Mr. Thompson stated that they have
commitments for eight of the 13 turbines proposed to be built before 1998. Construction would begin this fall
on six turbines, a small substation, and two meteorological towers. There was discussion between Mr. Mokray
and Mr. Thompson regarding this being "wholesome" electricity. Jack Epple asked what the generation
capacity will be; Mr. Thompson stated approximately 20 Megawatts. Ms. Nicklas asked what will happen to
the site if it is not economically viable. Mr. Thompson stated that Public Service does not believe that will be
an issue, but if it were, they would work with the landowner and probably remove the turbines. Ms. Nicklas
asked if Laramie County was aware of the project. Todd A. Hodges stated that they were sent a referral, but
did not respond. Mr. Osborne added that several Wyoming state officials are aware of the project and are
interested in it for their state. Mr. Osborne discussed Governor Romer's Renewable Energy Task Force. In
response to Ms. Nicklas' earlier question, he explained that if the project becomes inoperable, the project
owner is obligated to remove the facility and reclaim the land.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 7
Jerry Burnett, director of Lazy D Grazing Association, clarified that there are nine residences in the surrounding
area of the proposal. His concerns are for property value, as there is development less than three miles away,
possible security problems if the applicants were to use the Lazy D as their access route, and also the
disruption of cattle by the heavy traffic caused by construction. Mr. Burnett would like the access route to be
defined before the proposal is approved.
Marlin Opperman, representative for Lazy D Grazing Association, questioned Mr. Hodges' earlier statement
that the proposal would go before the Board of County Commissioners if the Planning Commission denies
approval, citing Section 25.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Opperman discussed the
Commission's obligations in deciding on this, the first application of this type in Weld County. He also
discussed his concerns, which include the fact that this application is only supported by Public Service and is
not on behalf of Public Service, and he questioned the agreement between Public Service and Distributed
Generations Systems with regards to maintenance and removal. Mr. Opperman asked that the Lazy D
property be withdrawn as an access route, and does not feel that Public Service has a right of eminent domain.
He stated that Lazy D Grazing Association is requesting postponement of action on this application. The
reasons cited were: the Department of Planning Services did not post proper signage per Weld County Zoning
Ordinance, Sections 24.7.2.11 and 22.4.2.5; the concerns of the Colorado Department of Transportation
regarding highway access have not been addressed; the heavy equipment necessary for construction of the
proposal would not make it over the existing two -track road on the Lazy D property; the Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Study has not been released, as per Sections 25.8.11, 25.7.2.4.14.9,
and 25.7.2.14.10 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance; and the precedent this will set requires a clear and
concise set of rules and regulations.
Don Ward, operator of a guiding and outfitting business on surrounding property, stated that he is concerned
with the access route and the effect it will have on his business during hunting season, and the possible effects
to the animals. Mr. Ward asked that a decision be postponed until the access route is confirmed.
Rudd Myer with the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, a nonprofit environmental law firm, discussed how
they have been working to make renewable energy a reality and its importance. She also explained how they
and the Department of Energy are "watchdogs" for the project. Ms. Myer discussed the success of Fort Collins'
wind project.
Mark Roper, manager for the Renewable Energy Program at the Colorado State Governor's Office of Energy
Conservation, expressed the general, conceptual support of the Governor's Office of Energy Conservation for
this application. He provided, for the record, a copy of the executive order signed by the Governor, which
created the Renewable Energy Task Force. Mr. Roper then gave background information on the creation of
the Task Force, and explained that its purpose is to develop a strategy for Colorado to develop 250 megawatts
of new renewable energy in the next ten years. Mr. Roper stated that market research shows that there is
about 50 megawatts worth of demand for this project, while there will only be about 22 megawatts produced
at full build -out. He explained how the Department of Energy grant of $3 million will support the development,
and added that the DOE assessment should be released within the next month. He commended Public
Service Company on the development and asked for a favorable recommendation. In response to concerns
about noise, Mr. Roper stated that early model turbines (which have been improved on) produced 45-50
decibels, while the normal human speaking voice produces approximately 60 decibels. Stephen Mokray
questioned the fact that the task force does not have a strategy. Mr. Roper stated that the strategy will consist
of a list of ideas to help promote renewable energy and that it will be policy level recommendation.
Keith Roman, the owner of proposed site, stated that this project will not cause any pollution or smell, and he
wanted everyone to know that he lives only three miles from the proposed site. He also wanted the Planning
Commission members to think about clean power the next time they turn on their lights.
Jerry Burnett asked if what he has heard about the applicants filing for wind rights is true. Lee Morrison
explained that an easement could be acquired to prevent any structures from obstructing the generators.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 8
Mr. Morrison responded to some of the issues brought up by Mr. Opperman. Regarding signage posting, Mr.
Morrison explained that Mr. Opperman was referring to the section for regular Special Use Permits, not the
Major Facility of a Public Utility. However, Mr. Hodges still tried to meet that standard to make notice available
to the public. Regarding the Planning Commission having the final say, Mr. Morrison cited additional sections
which stated that the applicant can petition the Board of County Commissioners if the Planning Commission
denies their application, and they can also request that the Public Utility Commission hear the case. There was
discussion then between Mr. Opperman and Mr. Morrison regarding the Weld County Zoning Ordinace
sections in question. Mr. Hodges explained the Department of Planning Services signage requirements, and
indicated that Mr. Opperman cited the wrong section of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance; duties of the
Department of Planning Services' staff for a Major Facility of a Public Utility are listed in Section 25.4. Mr.
Hodges noted that the signs posted were done as a courtesy, and that they do not have to be maintained.
Dale Osborne responded to several of the concerns raised. Regarding access to the property, there will be
gates with locks or remote control access, and the landowner will be notified each time before access is made.
Mr. Osborne noted that ingress/egress access rights must be finalized before financing. All assets of the
project will be assigned to Public Service Company. Mr. Osborne's company has signed a long term contract
to purchase the energy for the first six turbines. The company has no relationship to the furthering
development of the project after that without the concurrence of Public Service, who will own the site. Mr.
Osborne also explained that this project is a fully financially disclosed transaction. He discussed how wind
energy is being produced around the world, so this is not a prototype. He asked that the record reflect that
he has never had any contact with Mr. Opperman on this project, and that Lazy D management denied his
requests for meetings. Per Mr. Epple's request, Mr. Osborne explained that wind rights are not like water
rights. Mr. Roman will deed the wind above his property to the applicant so that a barrier cannot be built to
block the wind. Fred Walker asked if the wind rights would be from the property line inward. Mr. Osborne
stated yes.
Rick Thompson clarified that the Environmental Assessment is a federal process required because of the grant,
not because the proposed site is on private land. Cristie Nicklas questioned a previous comment made that
there is no food available for raptors so therefore there are no raptors. Mr. Thompson stated that the statement
was made per baseline data from the site. There was discussion between Ms. Nicklas, Mr. Thompson, and
Mr. Osborne regarding the two -track road at the preferred access and its possible improvement. Fred Walker
stated that he cannot support this until there is a guaranteed access to the property, and that he feels that the
use of eminent domain would be wrong as there is private money involved. Rick Thompson stated that Public
Service Company will fully own the substation and all of the power produced there. He also noted that the
Condition of Approval deals with access, so that should address Mr. Walker's concern. Mr. Hodges discussed
the two Conditions of Approval, adding that the permit would not be valid until those conditions are met. Shirley
Camenisch asked if the applicants agree with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr.
Thompson stated yes. Ms. Nicklas stated that she agrees with Mr. Walker's comments, and discussed how
she resents that previous comments seem to indicate that the proposed site is acceptable because it will not
impact very many people and wildlife.
Marie Koolstra moved that Case Number USR-1153, Public Service Company of Colorado, be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with
Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas-no; Fred Walker -no; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Stephen Mokray-
yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes. Motion carried.
Marie Koolstra commented that she feels there are adequate provisions being made for the access. Rusty
Tucker agreed with Ms. Koolstra's comment.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 9
CASE NUMBER: USR-1151
PLANNER: Kerni Keithley
APPLICANT: Francis Gregerson
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a livestock confinement
operation (6,000 head dairy) with 3 office buildings and 29 accessory to the farm dwellings.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4, W2 NE4 and NW4 SE4 of Section 12, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east of and adjacent to Weld County Road
11.
Kerri Keithley explained that the case originated when Mr. Gregerson applied for three additional employee
housing units, to be the 17th, 18th, and 19th accessory dwellings. It was discovered at that time that there are
currently 3,600 animal units on site, when only 1,120 units are allowed by right. Therefore, it is operating in
violation of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance without a Special Use permit. The applicant believes that the
dairy is a nonconforming land use, or grandfathered into the site. However, a nonconforming land use cannot
be enlarged without a Special Use Permit. Prior to the adoption of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the
dairy consisted of fewer animal units. Since it has increased, the Department of Planning Services' staff does
not believe the Gregerson dairy to be a nonconforming land use. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements
and the regulations of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the
Intergovernmental Agreement between the County, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono. Ms. Keithley stated that
the dairy is located east of and adjacent to the Mixed Use Development Area and within the Town of
Firestone's urban growth boundary area. Because the area surrounding the dairy is developing rapidly, with
annexations occurring around the site, and because it is located in an urban growth corridor, the Department
of Planning Services' staff is recommending denial of this request. Ms. Keithley further discussed how the
proposal is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, as amended. She also discussed how
approval of this proposal will violate the Tri-Area IGA, which was signed by the Board of County
Commissioners. She also cited the various impacts this proposal may have. Ms. Keithley detailed the current
and future development taking place in the area. She noted that there have been seven letters and numerous
phone calls in opposition to this request.
Mike Morgan, attorney for the applicant, clarified that this is an existing dairy with approximately 3,500 head,
15 permitted structures and three offices. The application is a request for additional accessory dwellings to
house the existing level of employees, and to provide more economical operation of the dairy by increasing
the number of head and dairy buildings. Mr. Morgan gave a brief overview of the history of the dairy, noting
that prior to 1981, when the Weld County Zoning Ordinance was changed, the dairy was a use by right in an
agricultural zone. He read from Section 17.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, stating that, therefore, the
dairy has had a USR since 1981. At that time, there were approximately 1,555 head, and the barns, principal
dwelling and 12 accessory dwellings were there. Mr. Morgan discussed his interpretation of Section 17.1 of
the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, explaining that the expansion limit applies to acreage and buildings only.
He believes the law allows the dairy to intensify the use on the land, allowing for natural expansion of the herd.
Mr. Morgan discussed the new permits that Mr. Gregerson has been issued since 1981, noting that three
permits for additional employee housing were approved just recently, pending approval of this application.
These three accessory dwellings, which have been purchased and are sifting on blocks, are the only
immediate additions. The proposed expansion would happen over time, if at all, as the economy dictates. Mr.
Morgan noted that the dairy employs 30-35 people, produces 85,000-90,000 lbs. of milk per day, and that
yearly it contributes approximately $4.5 million into the local economy, and pays approximately $10,000 in
property taxes. Mr. Morgan discussed the surrounding properties, noting that there is no residential
development planned for any directly adjacent parcels. Arlan Marrs asked if there are any large parcels in the
surrounding area available for development. Francis Gregerson, applicant, stated that he does not believe
there is. Mr. Morgan reviewed the application and reiterated many of his previous points. He clarified that the
12 additional accessory dwellings will not be for additional employees; existing employees could gradually
move onto the site as housing becomes available. Mr. Morgan noted that this application was submitted before
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 10
the Tri-Area IGA was signed, and that the County and the Tri-Area have not developed and implemented the
comprehensive plan described in the IGA, so therefore, it is not effective. He discussed the Tri-Area Planning
Commission's and the Town of Firestone's recommendations, and addressed the Department of Planning
Services' concerns and their recommendation for denial. Mr. Morgan asked for approval of the proposal, and
that Conditions of Approval and Development Standards similar to the last four dairy expansions be used. He
discussed some modifications that could be made.
Per Marie Koolstra's request, Kerni Keithley clarified that this application is not just to bring the dairy into
compliance, it is also for future expansion. Ms. Koolstra inquired as to what will happen to the dairy upon
denial. Ms. Keithley first addressed the nonconforming use issue, noting that once the applicant increased
intensity, he lost his nonconforming use. She also explained that the Department of Planning Services' staff
validated the use of dairy in 1990 by releasing the additional accessory dwelling permits. Therefore, if the
Planning Commission denies the request, the applicant should be ordered to go back to the head count back
in 1990, when it was validated. There was discussion between Ms. Koolstra, Ms. Nickles and Ms. Keithley
regarding the incompatibility issue. Arlan Marrs stated that, due to the County's error by not catching the
noncompliance over the years, the applicant should at least be allowed to keep the current head count. There
was discussion between Mr. Morgan and Bruce Barker as to whether the limits set by the nonconforming use
that became a USR in 1981 limited the total expansion, including head count, or just acreage expansion. Mr.
Barker stated that a base must be established. He suggested that it be the total head present in 1990, when
the Department of Planning Services erroneously validated the dairy by issuing additional accessory dwelling
permits. Mr. Marrs disagreed because the applicant was never told there was a limit, therefore, the base
should be set at the current head count. Ms. Keithley discussed the intent of the Tri-Area IGA. Mr. Marrs noted
that he was opposed to the IGA from the beginning because of something such as this happening.
Per Fred Walker's request, Ms. Keithley explained that the Town of Firestone was not represented at the Tri-
Area Planning Commission hearing, but they did call the Department of Planning Services to comment
individually. Mr. Walker and Ms. Keithley discussed the Town of Firestone's lack of participation in the Tri-Area
Planning Commission.
Robert Lehr, representative of Mr. & Mrs. Lambertson, surrounding property owners, stated that they have no
objections to the current operation, but object to the expansion. Mr. Lehr discussed the future development
of the 296 acres the Lambertson's own, which includes a PUD for a modular home community. Mr. Lehr stated
that he sees the area going from agricultural to residential more sooner than later.
David Sewald, surrounding property owner, stated that he has no objection to the existing dairy, but objects
to the expansion due to future development. He also objects to the any accessory dwellings being put on Weld
County Road 11; he would like to see them all in the same area east of dairy.
Conrad Hopps, surrounding property, spoke in favor of the dairy. He discussed the inconsistency of the
residential developments.
Louis Rademacher, manager of Rademacher Farms, LLC., spoke in favor of the dairy, noting that the dairy
smells better than the nearby sewer plant. He discussed the difference between dairies and feedlots, regarding
headcount fluctuations.
Mr. Morgan responded to some of the concerns brought up by surrounding property owners. Arlan Marrs
asked if the applicant would be willing to hook up to sewer service if it becomes available. Mr. Gregerson
stated that he would be willing if it was feasible, but he knows that the sewer district is already overloaded. Mr.
Marrs and Mr. Gregerson discussed the possibility of his employees living in the modular community previously
mentioned. Mr. Gregerson did not envision his employees living there.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 11
Jack Epple and Kerri Keithley discussed the possibility of a continuance to see if the Department of Planning
Services' staff can work something out with the applicant. Ms. Keithley stated that the staff will not change their
recommendation. Rusty Tucker asked for clarification as to what exactly the Planning Commission is voting
on. Mr. Barker stated that the Department of Planning Services' staff is comfortable with the 1990 figure of
2,063 head, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt from 1981 through 1990. He discussed possible
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
Per Mr. Walker's request, Mr. Morgan discussed what he would like the Planning Commission to vote on,
which was for the expansion to 6,000 head. Mr. Barker discussed how it is inappropriate for the Planning
Commission to ask the applicant to change that figure at this stage in the process.
Bill Crews, representative for the applicant, discussed how the applicant ended up at this point after applying
for three accessory dwelling permits. Mr. Crews explained that the expansion numbers are an eventuality, not
a plan, and that the applicant wants to avoid the expense of having to come before the Planning Commission
again.
Per Mr. Mokray's request, Mr. Gregerson explained that economics and mother nature will control the head
count. Per Shirley Camenisch's request, Mr. Gregerson explained the ratio of cows to employees. Cristie
Camenisch asked what will happen when his head count reaches 6,000. Mr. Gregerson explained how the
figure was reached, and stated that he does not envision his herd any larger than that.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Morgan stated no, because he has not had a chance to review them all. He noted some of the
concerns he has with the few that he had read. There was discussion by Mr. Marrs and Mr. Barker regarding
the Planning Commission making a recommendation. Mr. Barker noted that after the recommendation is made,
but before it goes to the Board, the staff and the applicant could make some revisions. Mr. Morgan expressed
his reluctance to agree to this before they have had a chance to review them. Mr. Mokray asked if the Planning
Commission could stipulate that an agreement be worked out between the applicant and the Department of
Planning Services' staff. Mr. Barker stated that the Commission's job is to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners approval or denial, and Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. He suggested
giving the applicant time to review the conditions. There was discussion between Mr. Marrs and Ms. Keithley
as to why the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards were not included in the denial packet.
The Chairman asked if the applicant would be agreeable to a continuance until the next Planning Commission
meeting. Mr. Morgan did not want to wait on a decision. He suggested that general conditions from two recent
dairy expansions be used. Ms. Keithley argued that every dairy is site specific. She stated that there has been
only one change to the Conditions of Approval from the ones listed in the original referral packet, which the
applicant received. She read Condition of Approval #5 into the record. Cristie Nickles asked which access
the existing houses will use if the Weld County Road 11 access is closed. Don Carroll explained that there
are three existing accesses off of Weld County Road 11; the Department of Public Works is asking for the
closure of only one of them. Mr. Carroll discussed the fire department's requirements, and the Department
of Public Works policy on circle drives. The applicant agreed with Mr. Carroll's comments.
Per Mr. Marr's request, Ms. Keithley explained the zoning permit process for accessory dwellings.
Arlan Marrs clarified that the applicant has not agreed to the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, he has not agreed to any lesser numbers, and the Department of Planning Services' staff is
standing by the recommendation for denial. Marie Koolstra read a quotation from Glickman, the Secretary of
Agriculture at the federal level: "Dairy will not survive unless it grows." Shirley Camenisch asked if the
conditions can be changed after the Planning Commission's approval. Ms. Keithley stated yes.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1997
Page 12
Stephen Mokray moved that Case Number USR-1151, Francis Gregerson, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the Planning
Commission's recommendation for approval. Shirley Camenisch seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes; Stephen Mokray-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs -yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple commented that the applicant has 3,500 head, and 6,000 head is not that much more, so he'll stay
pretty much the size he is. Mr. Epple stated that Mr. Gregerson has that right. If the staff had negotiated with
the Town of Firestone and talked it over with the applicant, some sort of agreement could have been made
before it came to the Planning Commission.
Arlan Marrs commented that this is a tough issue. The area is developing rapidly, so it will be important for Mr.
Gregerson to keep his facility as well operated as it is now, not only for himself and his neighbors, but for all
of agriculture. In the future, if rules and regulations are passed because of one person's poor operation, it's
going to affect us all. He noted his disappointment in the Tri-Area IGA, and the statement in there that certain
issues will be disapproved. He stated that it was a bad agreement and should never have gone as far as it
did.
Meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tammie Pope
Secretary
Hello