HomeMy WebLinkAbout991427.tiff 05/24/99 M0N 09:53 FAX (dj 001
a
Weld County Referral
' • February 22, 1999
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Roy T. Nelson Case Number USR-1224
Please Reply By March 15, 1999 Planner Shed Lockman
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for a Public
Recreational Facility (Roping Arena).
Legal Lot B of RE-1670 being part of the N2 of NE4 of Section 8,T4N, R64W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
Location West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 53 and south of and adjacent to Weld
County Road 48.
Parcel Number 1053 08 000038
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) April 20, 1999
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
0 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
ta--See attecheddefbsr.Lint
Comments:---cc ,*�o
ern ..fetra-
-7r. ads tit /Ita de. ,2 gon& UJs.s-el-tAta�?i,7F:b C.�.u4rt ,
Signature -(y,.a 0 a-q ,p�..s Date 61014/I1
Agency t,OLSCO
S,Oe epmt.r ofptaytd Uua540 nut..pa a k .
+Wald County Planning Dept +1400 N. 17 Avp.Orrelsy,CO.60631,t(97 �00�� +(970)852-62442 fax
CI -0t I.J 3O41-44196'
-�.�z � p
y
991427
WEST GREELEY
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
'a l l i R' 4302 W. 9m St. Rd.
Greeley, Colorado 80634-1398
(970)356-8097#3
wgscd®pawneenet.com
skit
May 18, 1999
Sheri Lockman
Kersey, CO
284-5444
Ms. Lockman:
I am replying to your request for a tree planting recommendation for a special use permit for
an arena on your property. I do not recommend planting Russian Olive trees as there is a
movement in Colorado to declare the species a noxious weed. I wish that Weld County would
change their recommendations on planting them. Other alternatives include a shrub row or a
row of Rocky Mountain Juniper or Eastern Red Cedar. The juniper and cedar trees are slow
growing and I understand that time is an issue for you.
One alternative might be Austrees. There are several plantings of these trees in your area and
they seem to be thriving when supplied with the necessary water. These trees grow very fast and
might solve the problem without resorting to larger Russian Olive trees. The Austrees will reach
a height of 12-15 feet in 3 to 4 years and will outgrow the Russian Olive easily. If you planted
them about 6-8 feet apart they might form an effective hedge to prevent dust blowing on your
neighbors in the summertime. The problem with the Austrees is that they are relatively short-
lived and are trashy(they are a variety of willow). Russian Olive trees are also trashy.
If the space is available perhaps you could plant one row of Austrees on the inside and one
row of juniper or cedar spaced 6 feet apart on the outside. As the Austrees begin to decline in 15
years or so the juniper or cedar trees would be of adequate height to control dust. These trees
are also relatively long lived so the problem would be solved long-term. I would recommend the
junipers or cedars be planted with fabric mulch to control weeds and retain moisture.
Lilac planted 6 feet apart would also make an effective and pleasant dust barrier for your
operation. New Mexico Foresteria is a shrub that will attain 15 feet of height that might also
work for you,but they are a new offering from the Forest Service and I am not yet aware of how
they perform in our area.
Seedling trees are available from our district through the Colorado State Forest Service at a
reasonable cost each spring. We do not sell Austrees however,they must be purchased from an
independent dealer. Fabric mulch is also available at a reduced cost to our cooperators.
Ate-a_
Michael Shay
District Manager
' 0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
ADMINISTRATION(970)304-6410
PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND NURSING(970)304-6420
FAX(970)304-6416
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES(970)304-6415
FAX(970)304-6411
COLORADO
May 20, 1999 weld County Planning Dept.
Tim Nelson *Y c 5 1999
25802 Weld County Road 48
Kersey, Colorado 80644 RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment (WCPHE) has
reviewed your May 10, 1999 letter and attached map. The letter and map were
submitted as your plan of correction and time line to address your feedlots' violation of
the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulations (CAFO Regulations) and
the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The violation was described to you in a letter
dated April 14, 1999.
The WCPHE has found both your plan of correction and time line to be adequate as
submitted. As you are aware, you have requested a 90 day time frame to make the
proposed improvements to your property. We will consider this time frame to be
expired on August 10, 1999. Also, during this 90 day period, we strongly encourage
you to work with your neighbor to the south, R.C. Harbour, to mitigate any damage that
results from any discharge from your facility.
Please note that this submittal does not fulfill proposed Condition of Approval 2.a. of
USR-1224, as additional information must be provided to describe how manure that is
generated at this facility will be stored, removed, land applied, etc.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 304-6415,
extension 2209.
Sincerely,
APAN
Trevor Jiricek
Supervisor
Environmental Health Services
tj\1263
cc: Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office
R.C. Harbour, 22625 WCR 53, Kersey
Derald Lang, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
. oC.; l ....I rn-,n Walrl f m into Planninn f�enartment
°SWT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1517 16TH AVENUE COURT
GREELEY, CO 80631
ADMINISTRATION (970) 353-0586
O HEALTH PROTECTION (970) 353-0635
• COMMUNITY HEALTH (970) 353-0639
COLORADO FAX (970) 356-4966
Weld County Planning Dept.
May 6, 1999
Tim Nelson MAY 11 1999
25802 Weld County Road 48 .
Kersey, Colorado 80644 RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Nelson:
As you are aware, today, May 6, 1999, we met to discuss your plan of correction,
dated April 14, 1999, concerning run-off from your feedlot. The plan of correction was
submitted in response to our April 14, 1999 letter.
As we discussed, the plan of correction is incomplete and inadequate as submitted.
We did discuss the specific information that our Department requires in order to
consider the plan of correction complete. I provided that information to you during our
meeting in hand written form. You have agreed to submit this information no later
than Monday, May 17, 1999.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 304-6415,
extension 2209.
Sincerely,
71
Trevor ricek
Supervisor
Environmental Health Services
tj\1253
cc: Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorneys Office
R.C. Harbour, 22625 WCR 53, Kersey
Derald Lang, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Sheri Lockman, Weld County Planning Department
,,,,. . ,,, ,
fa, ,
lig To: Sheri Lockman, Date: May 20, 1999
Planning Department
From: Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and\
C Environment
COLORADO Subject: USR-1224, Roy T. Nelson
You have indicated that the applicant for this case is considering increasing the number of
contestants allowed at this site from 60 to 120. This would correlate to approximately 300 to 400
visitors to the site for each event. We recommend that the applicant be made aware that the
ramifications of the installation of a septic system to serve all of the visitors to the site is
significant. The hydraulic flow from 300 users of the site would result in the applicant having to
go through the Site Application process at the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, in accordance with the Regulations for the Site Application Process (5 CCR 1002-
22). This is a lengthy and time consuming process that requires that the applicant explore the
feasibility of alternative sewage disposal.
One option would be for the applicant to propose a septic system to serve approximately 200
people and then provide port-a-potties for the larger events. However,this would require
approval of the Commissioners.
One additional concern has arisen from this discussion. In our review of the proposed site layout,
it does not appear that the applicant has set aside adequate area for the installation of the
proposed septic system. The septic system cannot be installed where livestock or vehicular
traffic occur. The applicant should designate a septic system envelope on the property. We
recommend the envelope to be 5,000 square feet.
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 2209.
tj/1264
EXHIBIT
Z
t sI2 4O,2,24/
Proposed Parking Circulation for 120 contestants.
Explanation of attached Map:
Parking Lot #1. This area measures a total of 216'from the arena fence line on the east,
to the east fence line. I took 30' off from the arena fence line for circulation of horses from
arena. Then I took three sets of 25' off for the roads on the flow of traffic that you can see
with the arrows designating the direction of the flow of traffic. That left 116'that was
divided by 2,which equaled 55.5'. The 2 sections then,between the roads would be 55.5'
which is way more than adequate to park the length of a truck/trailer(which is usually
about 30'long). The area running north and south measures 650'to my arrow showing the
flow of traffic to the north. I took off 50'from the south fence line which would give us
adequate space to plant our trees- 8'from the fence line and the rest for the road for the
flow of traffic. This left 600'to divide by 20' spacing(this would include 8' vehicle and 6'
on each side)which would equal 30. That is how I came up with 30 vehicles per section.
A total of 60 truck/trailer vehicles would have more than ample room to park.
Parking Lot #2: Using the same formulas as stated above. I had 222' from the east fence
line of the yard. I took off 30' for the trees that are already existing there. Then another 75'
for the 3 roads for the flow of traffic. That left 117'which I divided by 2, which equaled
58.5'. The 2 sections then between the roads would be 58.5', which is even greater than in
parking lot#1. The area running north and south from one fence line to the other is 486'. I
took off 25' on the south side for the flow of traffic, and 33' on the north side for the flow
of traffic and the 8'to plant the trees from the fence line. That left 428'which I divided by
20, which equals 21.4. That is how I came up with 21 vehicles per section. A total of 42
truck/trailer vehicles would have more than ample room to park.
Parking Lot#3: Using the same formulas as stated above. I had 280' from the north fence
line of the yard. I took off 100'for the 4 roads for the flow of traffic. That left 180'which I
divided by 3,which equaled 60'. The 3 sections then between the roads would be 60',
which is even greater than in parking lot#1 . The area running north and south from
one fence line to the other is 238'. I took 30' off for the existing trees. Then I took off 33'
on the north fence line for the flow of traffic and to plant the trees 8'from the fence line.
That left 175' which I divided by 20, which equals 8.75. That is how I came up with 8
vehicles per section. A total of 24 truck/trailer vehicles would have more than ample room
to park.
A total of 126 Truck/Trailers would be able to park in the 3 parking lots shown on the
map. We also have a very large area on the map that I showed as an extra overflow
parking if for some reason you thought we would need more space.
Landscaping plan for Special Use Permit:
As noted on the map, we would plant a row of trees on the north fence line from the east
fence line- 630'to the west. The trees would be- 6-8'from the north fence line. We
would plant another row of trees on the south fence line from the east fence line— 350' to
the west. The trees would be—6-8'from the south property line.
We are proposing to plant Russian Olives because of the speed of growth,their hardiness,
and we were able to find 5-8'trees for— $25. We felt the taller height was important so
we would have an almost instant barrier started. We priced out the Cedar trees,which
were also a good barrier,but to plant the same size, they would cost at least twice the
amount, and are very slow growing. Due to the total number of trees that we would plant,
this price difference is very significant. Also, because we are on dryland and have no
waterways around or close to us, we feel the concern of them taking over any waterways
is not a concern. We would plant the Russian Olive trees 7' apart, which would produce a
wind break effect, as they bush out when they are left like a bush and not trimmed like a
tree. These would also be a good barrier between property's as they are very thorny and
would prevent anyone from crossing over our property line. With the total feet from the
north and south adding up to 980', planting the trees—7 ' apart at $25 per tree, we would
need 140 trees, which would be a total amount of$3500. This price does not include the
labor of planting and preparing the ground for the trees.
We would propose to water the trees with a drip line system on a regular basis, or with a
water truck, that we will also be having to purchase to water the arena, to keep the dust
from blowing during these events. I have already planted over 450 trees on our property
that are 6-10'Pinyons, and 10 - 30' Aspens and various shade trees that are at least 2"
caliper. All of these trees are on a drip system already existing, so it would not take much
to add the drip system to the new trees. We would also replace any of the trees that would
die, as soon as the season would let us, as you should plant trees in the spring or the fall.
The cost of watering system is also not included, as since we have to purchase a water
truck anyway, we would have to incur that cost anyway, and would prefer to use that as
our 1st option.
to
•
EXHIBIT
use. #ICY
] ^* — • 1
'44
'
4 r • f
I d
� i f .w =
'
'��. ;- I
' Ilf 9 4;1 •
t 14,1
A
4 . ' • :
: .
4 .....
6 h V 14 Y `Iff t .l. it yi
7 1
P4 =
ty y
a 1
i
}'i1 1 1,'i and { v
`' V 4 i t
t I
''4 , .gyp 5♦ ♦,� llt ` 'YP!
ri �'>4 .f � i .)•� �' 1llit
f 1:a . qR rear 1 •
4 t 1t .ku , ( � : A 9
{{ ti
»I ,..
ii
(1 EXHIBIT
L ',
IASf2 #1x24
Hello