HomeMy WebLinkAbout20231373.tiffSummary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, May 2, 2023
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Elijah Hatch, at 1:32 p.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland, Sam Gluck, Butch White, Michael Wailes, Shana Morgan.
Absent: Pamela Edens, Michael Palizzi.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Diana Aungst, Maxwell Nader, and Jim Flesher, Department of
Planning Services; Rob Adriaens, Department of Building Inspection; Lauren Light, Department of Health;
Karin McDougal, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the April 4, 2023 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Shana Morgan,
Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion passed unanimously.
Case Number:
Presented by:
Request:
Ordinance 2023-06
Jim Flesher/Rob Adriaens
In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting, with Amendments, Chapter 23 Zoning
and Chapter 29 Building Regulations of the Weld County Code (Agricultural
Buildings).
Jim Flesher, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2023-06 and provided a brief summary of the
proposed code changes regarding agricultural buildings. He added that there is also a minor change
including cargo containers in Section 23-4-1100.
Commissioner While asked if there is any recourse for the citizens if staff determines it is not an agricultural
structure. Mr. Flesher said that there is a process to appeal the administrative decision. He added that the
applicant is still able to build the barn, however, they will need to apply for a building permit.
Commissioner Wales asked who will make the determination if it is an agriculture building. Rob Adriaens,
Building Official, said it would be a planning determination, however, building inspection would enforce the
building codes. Mr. Wailes asked if them would be a site visit to make the determination. Mr. Flesher said
that Planning probably wouldn't do a site visit and added that policieshave yet to be determined as far as
determining whether a property is in bona fide agricultural use. Mr. Wailes said that he understands why
this change is proposed and thinks it's a good idea and has seen how this has been abused. However, he
also knows that a lot of people he has talked to are really concerned about some of these changes.
The Chair referred to the change under five (5) acres and said that because someone owns less than five
(5) acres doesn't mean that they do not run a farming operation. He added that they could own one (1)
acre and lease the 100 acres behind that and need to build a building for storage. He added that there are
lots of possibilities and said it would definitely need to be assessed on a case -by -case instance but on all
acres and not just between 5 to 35 acres.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this ordinance.
Tim Naylor, AGPROfessionals, said they work with about 90% of the dairies and all of the poultry facilities
in Weld County and added that we need to decide if we are going to be an ag county or not. He added that
this is creating regulations to solve a problem for somebody building a house inside of an ag exempt
building. He said it is already against the rules so why are we creating new rules that are punishing our ag
businesses. Mr. Naylor stated that the 5 -to -35 -acre rule becomes a subjective and not an objective rule
because somebody gets to decide that an individual gets an ag exempt building and the other individual
doesn't. He added that they don't have a list of what those qualifications are. Mr. Naylor further stated
that you can have a 2 -acre property and can't do an ag building because you don't have a primary residence
on that property. He added that you are not allowed to build anything unless it is an accessory to a primary
use. Mr. Naylor said that then you are forced to get a commercial building permit which comes with road
1
COMMunonS
051r7123
2023-1373
impact fees and facility impact fees. He added that then if it's a commercial building they would need a
land use permit for that. Mr. Naylor said that the proposed changes require the agricultural building to be
unconditioned Group U Occupancy. Poultry barns are 100 feet by 700 feet for baby birds and they have to
be heated so they have to be conditioned. Mr. Naylor recognized staffs efforts in trying to control the illegal
use of agricultural exempt permits but he doesn't think creating more rules and regulations is the answer.
Mr. Adriaens clarified that ag exempt buildings according to the definition states that they are limited strictly
to the storage of agricultural implements, grain, feed, livestock and things of that nature and not to be used
as a place of empbyment or processing of any agricultural produce. He added that it is already a Group U
Occupancy but this change is just clarifying that. Mr. Flesher added that accessory buildings are already
required to be an accessory to a principal use.
Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Flesher for his reaction to Mr. Naylor's comments. Mr. Flesher stated
that staff feels this is an appropriate mechanism to limit the abuse of ag buildings being exempt when they
are not being used for that stated purpose. Mr. Holland referred to the example of raising baby chickens
and asked staff to explain that use. Mr. Flesher read the definition of agricultural buildings in the ordinance
and said if it doesn't meet that then they would need to obtain a building permit. He added that it isn't a
question of whether they should be exempt from fees or not, it's about whether they should be exempt from
a building permit.
Commissioner Morgan referred to Section 23-3-30.A where it talks about the lots between 5-35 acres and
in a bona fide agricultural use and asked if you will be using the definition that was just read as that criteria.
Mr. Flesher said it is the definition of an agricultural building so it would need to meet that definition. Ms.
Morgan referred to the comment on who decides and what criteria is used to determine an ag building and
asked if there will be a set criteria that is going to be used or is it left up to an arbitrary decision. Max Nader,
Planning Manager, stated that the purpose of these proposed code change is to assist with the problems
that the building department deals with on a daily basis. He added that there are a lot of ag exempt buildings
that are converted without permits to a 2"d dwelling or even for commercial purposes. Mr. Adriaens said
that a very common problem especially with smaller acreages is where the primary applicant sells the
property with the ag exempt building and then the new owner wants to start a business, such as welding,
in this building in the ag zone and then they are in violation of the building code and noncompliance with
state codes regarding energy conservation. It is a nightmare for that person after the fact to try to come
into compliance. Mr. Nader added that we don't want to restrict farming as it is an agricultural county but
we are making sum these buildings are properly permitted. He added that education is a big piece to this
and they are putting together some pamphlets to help citizens eliminate these situations from occurring.
He added that they are also working with real estate companies to educate them.
Mr. Adriaens said that a lot of people seem to think that the definition of agriculture is anything to do with
agriculture, however, for instance milking parlors are not allowed as ag exempt buildings because there will
be people working in them. Mr. Wailes suggested that a better definition needs to be created and include
what is not included in ag exempt buildings.
Tom Parko, Planning Director, said that these are good conversations and recommended referring this item
back to Planning Staff so they can regroup, reach out to stakeholders, and have a follow up work session
with the Board of County Commissioners. Karin McDougal, County Attorney, stated that Planning
Commission doesn't have the authority to refer it back to planning staff, only the County Commissioners
can do that. Ms. McDougal added that a recommendation does need to be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners, then the County Commissioners can refer it back to staff for more work. She told
the Planning Commission that you can make comments on your vote so the County Commissioners
understand you are doing this because this is your authority under the Code.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2023-06 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of denial, Moved by Sam Gluck, Seconded by Michael Wailes. Mr. Gluck
included in his motion that the draft be worked on by staff to put careful thought into it and present it at a
later date.
Commissioner Morgan noted that the Planning Commission supports what staff is trying to do and
understands the struggle and want to solve that problem but she just wants to make sure it doesn't cause
other problems.
2
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
Case Number USR23-0004
Applicant: Shannon Kemp, c/o Mel's Dog House
Planner: Kim Ogle
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Doggie
Daycare and Boarding Kennel limited to forty-five (45) dogs over the age of six (6)
months in a subdivision in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: Lot 3 Lake Meadows Subdivision, being part of Section 29, Township 3 North,
Range 68 West of the 6. P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 3; approximately 1750 -feet south of State
Highway 66.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0004, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Ogle noted that Staff received two (2) telephone calls and six (6) letters in opposition
to this application. The general comments received with concerns include the number of dogs requested,
the property owner does not live on site, excessive barking from dogs, odor during summer months, traffic
safety, potential contamination of irrigation water and potential devaluation of family residence. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval
and development standards.
Commissioner Wailes asked if there is a current zoning violation on this property. Mr. Ogle replied no.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, noise and the Waste Handling Plan.
Shannon Kemp, 11705 Montgomery Circle, Longmont, Colorado and Melissa Kittler, 13676 CR 3,
Longmont, Colorado. Ms. Kemp said that she owns the property but her and Ms. Kittler are partners with
the doggie daycare. Ms. Kemp said that they have done a lot of work in preparing the application and
added that they do have their PACFA license.
Commissioner White asked how they control the barking at night. Ms. Kittler said that the dogs run and play
all day and then at night they will be in a barn and will sleep. Ms. Kemp added that they will install cameras
so Ms. Kittler can see what is going on at night.
Commissioner Gluck asked if the structure is metal or a pole barn. Ms. Kemp said it is a pole barn and
added that they have being working with a contractor who has applied for a commercial permit to renovate
the barn. Mr. Gluck suggested installing sound abatement insulation to help with the noise.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Christina Felton, 13726 CR 3, stated that she lives directly to the north of the proposed site. She is opposed
to this application and expressed concern regarding how dangerous the intersection is at Highway 66 and
County Road 3, potential water contamination risk, and pets or agricultural animals disturbed or molested
by these dogs if they got out. Ms. Felton added that the applicants have between 10-20 dogs there now
on any given day without the proper permitting.
Patricia Michelle Felton 13282 CR 3, Longmont, Colorado, stated that she lives south of the proposed
doggie daycare and said that it is not within the small community standards to have 45 dogs. She
understands that they live in an ag based area so there are odors from pigs and cattle but she didn't sign
up for living next to a kennel. Ms. Felton said that she has lived there for 20 years and loves dogs but there
is a distinct difference with 45 dogs.
Commissioner Morgan referred to the community standards and asked if there is an HOA. Ms. Felton said
that it is understood within the community with the limits of animals.
3
Cathy Barnes, 13606 CR 3, stated that she lives to the south of the kennel and lived there 40 years. She
read a letter into the record of her concerns including of increased traffic, waste handling, number of dogs,
road improvements, operating without a permit, no fire hydrants in the area, and contamination of water.
Commissioner Holland asked what the name of subdivision is that Ms. Barnes lives in. Ms. Barnes said it
is Lake Meadows. Mr. Holland asked if there is an HOA with this subdivision. Ms. Barnes replied no. Mr.
Holland asked if there are any fire hydrants. Ms. Barnes said that there are no hydrants.
Jason Ollinger, 13888 CR 3, stated that he is opposed to this project. He said that he works at night and
tries to sleep during the day. Mr. Ollinger said that he knew the dairy there had a manure pile and
understood the odor and noise from the cattle but he didn't sign up for living next to a kennel with 45 barking
dogs.
Carol Coburn, 13853 CR 3, expressed concern regarding noise, traffic and loss of property values. She
added that she has lived there since 1976 and would like the area to stay rural. Ms. Coburn said their water
table is high and is concerned of water contamination from the dog feces.
Ms. Kemp said that they did have fire inspectors come out for permitting the commercial barn and added
that her contractor has a statement from them. She added that Ms. Kittler has two (2) personal dogs.
Dan Hull, Land One Engineering, 361 71st Avenue, Greeley, Colorado stated that he hears a lot of concern
and through the process of applying for the USR they have addressed many of those concerns in their
application. He understands noise is an issue and believes that there were 15 dogs present when the noise
study was performed and it showed that there was no negligible change. Mr. Hull said that waste will be
picked up daily in bags and disposed of weekly.
Commissioner Holland asked if there is a sprinkling system in the barn. Ms. Kemp said that she talked to
their contractor and he is having a fire inspection from Mountain View Fire District and if they say we need
sprinklers then they will have them installed. Mr. Holland asked where the water comes from.
Mr. Ogle said Longs Peak Water provides domestic water and there are no hydrants in the immediate area
at all. Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Ogle if Staff was aware that there were no fire hydrants and if it
would change Staffs recommendation. Mr. Ogle said that they were not aware that there were no fire
hydrants in the area and added that they received a referral from Mountain View Fire District however it
wasn't addressed in their referral.
Commissioner Wailes said that the one concern he had was a comment that continually came up during
public comment about the applicant already operating the business. Mr. Wailes asked what teeth the
neighbors have that these development standards will be met if approved by the County Commissioners.
Mr. Ogle said that if approved and they are operating outside of those development standards, then the
neighbors can call our office and Staff will inspect the site and the applicants will go through a Probable
Cause/Show Cause hearing process and potentially the permit would be revoked. Ms. Kittler asked what
is considered running a business. She added that she does not have more than the 15 dogs that she was
permitted by PACFA. Mr. Ogle said a kennel is more than four (4) dogs on site and with having more than
four (4) dogs you are in violation of the land use code.
The Chair asked if there were any changes to the development standards or conditions of approval. Mr.
Ogle requested the deletion of Development Standard 33 as it is a duplicate to Development Standard 3.
Motion: Delete Development Standard Number 33 and renumber accordingly, Moved by Michael Wailes,
Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0004 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Shana Morgan, Seconded by Sam Gluck.
4
Commissioner Morgan noted that the Planning Commission has a defined set of standards when they
review these cases and added that she didn't find any of those in which they can deny this application. She
said that they may have concerns outside of the purview of this board but for this application she is
recommending approval.
Commissioner Holland agreed and added that he wants to make two points to the Board of County
Commissioners. He said that he is concerned with the fire and access issue.
The Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
No: Butch White.
The Chair called a recess at 3:07 p.m. and reconvened the hearing at 3:18 p.m.
Case Number:
Applicant:
Planner:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
USR23-0011
Voltagrid, LLC
Maxwell Nader
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, for Oil and
Gas Support and Service (CNG Station) outside of subdivisions and historic
townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot B Recorded Exemption RE -3024, being part of the SW1/4 of Section 20,
Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to County Road 51; approximately 0.35 miles north of County
Road 18.
Maxwell Nader, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0011, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Luke Seeber, Civil Engineering Consultant, 308 Camino Real, Ft. Collins, Colorado, Andy Salcines,
Voltagrid Construction and Design, 11869 Pegasus Drive, Jacksonville, Florida and Will Charles, Baseline
Corporation, 112 North Ruby Drive, Golden, Colorado.
Mr. Seeber said that the proposed project is a compressed natural gas facility and added that Staff did a
good job covering the application. Mr. Salcines said they provide natural gas for generators for the new e-
frac fleets. He added that the new oil and gas companies are trying to use electric fracs as opposed to
diesel so they provide the natural gas for the Voltagrid generators.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0011 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Shana Morgan.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
Case Number: USR23-0006
Applicant: Timothy and Laura Cook, c/o Pivot Solar 35, LLC
Planner: Diana Aungst
5
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar
Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot B of Recorded Exemption, RECX15-0103; Part of the SW1/4 NW1/4 of Section
11, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to County Road 33; approximately 0.5 miles north of County
Road 46.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0006, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst stated that the applicant has addressed Condition of Approval 1.A,
therefore, Staff is requesting that this condition be removed. The Department of Planning Services
recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Kyle Sundman, Pivot Energy, 1601 Wewatta Denver, Colorado, said that there are three applications before
the Planning Commission today so they will go through the site generalities and then go into specifics for
each hearing.
Mr. Sundman said that these sites have good topography, solar resources and proximity to distribution level
electrical infrastructure. They will have low growth native seed mix that will be used for sheep to graze and
the sites will be surrounded by wildlife friendly game fence. The majority of construction will be concentrated
over two to three months and then after construction there will be four to eight maintenance visits per year.
The life span of these facilities is expected to be 20-40 years. These sites were the highest and best use
of the property, as determined by the property owners.
Samantha Frick, Community Engagement and Impact Manager for Pivot Energy, 1601 Wewatta, Denver,
Colorado, stated that they take community engagement very seriously. Ms. Frick said that they reached
out to the local neighbors and sent letters with information about the project and also held a community
meeting last fall. In addition, they sent follow up letters updating them about the project and invited them
to call or email them for their concerns. She added that they did have direct communication with a few
neighbors and no concerns were received.
Mr. Sundman said that this site is dryland and not irrigated. They have a land lease with the Cook family
and have not received any concerns from the surrounding community.
Tim Cook, 6421 Highway 63, said that they have owned this property since 1995 and in 2002 the State of
Colorado shut down the irrigation wells and they were regulated and forced into a well augmentation plan.
In order to comply they have had to spend a lot of money with these rules and restrictions only to have a
small pumping quota each year which makes their farm a dryland farm. The farm ground has not been
sustainable with the loss of the irrigation well. Mr. Cook said that they were approached by several solar
companies about leasing their place because it meets their criteria. They feel this is a good, viable way for
them to draw some income from the farm.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.A and renumber accordingly, Moved by Skip Holland, Seconded
by Sam Gluck. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0006 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Skip Holland, Seconded by Sam Gluck.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
6
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
Case Number: USR23-0008
Applicant: Jerry Loeffler, Personal Representative of the Estate of Lydia Loeffler, c/o Pivot
Solar 36, LLC
Planner: Chris Gathman
Request: A Site -Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit fora Solar
Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: North of the Lower Latham Drainage Ditch; being part of the W1/2 NW1/4 of
Section 1, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6. P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Location: South of and adjacent to County Road 50; east of and adjacent to County Road
35.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0008, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman said that The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Kyle Sundman, Pivot Energy, 1601 Wewatta, Denver, Colorado, stated that no comments or concerns were
received from surrounding landowners. Mr. Sundman indicated that the property owner (Mr. Loeffler) was
planning to attend the hearing today but had to leave.
Mr. Sundman said that the difference with this site is that they were trying to do their best to retain the
agricultural character of the site. He added that they wanted to enrich the soil under the panels and create
a seed mix and said that this allows for practical use of the land while not fully taking it out of ag production
indefinitely. They designed this site in a manner that the solar facility will be located on the eastern portion
of the property to buffer the facility from property owners to the west and to be respectful of the neighbors.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked Staff if they have any changes to the development standards or conditions of approval.
Mr. Gathman said that the applicant has addressed Conditions of Approval 1.A, 1.B and 1.C and requested
that these be removed.
Motion: Delete Conditions of Approval 1.A, 1.B, 1.C and renumber accordingly, Moved by Butch White,
Seconded by Sam Gluck. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0008 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Butch White, Seconded by Sam Gluck.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
Case Number: USR23-0007
Applicant Roberta McGregor and Erik Davis, Personal Representative for Dorothy Davis, c/o
Pivot Solar 33, LLC
Planner: Molly Nelson
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar
Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: Lot B of Recorded Exemption, RE -446, being part of the SW1/4 of Section 12,
Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6. P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
7
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 35; approximately 0.25 miles north of County
Road 46.
Max Nader, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0007, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with
conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements and on -
site dust control.
Kyle Sundman, Pivot Energy 1601 Wewatta, Denver, Colorado, stated that this site is similar to the last
project.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked Staff if they have any changes to the development standards or conditions of approval.
Mr. Nader said that the applicant has addressed Conditions of Approval 1.A, 1.B and 1.C and requested
that these be removed.
Motion: Delete Conditions of Approval 1.A, 1.B, 1.C and renumber accordingly, Moved by Sam Gluck,
Seconded by Shana Morgan. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0007 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Butch White, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
The Chair recessed at 4:45 p.m. and reconvened the hearing at 4:53 p.m.
Case Number:
Applicant:
Planner:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
USR22-0018
Loveland Ready -Mix Concrete, Inc.
Kim Ogle
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Open
Mining (sand, gravel and stone), employee and equipment parking associated with
operations outside of subdivisions and historic townsites, in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District.
Part NE1/4 of Section 3, Township 4 North, and part of the SE1/4 of Section 34,
Township 5 North, all in Range 67 West of the 6° P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to County Road 48.5; west of and adjacent to State
Highway 257.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR22-0018, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Ogle stated that notice was sent to 34 surrounding landowners within 500 feet of the
site. Staff received several letters of correspondence between June 2021 to March 2022 prior to accepting
the land use application and added that they had been sent to the Colorado Division of Mining, Reclamation
and Safety for their review process. As the term for review concluded from the State, these letters were
forwarded to Weld County and have been included in the case file. These letters outline concerns of
increase in traffic, decline of property values, air pollution caused by dust, damage to area roads, creation
of crystal silica resulting in silicosis. Additionally, three (3) phone calls were received with questions on the
application, the referral process and how to become more involved in process. Planning Staff received
more than 36 petition style letters in opposition to the permit. More recently, two letters were received in
November 2022, three letters were received in January 2023 and another letter received on April 29th and
another letter received today. The general concerns raised include traffic on State Highway 257 and the
difficulties of accessing the road from the subdivision, dust, noise, and destruction of wildlife habitat along
8
the river corridor. Mr. Ogle noted that the applicant has been in contact with surrounding property owners
and has conducted face to face interaction with adjacent landowners through the state permitting process.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of
approval and development standards.
Commissioner Wailes stated that he saw an interest from Milliken regarding annexation and asked Staff to
explain. Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant spoke to the Town of Milliken about annexation and the applicant
elected at this time to not pursue annexation.
Commissioner Hatch asked what the expected life of the mine is. Mr. Ogle replied it is expected to be
mined for 23 years.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, air emissions, noise levels, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Melissa King, Development Review, reported on the access from the site, traffic in the area, drainage, and
provided a detailed explanation of the preferred haul route. Ms. King noted that the applicant has submitted
an acceptable drainage narrative documenting the stormwater detention exception, therefore, Staff is
requesting Condition of Approval 1.B be removed from the Resolution.
Walt Niccoli, Telesto Solutions, 1207 Creekwood Court, Windsor, Colorado. Mr. Niccoli stated that Loveland
Ready Mix has been around the northern front range for over 60 years and over 20 years in Weld County.
He added that they have an outstanding environmental record, driver training program, and pride
themselves on using compressed natural gas in all of their concrete mixer trucks.
Mr. Niccoli stated that they intend to extract 4.5 million tons of aggregate in this mine area in the least
impactful manner to the environment and neighboring community. He said that the aggregates are
deposited along rivers and they need it of a certain quantity and quality.
Mr. Niccoli said that their preferred haul route is to the west on County Road 48.5, north on County Road
17 and west on County Road 54. He noted that they are maintaining about 200 -foot corridor along the river
with 100 feet on each side required by DRMS and it also allows wildlife to pass through. Mr. Niccoli said
that the reclamation plan will have lakes and enhanced wetland features and a bridge for future access. He
added that the non -lake areas will be revegetated to native grasses and trees. Operation hours will be from
7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and the hauling hours will be from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mr. Niccoli
said that they will be hauling from this site to the existing concrete mixing plant at County Roads 54 and 13.
He added that them will be 35 truck round trips per day.
Brad Fancher, 6405 Windmere Road, Loveland, Colorado, stated that he is the President and General
Manager at Loveland Ready Mix. He said that one of the main objectives is to mitigate the impact on the
community so they developed a little different method used in the past. Mr. Fancher said that they intend
to use wet mining application from the site and will essentially strip the overburden and bring in an excavator
and dig the gravel out and slope it at the same time. He added that when it is opened they will start taking
the overburden off the next piece and slope it. Mr. Fancher said that they will be reclaiming as they go.
They will start on the north side of the river. He said that they will work five (5) acres at a time.
Commissioner White asked how much of the site will be open at one time. Mr. Fancher said 200 feet piece
and then start working across the property.
Commissioner Gluck asked if there will be lake front homes or will this site be used for parks. Mr. Fancher
said it is in a floodplain so there won't be any homes but there will be open space and maybe parks.
Stephanie Fancher-English, 5000 West CR 14, Loveland, Colorado, stated that she is the Manager of
Permitting and Land Use for Loveland Ready Mix. Ms. Fancher-English state that they currently have their
permit with DRMS and posted the reclamation bond for that. Additionally, they conducted a very detailed
groundwater study that was submitted to DRMS to show that they are not impacting the hydrological
bounds. APEN application has been submitted and approved and they recently amended the Use by
Special Review Permit in Johnstown for the Johnstown Ready Mix Plant. Ms. Fancher-English said that
they plan to feed this plant with aggregate material from this proposed mine.
9
Mr. Niccoli said that they received about 60 questions from the public regarding, noise, dust, groundwater,
house of operation, air quality and traffic. There will be no fuel storage on site and no processing or crushing
on site. The noise impact study shows that they will meet all the criteria at the boundaries of the site.
Michael Delich, Traffic Engineer Consultant, 457 Johnson Avenue, Loveland, Colorado, provided visual
slide on Haul Route #1 which includes County Road 17 and Haul Route #2 which includes State Highway
257. He said that currently there are improvements that are triggered based on Weld County and CDOT
criteria at several of the intersections along both routes. He added that Weld County is planning a
roundabout at County Roads 54 and 13 in the near future. Mr. Delich said that the train tracks that intersect
County Road 48.5 is line for the Great Western Railroad. He added that there are two trains over a 24 -
hour period and they are very short trains that use this line to switch cars. Mr. Delich showed that Haul
Route #1 is 0.6 mies shorter and Haul Route #2 has a significant rise in elevation on Highway 257. He
added that the intersections involved in Haul Route #1 don't have the traffic volumes that State Highway
257 does. Mr. Delish said that from their traffic study they found that Haul Route #1 is safer and has much
less volume of traffic.
Mr. Niccoli stated that the residents that attended the neighborhood meetings did not want the trucks going
up Highway 257. Mr. Niccoli requested that the Planning Commission recommend Haul Route #1.
Commissioner Wailes said that he is familiar with the area and tends to agree that making the climb on
Highway 257 is going to cause more problems. He added that he is concerned with County Road 48.5 as
it tends to get pretty nasty when there is precipitation. Mr. Wailes asked how the roundabout at County
Roads 13 and 54 will impact the access to the applicant's site. Mr. Niccoli said that they will have access
to the ready -mix plant on County Road 54.
Commissioner Wales asked Staff to go over why they want Haul Route #2 as opposed to Haul Route #1.
Ms. King provided visual slides on the intersection of County Road 48.5 and County Road 17 and the
constraints within the rights -of -way and the distance of the railroad tracks from the intersection.
Commissioner Hatch asked if there are any plans for the intersection at County Road 48.5 and County
Road 17. Ms. King said that she isn't aware of any future improvements for that intersection.
Commissioner Wales asked if the applicant is insistent on using this haul route would they be required to
help pave County Road 48.5. Ms. King said that they would have to pave it completely from east of their
intersection to County Road 17. She added that it would also involve the Town of Johnstown as this portion
of the road is part of the town and Johnstown has stated that they want a road maintenance agreement
with the applicant as well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mick Sage, 2042 Birdie Way, Milliken, Colorado, stated that in the last four (4) years the truck traffic has
increased by 40% on Highway 257. He added that the trucks won't make the hill on Highway 257. He
expressed concern on the jake brakes from the trucks that use Highway 257. He added that there is
concern with the train traffic and road traffic.
Commissioner Wailes asked if he had any concerns with the mining operation itself. Mr. Sage said that
they feel better than what they had proposed originally. He added that he supports it.
Sheila Grotsky, 115 Birdie Drive, Milliken, Colorado, stated that there is one (1) entrance into the Mad
Russian subdivision. She agreed that there is probably at least 40% more traffic and expressed concern
with the increase truck traffic and noise.
Gary Pimple, 127 Birdie Drive, Milliken, Colorado, stated that he agrees with increase in traffic and added
that jake brakes are a concern. Mr. Pimple referred to Highway 257 and said that he wishes somebody
would do a study and look at the bad accidents at County Roads 52 and 54 as now it will be moving further
south by the railroad tracks. He expressed concern on the speed of traffic on Highway 257.
10
Rick Hillier, 391 Heidi Lane, Milliken Colorado, read a letter into the record regarding concerns of
inadequate answers or incomplete information from the applicant at a June 2022 town hall meeting. He
stated that either haul route is ideal from a safety standpoint but was happy to hear the applicant is
proposing Haul Route #1. He expressed concern regarding silica dust and noise a suggested air and noise
monitoring be in place.
Steve Kelly, 2045 Birdie Way, expressed concern regarding noise and dust. Additionally, he doesn't want
any trucks going up Highway 257 because they can't pull that hill. He added that it is dangerous going the
other way so he is opposed to this mining operation. Mr. Kelly noted that they are bonding 5 acres at a
time and asked what happens when they walk off the project.
Beth Wishall, 2207 Birdie Drive, reiterated the amount of traffic on Highway 257. He added that they only
have one entranoe into the Mad Russian subdivision and approximately 240 residences within the
subdivision. She added that it is very hard to get in and out of the subdivision because of the volume of
traffic on Highway 257.
Gene Wagner, stated he owns land at 23646 State Highway 257, but lives at 19068 Eagle Ridge Drive,
Golden, Colorado. Mr. Wagner said that he brought up the groundwater issue at the Milliken town meeting.
He said that water underground doesn't just happen at the mine pit as it affects the surrounding area. He
heard the applicant say that when once the pits are opened up the groundwater drop on the uphill and the
lower part will rise. From that he understands that groundwater will come up near the river. He added that
there is a ditch that crosses County Road 48.5 and there is a bridge and asked if the bridge will be able to
take the truck traffic.
Morgan Grotsky, 115 Birdie Drive, stated that he is concerned about higher taxes with the improvements
to the roads and also the loss of property values.
Michael Delich referred to the visual slide staff provided of the right-of-way at County Road 17 and how it
relates to the right-of-way for the railroad and setbacks for the residents. He said that the right-of-way is
60 feet; however, currently there is only about 24-26 feet of actual pavement on the roadway so that gives
30+ feet of potential widening of that roadway. He added that leaves plenty of room to add lanes onto the
actual roadway itself. Mr. Delich said that railroad tracks at County Road 48.5 is a spur line and has not
more than 10-20 cars per train.
Ms. Fancher-English stated that silica dust is referenced in the dust abatement plan and typically it is an
issue that occurs when crushing the rock. She added that they are not crushing or processing on site. Ms.
Fancher-English said that they have no plans after reclamation at this time.
Ms. Fancher-English requested a recommendation of approval of this project and added that they would
like to request two changes to the resolution. She referred to Condition of Approval 1.A and requested to
recommend Haul Route #1 and that the improvements include but are not limited to:
• Paving CR 48.5 depending on what needs to be paved
• Proportionate share of the cost of improvements at the intersection of County Road 17 and County
Road 48.5 and at County Road 17 and County Road 50 at the time they are built.
• When the conditions are drawn up, that the proportionate share of contributions for the Dunn Pit
are according to the numbers that are reported on the applicant's long-term peak contributions so
that they have a record of what their contributions are supposed to be.
Additionally, Ms. Fancher-English referred to Development Standard 51 and requested that they have four
(4) years to start commencement as they are trying to get through water court, an Army 404 Permit, and
are worried about the economy if they have to pay for a significant amount of improvements they would like
to ask for a little more time.
Commissioner White said that when it comes to the financial aspects, that is more up to the County
Commissioners.
11
Commissioner Hatch asked Staff that if they get to the three years, are they able to apply for an extension.
Mr. Ogle replied that they can request an extension with the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Wailes referred to the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road 48.5 and said that
the Town of Johnstown had prohibited any truck traffic unless it is making a local delivery so any traffic on
County Road 17 has to divert and go around the town. He said that it seems it puts an unnecessary burden
on that intersection. Mr. Wailes asked if Johnstown is on the hook for some of the improvements that could
take place. Ms. King said that in the county, they expect new development to pay their own way so
improvements to that intersection would be on Loveland Ready Mix. She added that Johnstown's referral
talks about a road maintenance agreement and any improvements being made by the applicant.
Commissioner Gluck asked the applicant if they are aware that the financial burden is on them. Mr.
Fancher said that they were not and believed that they would participate in their percentage of the use of
the road. He said that a lot of those improvements have already been triggered by the traffic counts and
the traffic study shows that these intersections already need these improvements. He doesn't believe that
they should be on the hook for 100% of the improvements. Ms. King said that there are several intersections
involved regardless of which haul route. She added that the intersection at County Road 13 and 54 and
Weld County would agree that proportional share makes sense there because they have already planned
to do that intersection improvement. She added that County Roads 17 and 54, the county has already the
dramatic improvements there so the applicant would not be charged for those improvements because they
have already been made. Additionally, at the intersection of County Road 17 and 48.5 any improvements
there are not planned by the county because County Road 17 is a thoroughfare and County Road 48.5 is
a dead-end road. Therefore any improvements for additional truck traffic would be on the applicant.
Commissioner Wales understands but added that he doesn't agree with it.
The Chair asked if there were any changes to the Development Standards or Conditions of Approval. Mr.
Ogle stated that they are requesting the deletion of Condition of Approval 1.8.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.B and reletter accordingly, Moved by Butch White, Seconded by
Skip Holland. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Wailes asked if the Planning Commission is going to address the applicant's requested
changes or will they go before the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner White said that we
don't get involved with the money issues, but if it's a safety issue he said that we can recommend a haul
route. Karin McDougal, County Attorney, doesn't think it is unreasonable to leave those decisions of
changes to the conditions of approval or development standards to the Board who is the final decision
maker. She added that if you feel strongly to make a recommendation about the route, you are not
prohibited from doing that. Commissioner Wailes said that he is okay with including comments in their vote
regarding the haul route.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR22-0018 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Sam Gluck.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Wailes, Sam Gluck, Shana Morgan, Skip Holland.
Commissioner Morgan said that the County Commissioners should look at Haul Route #1 as the preferred
route.
Commissioner Gluck agreed that Haul Route #1 should be the preferred route.
Commissioner Wailes also agreed and that the expense of improvements should be proportionate to the
applicant's use.
12
Commissioner Hatch asked the County Commissioners to utilize Haul Route #1 as the primary route for
this project. He agreed that proportionate financial accommodations would be prudent in this situation.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 7:13 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
13
Hello