HomeMy WebLinkAbout20122825.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Is' A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,Jason
Maxey, at 1:30 p.m.
Dr Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford,Bill Hall, Bret Elliott,Jason Maxey,Jordan Jemiola,Joyce Smock,Mark Lawley,
Robert Grand.
Absent/Excused: Nick Berryman.
Also Present:Kim Ogle,Chris Gathman,and Diana Aungst,Department of Planning Services;Heidi Hansen,
Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
r` Motion: Approve the September 4, 2012 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Robert Grand, Seconded by Bill Hall.
Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR12-0037
APPLICANT: ELIZABETH HANSEN
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT,AN ACCESSORY USE,OR
A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICTS (LAWN AND LANDSCAPING BUSINESS) PROVIDED THAT THE
PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION
PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-1814; PART SW4 SECTION 21, T4N, R67W OF THE
6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST AND ADJACENT TO CR 17 AND APPROXIMATELY.25 MILES NORTH OF
CR 42.
ID. Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR12-0037, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. In addition, Public Works and
Environmental Health presented their reports and stated that they have no concerns with this request. Mary
Evett, Environmental Health,recommended amending Development Standard 12 to read"Adequate drinking,
hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility, at all times. As
employees are on site for less than 2 consecutive hours a day portable toilets and bottled water are
acceptable."
D. Motion: Amend Development Standard 12 as recommended by Staff, Action: Adjourn, Moved by
Robert Grand, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Motion passed unanimously.
is' Jeff Gould stated that he operates Ace of Blades,which is a landscaping business. He is proposing to
use the property to allow for employee parking and some storage of landscape material. There are currently 5
employees with potentially up to 10 employees on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
2012-2825
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR12-0037 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 Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley,
Robert Grand.
CASE NUMBER: USR12-0039
APPLICANT: PROSPECT VALLEY GRAIN LLC
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT PRIMARILY
ENGAGED IN PERFORMING AGRICULTURAL, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OR
HORTICULTURAL SERVICES ON A FEE OR CONTRACT BASIS, INCLUDING:
GRAIN AND/OR FEED ELEVATORS;GRAIN AND FEED SALES;COMMERCIAL
GRAIN STORAGE AND DRYING; SEED PRODUCTION, PROCESSING,
STORAGE,MIXING,BLENDING AND SALES AND RETAIL AND WHOLESALE OF
PRODUCTS AND SIMILAR GOODS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AGRI-BUSINESS
AND AGRICULTURAL USES [PROSPECT VALLEY GRAIN, LLC -GRAIN AND
SUNFLOWER RECEIVING AND STORAGE FACILITY WITH SCALEHOUSE,
OFFICE AND SUPPORT AND STORAGE BUILDINGS], IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL SW4 SECTION 27, T1N, R63W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF CR 4; EAST OF CR 67.
r Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR12-0039, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. In addition, Public Works and
Environmental Health presented their reports and stated that they have no concerns with this request.
Kirk Goble, Bell 5 Land Company,710 11th Avenue, Greeley, CO,stated that he represents the applicant
Mr. Zimbelman. This application is for a proposal for a grain handling facility, primarily handling sunflowers.
The applicant would like to build the facility on property he owns as he has been utilizing some of his own on-
farm facilities to handle some of the grain. The majority of the traffic would be done during harvest. The
growth of the facility will be done in phases, as it is required.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jeffrey and Beth Jacobsen, 33518 CR 4, stated that they live right across from the proposed facility. Mr.
Jacobsen stated that his wife and daughter have asthma and they are concerned with the dust. In addition,he
is concerned with how the farm will be operated and what it all entails.He inquired if the agricultural husbandry
will include the possibility of a feedlot and if all 77 acres need to be included in the permit. Mr.Jacobsen said
that they are concerned with dust, noise, and rodents.
Beth Jacobsen said that it's not that they are against progress in the area but they are concerned with the
traffic and the dust. She inquired if improvements to the road could be made.
In response to Mr. Maxey's inquiry regarding the explanation for the entire 77 acres and agricultural animal
husbandry,Mr.Ogle commented that the USR Permit boundary covers the entire 77 acres;however the area
that will be impacted will be approximately 10 acres. He added that the proposal is not for a confined livestock
2
feedlot; however if there was a proposed feedlot, above the use by right,the applicant would need to amend
the existing USR Permit.
Mr.Goble said that they have made efforts throughout the application to mitigate for dust and the amount
of traffic. He added that there is a hill which climbs up to the entrance;therefore they would not likely be using
a jake brake that would create additional noise. Mr. Goble expressed that Mr. Zimbelman intends to be a
good neighbor. Mr.Goble added that there is no intent for a confined animal livestock operation on site. It will
strictly be a grain handling facility.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
ID' Motion: Forward Case USR12-0039 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 Robert Grand, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes= 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley,
Robert Grand.
CASE NUMBER: USR12-0045
APPLICANT: DORIS CUNNINGHAM AND C&H EXCAVATING, LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE,OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS, PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN
APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP
OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING
SUBDIVISIONS(OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING FACILITY)IN THEA
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B OF AMENDED RECORDED EXEMPTION AMRE-991; PART NW4SW4
SECTION 2, T7N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH
OF CR 86.
Bill Hall recused himself as he has been involved in the application previously. Joyce Smock recused herself
as well.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff has received a request from the applicant to
continue this case as they have a pending annexation application to the Town of Ault. The Town of Ault will be
conducting a hearing of the potential annexation on October 24, 2012.
In response to Mr. Maxey's inquiry, Mr. Gathman stated that the site has been in violation since January 2011.
Dr Vince Harris, Baseline Corporation, stated that they would like to request that this hearing be continued
as the applicant is working on an annexation application to the Town of Ault and depending on their decision
this hearing may or may not be needed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation
of the application.
Brad March, March,Olive&Pharris, LLC,stated that he represents many of the surrounding landowners. He
said that this has been operating since December 2010. In addition, there is a court hearing scheduled on
November 5,2012 for the zoning violation and now there are annexation applications to the Town of Ault. The
landowners have taken off work and are prepared and ready to present their concerns today. Mr. March
3
added that they have put up with this use for 20 plus months. He strongly encouraged the Planning
Commission to hear this case today.
i" Steve Deines stated that he lives directly to the north of the site. They have been dealing with this for
over 20 months. Mr. Deines read a letter into record from Ms.Salzman, Code Compliance Officer regarding
the timeline of violation and use. Mr. Deines stated that he is opposed to the continuance of this case.
I► Don Parsons stated that he owns the property directly east and south of the site. There is an
Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)with the Town of Ault and Weld County and added that this property lies
outside of the IGA boundary. He inquired if Weld County would need to approve the annexation from the
Town of Ault.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, said that he has not researched the Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Town of Ault.
Mr. Parsons commented that he hopes that Weld County would oppose the annexation of this site into the
Town of Ault.
Mr. March referred to Section 19-13-30 which states that if the site is in the referral area there is a
provision that it needs to be referred to the county for review.
Ilk Dustin Winter said that he lives within 500 feet of the site. He has been here on three(3)occasions for
this case. He is opposed to allowing this to continue and wants to move forward with this case.
1" Tonya Van Beber,41430 CR 33,said that they live within 50 feet of this property. Their lives and homes
are affected daily and they feel that a resolution needs to be done today. They are strongly opposed to this
continuance.
Commissioner Grand asked for a recommendation by Mr.Yatabe. Mr.Yatabe understands that Ault has
deemed the annexation application complete but he doesn't believe that Ault has provided any indication if
annexation will occur.
Mr. Grand said that he has empathy for the surrounding property owners. Mr. Yatabe said that the
continuance is a decision that needs to be made by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Lawley said that given that Ault is considering annexation of this site, he feels that this case
should be continued.
r Mr. Maxey asked the applicant when they applied for annexation to the Town of Ault. Vince Harris said
that they believe it might have been around July 21, 2012.
Rick Behning, Baseline 710 11th Ave, Greeley, CO stated that they did not, on behalf of C&H, make the
annexation application and are not aware of the specific date of application. They were engaged to assist in
the annexation plats about two(2)weeks.
Commissioner Maxey said that it is a little frustrating since the County has been hearing this case since 2011.
It was originally denied and then it was heard again for a substantial change and now it is on the agenda
today and the applicant is requesting a continuance. He feels that this annexation is being used to circumvent
the county process.
ir Motion: Continue Case USR12-0045 Until the November 6, 2012 Planning Commission hearing,
Action: Adjourn, Moved by Mark Lawley, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes = 3, No= 3, Abstain = 2).
4
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Mark Lawley.
No: Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Robert Grand.
Abstain: Bill Hall, Joyce Smock.
Mr.Yatabe said that a majority vote will need to be made to continue the case. Further discussion or another
vote will need to be made.
Commissioner Lawley said that if the Town of Ault is going to annex this site,the applicant will need to adhere
to their requirements. He reiterated that it will be irrelevant to hear this case if Ault annexes this property.
Commissioner Grand asked if it is fair for these surrounding property owners who have been facing this issue
for over 20 months.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he feels it should be continued and doesn't believe waiting until November to
hear this case should be an issue. In addition, he would like to see information regarding the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Ault.
Commissioner Hansford said that if we hear this case today and the site gets annexed then we have wasted
some of the County resources. He sympathized with the neighbors; however he believes this should be
continued.
Commissioner Elliott commented that he believes this annexation application is a stall tactic and that it should
be heard today. He added that the neighbors have suffered enough.
The Planning Commission remained divided on continuing this case. Bruce Barker,County Attorney,said that
unless there is a motion to reconsider the previous motion,then it appears that the Planning Commission is
ready to hear the case.
The chair called a recess at 2:41 pm and reconvened the hearing at 2:57 pm.
Chris Gathman presented Case USR12-0045, reading the recommendation and comments into the
record. In addition, he provided a timeline of the application submittals and determinations granted by the
Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Gathman stated that there is an existing land use permit(USR-490),
which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 5, 1982 for an addition to an existing
building for the storage and processing of beets, cabbage and spinach.
The proposed facility is located immediately adjacent to two (2) single-family residences. The nearest
residence to the north is located approximately 100 feet from the boundaries of the site and the nearest to the
west is located approximately 50 to 70 feet from the boundaries of the site. Staff has received two(2)letters,
an email,and 6 phone calls from surrounding property owners in regard to this case. Concerns expressed in
the correspondence and phone calls included traffic and noise disruption, use of torches and open flames
near the existing 15 foot tall hay bale, dust from trucks, trucking idling, property filled with trash and debris,
trespassing onto neighboring property,and unwillingness of the applicant to work with neighbors to address
their concerns. There were some allegations that painting was still occurring on site; however staff has not
been able to confirm that painting has been occurring.
Under this proposal,the applicant is proposing to change the site approved for agricultural use for storage and
processing of onions,spinach and cabbage to a more industrial use(the manufacturing of oilfield equipment).
It is staff's position that the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding area due to the proximity of
the adjacent residences and the year round industrial nature of the business and cannot be adequately
mitigated through development standards and conditions of approval. Therefore,the Department of Planning
Services recommends denial of this application.
Commissioner Lawley asked if staff has been out to validate any of the noted concerns. Mr. Gathman said
that staff has been on site numerous times. Mr. Lawley asked if painting has been done on site. Mr.Gathman
replied that Staff has recently visited the site in the last couple of days and did not find evidence of painting on
site.
5
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
requirements of the site. The application estimated that there would be 36 employees coming to the site each
day and 6 delivery trucks per week. The standard Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement including
access improvements will be required.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,on-site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. In addition, the applicant has stated in the application that no
painting will be done on site; rather it will be done in their Ault facility. Ms. Light stated that Phil Brewer,with
Environmental Health, took some noise readings on site and is here for any questions.
In reply to Mr.Grand's inquiry, Phil Brewer,Weld County Environmental Health, noted that he visited the site
at the property line to the nearest residence southwest of the facility. One morning,over a 15 minute period of
time,the noise level averaged 62.4 decibels. Mr. Brewer stated that he visited the site once again for a three
(3) hour period of time and the noise level measured a maximum sound of 75.8 decibels. The Colorado
Revised Statutes maximum noise levels for residential areas at that time of day(from 7 am to 9 pm) is 55
decibels; commercial office areas are up to 60 decibels; light industrial areas allow up to 70 decibels and
heavy industrial areas up to 80 decibels. Agricultural activities in agriculturally zoned areas are exempt. Mr.
Gathman stated that the applicant would need to adhere to the commercial noise standards for this site.
Vince Harris, Baseline Corporation, stated that in 1982 there was a USR approved for this property for
the processing of onions, cabbage and spinach and it also allowed for up to 30 employees. The first C&H
application was submitted in 2011. Planning Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of
that application; however it was denied by the Board of County Commissioners on October 19, 2011. Five
months after denial, C&H Excavation submitted a substantial change to the application and was reviewed by
the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners and was granted approval to submit a new
USR application.
Mr. Harris said that there was a voluntary neighborhood meeting scheduled for August 1,2012; however the
night before this meeting,the applicant's attorney was contacted and asked that the meeting be canceled. Mr.
Bedingfield,the applicant's attorney,stated that they would like to know when the neighbors would like to meet
and they have not received a response since then.
Mr. Harris stated that they do not agree with the opinion included in the staff report. He referred to Section 22-
2-20 in which the policy states that the conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential,commercial and
industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such
development, and should attempt to be compatible with the region. They feel that this is compatible since
there was a USR approved for a commercial type of operation on this property since 1982.
Mr. Harris requested that this case be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Lawley asked what the reason was for the cancellation of the neighborhood meeting. Mr.
Bedingfield said that he received an email the morning of the meeting from an attorney for the neighbors and
indicated that he did not have adequate time to meet with the surrounding landowners. Mr.Bedingfield offered
to meet another time and he has not heard back.
Commissioner Elliott said that it appears this has been going on for two(2)years and asked if this was the first
attempt at a meeting. Mr. Bedingfield said that he has had personal conversations with Mr. Deines but there
have been no neighborhood meetings.
Commissioner Grand inquired about the increase in employees in relation to traffic. Cliff Simpson,41450 CR
33,said that the amount of truck traffic is under debate. The employees and truck trips are being categorized
together. The vehicle traffic that is being referred to has been said that the number of employees on site at
one time cannot be over 18 employees. He added that he is proposing 2 shifts with 18 employees to have
less hours of operation.
6
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Don Parsons stated that he is opposed to the use because of incompatibility and added that the applicant has
not been a good neighbor. He stated that debris and vehicles from C&H Excavation were parked on his
property. Mr. Parsons indicated he had contacted Mr. Simpson in the past regarding storing items on his
property and added that these items were removed. Commissioner Lawley asked if the applicant is still
utilizing his property. Mr. Parsons replied that he believes that they are using the site.
Dustin Winter, 41555 CR 33, lives northwest of the site. He said that he has lived at this property for
over 20 years. He lived there when the USR was started in 1982 for the onion and cabbage facility. There is a
difference between agriculture and industrial and there is no comparison for this use to what the site was
granted for originally. This site is not compatible with the surrounding property and doesn't belong here.
Tonya Van Beber, 41430 CR 33, presented their concerns of how this use impacts their homes. She
stated that the development standards and conditions of approval will not ensure consistency with Chapter 22
of the Weld County Code. Ms.Van Beber stated that they live 50 feet to the west and as stated by Mr.Brewer
the noise levels are between 50 and 80 decibels. They can hear people talking, music and noise from their
inside their living room. She provided audio and visual videos of the noise and employees and vehicles
encroaching on their property. She added that there is a lack of privacy inside and outside of their home with
up to 36 people on site.
Ms.Van Beber expressed that she is extremely concerned about fire protection living 50 feet from this site. In
addition, she pointed out the debris and waste material on site.
Ms. Van Beber stated that upon traffic counts conducted by an independent person recommended by the
Weld County Sheriff's Department there was an average of 71 vehicle trips per day using the access. Those
71 vehicles shine their lights directly into their home each day.
Steve Deines,41474 CR 33, stated he is the neighbor on the north side of the site. Mr.Deines continued
with the presentation and referred to Section 23-2-220 where the applicant has the burden of proof to show
that the standards and conditions of this subsection are met. In addition,the applicant shall demonstrate that
the uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and that there be
adequate provision for the protection of the health,safety,and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood.
He asked why the neighbors have to prove that the applicant is not following county code.
Mr. Deines compared the original application and the substantial change application. Mr. Deines said that
according to the substantial change application it states that no finished product or work in progress product
would be stored on site. The pictures show that there is painted material on site. In addition,a maximum of
18 employees were proposed on site, not the proposed 36 employees. The 6 am to10 pm hours of operation
are unacceptable to the neighborhood residents. He said that he did have discussions with Mr. Bedingfield
and Mr. Simpson regarding this and admitted that he agreed with the longer hours during the week so they
wouldn't work on Saturdays. However he understood that there would be 6 shifts to produce the big tanks and
that is why he agreed to the longer hours.
Mr. Deines stated that this application has been a moving target from the beginning. Mr.Simpson has had 20
months to try and be compatible with the area and hasn't.
DP Patsy Deines,41474 CR 33,stated that they cannot enjoy the outdoors. They have lights shining in their
windows. The employees do not leave the site until 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm at night. Her husband works at
night and cannot sleep during the day because of the noise.
► Arnie Fiscus stated that he is a friend of Steve and Patsy Deines. He is very familiar with the previous
operation of the onion and cabbage facility. He said that this existing operation is completely different and
incompatible to the surrounding area. He also commented that hay bales attract rodents and snakes to the
7
area and create a health hazard to the residents. He said that this business needs to be relocated.
► Kim Wise said that she travels County Road 33 every day and said that there will be a major wreck with
the amount of traffic that travels that road.
Mr.March stated that the primary issue has been with compatibility and added that the burden of proof is
supposed to be on the applicant and not the surrounding landowners.
The Chair called a recess at 4:51 pm. The hearing was reconvened at 5:00 pm and the Chair asked the
applicant to address the concerns listed in the public testimony.
Mr. Bedingfield commented that the surrounding property owners had a 2-week notice for the
neighborhood meeting. There has been no offer to meet again after the meeting was canceled at their
request. He added that he has met with the neighbors on numerous occasions. He was contacted via phone
by Mr. March last week about the pending annexation but there was no discussion about having a meeting
regarding this application prior to today's hearing. Mr. Bedingfield indicated that Mr. March later spoke with
him about having a meeting between the property owners and the applicant and that he requested a list of
topics that the neighbors wish to discuss.
With regard to Mr. Parsons'concern of using his property, Mr. Simpson admitted to using his property. At the
first USR hearing, Mr. Parsons asked him to stop and Mr. Simpson stated that he has stopped and has not
used it since then, that he is aware of.
Mr. Bedingfield argued that Ms. Van Beber came forward after this application was filed and said that they
have never been referred to in the application or that their concerns have been addressed. He added that Mr.
Simpson has offered to have a fence put up between their properties. Additionally, Mr.Simpson has installed
signage and will enforce the best that they can to not idle their trucks.
In response to Mr. Deines's comment regarding storage on site, it is a difficult topic. Mr. Bedingfield said that
the neighbors assume that everything showed up on site is stored there;however there are some items,which
are painted or primed, are brought back for repairs because they are defective. In addition to Mr. Deines's
comments regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Bedingfield said that they agreed on the those hours of
operation because they did not want them working on the weekends. He felt that Mr. Deines understood that
there would be 2 shifts when they discussed the 16 hour operation and apologized if that was a
misunderstanding.
Mr. Bedingfield noted the 71.5 vehicle trips per day and reiterated that this number reflects the trips per day
and not the number of vehicles per day. He added that they intend to add less than 10 percent to the total
traffic on County Road 33.
Mr. Bedingfield said that the history of this case shows that compatibility has been well established. He added
that this staff recommended approval of a more intense use a year ago at the first application hearing;
however their conclusions are directly opposite today with no substantiation. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of this case with a more intense use with the Board of County Commissioners
denying the application.
He noted that the Planning Commission has the option of delaying the decision today to a future meeting until
the process of annexing into Ault has been completed.
Mr. Grand commended Mr. Simpson's success; however he is concerned with the level of intensity on
this property given the proximity to the neighbors and added that it is not compatible because the operation is
a heavy commercial industrial use. Mr. Bedingfield argued that they have made it compatible by mitigating
some issues.
Mr. Bedingfield reviewed the difference in the applications from the original application to the substantial
8
change application.
In response to Mr. Maxey's question, Mr. Simpson has looked at other properties to operate on but feels that
there are less problems today than at the first application hearing with this site.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR12-0045 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, Moved
by Robert Grand, Seconded by Bret Elliott.
Vote: Motion failed (summary:Yes = 3, No = 3, Abstain = 2).
Yes: Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Robert Grand.
No: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Mark Lawley.
Abstain: Bill Hall, Joyce Smock.
Commissioner Grand said that the applicant has not shown compliance and cited the following Sections:
Section 23-2-220 The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing to consider the application for the Special
Review Permit. The public hearing may involve either the Special Review Permit application alone or may
include the review of concurrent applications under the COUNTY's provisions for Overlay Districts Regulations
in Article V of this Chapter. The Planning Commission shall provide recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners concerning the disposition of the requested Special Review Permit. The Planning
Commission shall approve the request for the Special Review Permit only if it finds that the applicant has met
the standards or conditions of this Subsection A and Sections 23-2-240 and 23-2-250 of this Division. The
applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of this Subsection A and Sections
23-2-240 and 23-2-250 are met. The applicant shall demonstrate:
1. That the proposal is consistent with Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code
provision or ordinance in effect.
Section 22-2-20.G.2 Policy 7.2 G. A.Goal 7. County land use regulations should protect the individual
property owner's right to request a land use change.
2. A.Policy 7.2. Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential,commercial and industrial
uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such
development, and should attempt to be compatible with the region.
Section 22-2-20.1.A Rule 9 I. A.Goal 9. Reduce potential conflicts between varying land uses in the
conversion of traditional agricultural lands to other land uses.
Section 22-2-20.1.5 A Policy 9.5 5 A.Policy 9.5. Applications for a change of land use in the agricultural
areas should be reviewed in accordance with all potential impacts to surrounding properties and referral
agencies. Encourage applicants to communicate with those affected by the proposed land use change
through the referral process.
Commissioner Maxey thanked the applicants and the surrounding property owners for coming today and
presenting their cases. He agrees that some of the concerns noted just have to be dealt with when living in
the County; however he also agrees that this use does not compare to the previous USR permit that was on
site and added that it is incompatible with the surrounding area.
Mr. Yatabe said that this motion fails; however there is opportunity to put forth another motion but if it
ultimately results in dead lock again then it is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a non-
recommendation.
9
Motion: Continue Case USR12-0045 to the November 6, 2012 Planning Commission hearing, Moved
by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
In response to Commissioner Grand's inquiry of continuing the case,Mr.Jemiola said that he felt it would give
the applicant and the residents'time to get together and work out some of these issues.
Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes = 3, No= 3, Abstain =2).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Mark Lawley.
No: Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Robed Grand.
Abstain: Bill Hall, Joyce Smock.
Commissioner Hansford said that he hopes this gives the applicant and the neighbors enough time to get
together and try to work this out.
Commissioner Lawley commented that regardless with what happens,the applicant and neighbors have the
opportunity to work these issues out before the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
The Chair stated that since it is dead locked again, this case will be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioner's with a non-recommendation.
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. Ms. Smock
and Mr. Maxey attended the Planning Commission training this past weekend and appreciated the notice sent
by the Planning Department to attend. They added that it was very informative and encouraged the Planning
Commission members to attend if given again.
Meeting adjourned at 5:54 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
„L /l a , /„ Location:1555 N 17th Ave
"� .I� 1rMKX��n- Date:2012.09.2513:27:44-06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
10
Hello