HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110694.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Elizabeth Relford,
Don Carroll and Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of
Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Erich Ehrlich moved to approve the February 1, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2011-5
PLANNER: Elizabeth Relford
REQUEST: In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting,with Amendments,A portion of
Chapter 8 Public Works and Chapter 22 Comprehensive Plan of the Weld
County Code.
Elizabeth Relford, Public Works, presented the 2035 Transportation Plan. She commented that they started
this effort in 2009 as a result from the update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2008. The draft is currently on the
website for review and comment. This Transportation Plan focuses on our roadway system and is a planning
document which guides us in our decision making efforts as land use proposals are presented.
This effort was a coordination among thirty-one municipalities. Ms. Relford commented that they met with all
the communities and tried to get a feel for how they felt their transportation system worked in their
communities and what their concerns were so that we could acknowledge some of the issues they may be
facing.
After all the data was collected and the alignment and planning studies completed they created a Regional
Transportation Planning Chapter which recognizes some of the existing regional transportation planning
efforts occurring right now, such as the North 1-25 EIS and the Highway 85 Coalition. Out of this chapter came
the Road Classification Plan. This Plan is a needs based plan which identifies our needs for the next 25
years.
The priority that came out of the Transportation Plan is safety as well as protecting the investment of existing
infrastructure by placing an emphasis on maintaining and upgrading existing transportation facilities.Out of the
eight Goals established by the Board of County Commissioners, safety was the highest priority.
Commissioner Grand asked how the oil business will affect our thought process on what we do on our roads.
Ms. Relford said that a Niobrara Group has been set up and this group has been meeting once a month. The
members are essentially representatives of the Oil and Gas Industry. At the last meeting, the members
1
00171)1UJ2i(Cd7 Jis
2011-0694
highlighted their routes and from this we will generate a route map so that we know which roads will be
impacted. They recognize that this is an issue and are trying to be proactive regarding this matter.
Commissioner Lawley referred to Section 22-3-50.E, specifically the proposed language change"Land use
proposals shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with Weld County's Transportation Plan, more
specifically,the Functional Classification Map....". Mr. Lawley asked if there is a project that the applicant has
submitted and it doesn't meet those criteria does it get denied. Ms. Relford commented that it isn't that it
doesn't meet those criteria but that you will use that as a guide in reviewing the case. It doesn't necessarily
mean that it would be denied but may need to be amended in consideration of the proposal. Ms. Relford
agreed that the ordinance language could be modified.
Commissioner Lawley recommended that the submittal be taken into consideration rather than approved in
accordance with the Transportation Plan. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, suggested amending the proposed
language to read "Land use proposals shall be reviewed and approved with guidance from the Weld County
Transportation Plan, more specifically, the Functional Classification Map, as amended, and located in
Appendix 8-N of the code."
Mark Lawley moved to amend the proposed language as suggested by Mr. Barker, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved that Ordinance 2011-5 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: 2011-XX
APPLICANT: Beebe Draw Farms
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan for Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan District No. 1 and No. 2.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 39; north of CR 32; south of CR 38 (generally
located approximately 6 miles east of Platteville adjoining Milton Reservoir).
Kim Ogle, Planning Services,commented that the original Service Plan for District Number 1 was approved by
Weld County in 1986. In 1999, the Consolidated Service Plan was approved to organize District Number 2.
Under the 1999 Service Plan, the Districts are required to coordinate with one another for the financing,
acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements serving the entire Beebe
Draw Farms and Equestrian center development.
The purpose of the 1999 Service Plan was to ensure that public improvements were constructed on a phased
based when needed and not sooner so that no area within the Development becomes obligated for more than
its share of the costs of public improvements and operations.
Development has occurred more slowly than was anticipated at the time of approval of the 1999 Service Plan.
There are currently 54 homes in the Development and another 746 anticipated to be constructed. Under the
1999 Service Plan, the Board of Directors of District Number 2 makes all decisions with regard to the timing,
financing, construction, acquisition, and operations and maintenance of all public improvements serving the
Development.
To date,the Districts have had numerous community discussions and meetings concerning the re-balancing
between the Districts of how decisions are made with regard to the operations and maintenance of the public
2
improvements and the timing and funding of amenities.
As a result of such community discussions and meetings, the Districts have agreed to cooperate with one
another for the financing, construction, acquisition, and operations and maintenance of all public
improvements by creating an Authority (as authorized under Section 29-1-203, C.R.S.), which will consist of
two members from the District Number 1 Board and two members from the District Number 2 Board.
At an election held in the community on November 2, 2010, the majority of residents voting approved the
restructure of the Districts, the establishment of the Authority, and the proposed Amended and Restated
Consolidated Service Plan.
It is this document,the proposed Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan that is before you today.
The Board of Directors of each of District Number 1 and District Number 2 have determined that it is in the
best interests of the existing residents and the owner of the vacant land, REI Limited Liability Company(the
"Developer") that the Consolidated Service Plan be amended and restated. This Amended and Restated
Consolidated Service Plan (the "Service Plan") is necessary to provide for changes in the structure and
relationships between the Districts. The Districts intend to enter into the Beebe Draw Farms Authority
Establishment Agreement (the "AEA") which will establish the Authority, as hereafter defined. The AEA will
establish processes for financing the operations and maintenance of the Existing Public Improvements as well
as financing, constructing, and operating and maintaining the Additional Public Improvements, and the
establishment of operations and maintenance budgets and operating mill levies (including a capital
component) for the existing and planned Public Improvements.
All revenues received by the Authority will be deposited into an operations and maintenance account with 80%
earmarked for maintenance (roads, water, drainage and related facilities and improvements).
Central Weld County Water District has an established Service Agreement between the District and Beebe
Draw Farms and Equestrian Center PUD.
The Board of County Commissioners approved the Law Enforcement Agreement between the Weld County
Sheriff and the Beebe Draw Law Enforcement District Authority on December 14, 2009.
The Public Works Department in their referral dated February 4, 2011 states"The Weld County Public Works
Department shall not be responsible for any overall plans for financing, construction,ownership, operation or
maintenance of the public improvements associated with roadways and drainage throughout the metro
districts." Therefore Public Works is in support of the Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan for
the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
32-1-203(2)and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. as indicated in the staff comments dated March 1, 2011, and
therefore the Department of Planning Services recommends acceptance of the Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan Districts Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan
Mary McGeady, McGeady Cisneros, 450 E 17th Ave, Denver CO, represents both applicants, Beebe Draw
Metropolitan District 1 and Beebe Draw Metropolitan District 2. Ms. McGeady commented that the goal and
objective is to have one(1)Board function for service to the community with a balance of relationship between
the property owners and the newly developing area represented in District 2. District 1 representatives will be
responsible for operating and maintaining improvements and District 2 will be responsible for the infrastructure
financing. Together the representatives on the Authority Board will work through the amenities construction
into the future.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved that Case 2011-XX be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Alexander Zauder.
3
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1770
APPLICANT: H. Gordon Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Commercial Recreational Facility(baseball field) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of Corrected RE-660; located in the SE4 of Section 12,T4N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 49; north of and adjacent to CR 46.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this request is dealing with existing improvements. The
surrounding area includes an airstrip located immediately to the north of the site and the ball field is bordered
by cropland to the east, west and south. The nearest single-family residences are located to the north of the
ball field with the nearest residence being located approximately 700 feet to the north. All of these residences
utilize a different access road onto County Road 49. The field is a seasonal use and will not be used during
night time hours.
Nine referrals were sent out; six referrals were received and either indicated no conflict with their interests or
have been addressed as conditions of approval and/or development standards.
No letters or phone calls have been received from surrounding property owners regarding this case.
The main access to the facility is from County Road 49; however there is a secondary access from County
Road 46. You cannot see the ball field from County Road 49 as there is a slope westward from County Road
49.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Maxey commented that in the staff recommendation it appears that we are designating access
from County Road 49 but in the application they wish to access from County Road 46. He asked if access
from County Road 46 is acceptable. Mr. Gathman deferred to Public Works for that question.
Commissioner Holton asked why this application isn't a Use by Right. Mr. Gathman said that the applicants
are not charging the School District for use of the field, but there are some adult men leagues that they are
charging a fee to use the facility, which according to Weld County Code it falls under commercial recreation
and it requires a Use by Special Review Permit.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the access is from County Road 49 which was indicated in their
application as the main access. The access from County Road 46 does cross another property. Mr. Maxey
stated that he visited the site and noted that access from County Road 46 is very well maintained and
recommended utilizing that access as well if an agreement can be made with the adjacent landowner.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that because this request is for six months or less portable toilets
and bottled water are acceptable. Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plans have been submitted.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the maximum expected cars are 30 to 40 cars for a Men's
League tournament on the weekend.
Greg Johnson, Bigfoot Turf, said that he built the baseball field for the kids and the community. They do not
charge for high school kids or below for the use of the field. A minimal fee is charged for supplies (chalk,
paint) for the adult games. They have had the ball field since 2001 and they maintain it themselves. He
4
added that they lose money every year in operating it but they want to have a place for the kids to play
baseball.
Mr. Johnson stated that there is a two mile visibility for the turn-off from County Road 49 from the south and
approximately one and one-half mile from the north. He added that they have built acceleration and
deceleration lanes at their own expense for safety.
Commissioner Maxey said that he would like to see an addition to Development Standard 22 to include County
Road 46 as an access point.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joe Barbie, Superintendent for RE-1 School District, 14827 CR 42, Gilcrest,CO. She is here in support of this
application and added that they wish to have their kids play on this baseball field. This facility is a major
league quality baseball field and it far exceeds their existing facility. Mr. Johnson has offered the opportunity
for the school to utilize this baseball field. She indicated that they will bus the kids to the facility and would
prefer to access from County Road 46.
Ms. Hansen recommended amending Development Standard 22 to read"The existing accesses from County
Road 49 and County Road 46 shall be utilized."
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 22 as recommended by staff, seconded by Jason
Maxey. Motion carried.
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.
Discussion centered on the fees for this application. Commissioner Holton stated that under the Task Force
they had wanted to establish three separate levels for a USR and he feels that this case is being treated the
same as a 1,000 head dairy and the impacts to this case are so minimal. Mr. Gathman said that there are
currently three separate levels; however the problem is that this request doesn't fall within the two lower fee
levels but rather is listed as a recreational facility under the"All Other Use by Special Review Permits"fee level
for a Use by Special Review Permit.
Jason Maxey moved that Case USR-1770 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, yes with comment; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes with
comment; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes;
Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hall thanked Mr. Johnson for providing this baseball field to kids of Northern Colorado.
Commissioner Berryman expressed that he would like to give some more flexibility to staff regarding these
cases.
Commissioner Maxey stated that the baseball field is phenomenal and any kid would be fortunate to have
this type of facility in the area that they have access to.
Commissioner Erhlich echoed the Planning Commissioner's comments.
The Chair called a recess at 2:49 pm and reconvened the meeting at 3:00 pm.
The Chair introduced the following case.
5
CASE NUMBER: USR-1768
APPLICANT: Jack& Heddy Cary
PLANNER: Tom Parko
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(fork lift business) and one (1) Single
Family Dwelling Unit per lot, other than those permitted under Section 23-3-
20.A of the Weld County Code(second dwelling unit), in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-4821; located in Part of the NW4 of Section 2,Ti N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; east of and adjacent to CR 21.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, commented that this application is to accommodate an existing business and
to add a second dwelling unit in the future.
The property has existing vegetation and screening from State Highway 52 and County Road 21 and the
business operations are conducted solely within the shop located north of the residence. Existing access to
the site is located off of State Highway 52 and is grandfathered according to documents from CDOT Region 4.
The site is surrounded by dryland pasture land and irrigated agricultural coupled with rural residential and
industrial uses. There are large tracts of land in the near vicinity. The proposed site is located within the
three-mile referral area of the Town of Frederick. The Town of Frederick did not return a referral response
indicating a conflict with their interests. In addition, the City of Ft. Lupton was also sent a referral and no
referral was returned.
Twelve referral agencies have reviewed this case and four offered comments, some with specific conditions.
There have been no letters or electronic mail received and no telephone calls received for this land use
proposal.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that the site is served by an existing individual well and on
February 12, 2011 the Division of Water Resources approved change/expansion of the use of the existing
well. There is an existing septic system onsite for the home. It was permitted in 1981 for three bedrooms and
apparently there was an accident with the home and in 1982 a four bedroom home was placed on the property
and connected to the system. Based on the permit records the system is undersized for four bedrooms. The
applicant had the system evaluated by an engineer; however the engineer based his evaluation on just the
current occupancy but it did not address whether the system was adequate for four bedrooms.
Ms. Evett commented that Condition of Approval 4 may be removed as the applicant submitted a Dust
Abatement Plan.
Commissioner Hall asked how much the septic system is undersized. Ms. Evett replied that the system is
undersized by about 50 percent based on current code.
Mark Lawley moved removed Condition of Approval 4, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that access is off of State Highway 52 and is controlled by CDOT.
In their referral response they indicated no concerns with the proposed use. The applicants have met all the
concerns address by Public Works; therefore Condition of Approval 5 may be removed.
Alexander Zauder moved to remove Condition of Approval 5, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Jack Cary, 10161 Hwy 52, Ft. Lupton, CO, stated that he has a mobile service truck and does 99.9% of the
work at the customer's job site. Occasionally, Mr. Cary will pick up a disabled forklift and bring it back to his
6
property for repair. He added that customers rarely come to his property.
Mr. Cary indicated that he moved the four bedroom modular onto the property in 1982 and Michael St. Clair of
the Planning Board knew it was a four bedroom home on August 12, 1982 and signed off when they moved it
onsite. He provided a signed hard copy of the document. He added that it has worked fine for 30 years.
Commissioner Hall asked if it would be appropriate to require the applicant to upgrade the system if or when it
fails. Ms. Evett said that when there are bedroom additions that don't meet current Code or is with 20% of
what is needed for the additional bedrooms they require them to upgrade it at the time of the land use permit.
Mr. Cary asked if the office is in one of the bedrooms can it be changed to a three bedroom home. Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, said that the professional engineer needs to make the determination if the system is
adequate.
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 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.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1768 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Erich Ehrlich left the meeting at 3:30 pm.
The Chair read the final case into record.
CASE NUMER: PZ-1158
APPLICANT: Rawah Resources, LLC
PLANNER: Tom Parko
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned
Unit Development)Zone District,with C-3 (Business Commercial)and 1-3
(Industrial) uses, open space, and continuing oil and gas production (Niobrara
Energy Park).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Section 19,T11 N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 126; approximately 0.75 miles west of State Hwy
85.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, commented that the property is approximately 644 acres. The application as
proposed is unique to Weld County. The applicant's business plan and goal for the project is to attract and
encourage alternative energy and support industries that are involved in manufacturing, distribution or
research, support the development of biofuels,support the commercial development of wind and solar energy,
and support the development and use of other alternative energy sources. This case is unique because Weld
County has not processed a PUD for commercial and industrial uses. Staff has met the challenges
associated with this case and believes that the County's interests have been protected while at the same time
being able to support a project that has a potential to create jobs, consolidate industries and support existing
services.
This property is a full section or 640 acres. The property, however, is not flat and has several topographical
variations. To the south is a small substation. To the east are the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA) and Tri-State high-voltage overhead transmission lines which are located on the property. Further
east of the property are easements for fiber optic and gas transmission lines. To the west and to the north are
rather large scale rural properties utilized for ranching. The proposed site is not located within a three mile
7
referral area of any municipality. Carr, located two miles to the west is an unincorporated townsite.
Twenty-four referral agencies have reviewed this case and ten have offered comments, some with specific
conditions. There have been several letters received that support this project. Staff has not received any
correspondence objecting to this project.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that currently the State has issued four(4)commercial exempt well
permits for the property. The County Attorney's office has approved the requirement for proof of water at this
stage of development. The sewer service is going to be addressed as each use comes in. The only change
that they would present is in regard to Condition of Approval 2.F as the applicant is proposing to amend
"subdivision to PUD".
Don Carroll, Pubic Works,commented that at the time of Change of Zone application they typically review the
drainage, easements, drill envelopes, setbacks, and identify any creeks or rivers. County Road 126 is a
collector roadway with 80 feet of right-of-way at full build-out; presently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. The
average daily traffic count is 250 to 280 taken in July 2009. The 85 percentile for speed is 52 mph and 30%
trucks. At the time of Final Plat they will look for safe access points, a master drainage plan, traffic study,
Geo-tech report, and Improvements Agreement such as drainage improvements or road improvements.
Fred Otis, Otis, Coan& Peters, 1812 56th Ave, represents the applicant, Mr. Harrison. He commented that it is
exciting to have an energy development project presented today of the nature and magnitude that is being
proposed. Mr. Otis stated that Mr. Harrison has developed many areas within Weld County and has been
involved in creating land projects as well.
Craig Harrison commented that staff has done an excellent job on this project. He wishes to make this project
process shovel-ready. He stated that he has had environmental audits done on the property. In one of the
reports, Mr. Harrison noted that a Tier 4 Data Center(which is a security center)could possibly be located on
this site.
Mr. Harrison stated that he intends to have horizontal drilling, gas plants, gas/electric generation, solar and
some wind, as well as Smartgrid onsite. He added that this area is the meeting of major gas lines,fiber optics,
and roadways.
Mr. Harrison commented that he believes that this request fits really well with the Weld County Policies and
requested approval of this application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if the applicant wishes to amend Condition of Approval 2.F as mentioned earlier by staff. Mr.
Parko replied yes.
Jason Maxey moved to amend the language under Condition of Approval 2.F as follows"This PUD is in rural
Weld County.....", seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Mr. Otis requested to remove Condition of Approval 6.B regarding the 80 acre agricultural outlot. He added
that the PUD requirements have to do with designing a residential subdivision and because this is an Energy
Park PUD where there are 9 parcels with a minimum of 35 acres it doesn't make sense out of the 640 acres
that you have to create an 80 acre agricultural outlot.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 6.8, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
8
Robert Grand moved that Case PZ-1158 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,seconded by
Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich,absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he is excited to see what happens with this energy park.
Commissioner Hall stated that Mr. Harrison's vision never ceases to amaze him.
Mr. Parko wished to express appreciation for the work that staff did in preparing this case.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Mark Lawley
referred to the case of the baseball field and asked to revisit the concerns addressed. He believes that the
intent of the code isn't to have someone go through that in-depth of a process and pay$2500. Mr. Holton
expressed that staff should have more flexibility to make a decision on whether to proceed with hearings
instead of applying for a small scale permit. Mr. Barker said that it is hard when writing the code because
when we try to make it flexible then the next application doesn't fit the criteria established. Trevor Jiricek,
Planning Director, added that it is difficult to come up with criteria that are measurable for everyone to fall into.
Mr. Holton suggested possibly developing criteria which include different levels of impacts. Mr. Barker
recommended that prior to a Planning Commission hearing a discussion be held with the Board of County
Commissioners which will provide staff with direction on how to proceed based on the consensus of the
Boards.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
mity�
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
9
Hello