HomeMy WebLinkAbout20091660.tiffHEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2009-39
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
#1696 FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE, OR USE
BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS
(AUTO SALES, SALVAGE, SERVICES, AND REPAIR) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS
A public hearing was conducted on July 22, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner William F. Garcia, Chair
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Jacqueline Hatch
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 7, 2009, and duly published July 9, 2009, in
the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Manuel and
Anita Balderas for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1696
for a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts (auto sales, salvage, services, and repair) in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal
and entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as
written. She stated the site is located west of U.S. Highway 85 and south of County Road 18,
and is approximately 3.5 acres in size. She stated the hours of operation for the business on
the site are from 9:00 a.m., to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m., to 2:00 p.m., on
Saturdays. The business will be closed on Sundays and Holidays, and towing operations are
conducted 24 hours per day, seven days per week. She indicated the site will employ up to
ten (10) employees, and the site currently contains a single family residence and two
outbuildings; however, it is expected that an additional outbuilding will be constructed on the site
at some point in the near future. She confirmed the site is currently fenced, with all storage of
vehicles and equipment on the site within the screened area, and the site will be serviced by a
commercial well and a septic system. She stated the site is currently in violation for the
operation of the business without the proper permit, and approval of this application will correct
the violation. She indicated the surrounding properties are primarily agricultural in nature;
however, there are two properties to the northeast which are zoned 1-3 (Industrial) and are
currently utilized for industrial uses. She further indicated there are five surrounding property
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 2
owners within 500 feet of the site, and one surrounding property owner provided a letter
containing concerns regarding screening. She clarified staff has determined that the screening
on the site is sufficient, and she displayed photographs of the site and surrounding area. She
stated three letters of support were provided with the application materials, from the Colorado
State Patrol, the City of Brighton Police Department, and the City of Fort Lupton Police
Department. She further stated the site is located within the three-mile referral area for the City
of Fort Lupton, which indicated no concerns, and fourteen referral agencies reviewed the
application materials, with seven providing comments which have been addressed within the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. She clarified no response was received
from the Office of Emergency Management, Weld County Paramedic Service, the Platte Valley
Soil Conservation District, or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE).
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) has jurisdiction over the access to site, as it is adjacent to U.S. Highway 85, and the
applicant has met all of the requirements necessary for an access permit. He clarified the
existing access is 25 feet wide with a 20 -foot paved radius. He indicated the applicant is
required to provide a water quality feature for stormwater detention, and Freese Engineering
has completed the calculations, which have been deemed acceptable by staff. He further
indicated no traffic study was completed because CDOT did not require one, and the
easements on the property will be required to be identified on the plat. He confirmed staff has
determined that adequate access to the site exists through the easements on the site, and the
site is not located within a floodzone. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the U.S. Highway 85
Access Plan indicates that when the use of an access changes, modifications to the access will
be completed. She clarified this access used to be residential in nature, and now it is being
utilized for industrial uses, with a large amount of truck traffic, and she questioned what
modifications were necessary, according to the Access Plan. In response, Mr. Carroll indicated
the access is closest to mile marker 244.2, and the Plan identifies the intersection of
U.S. Highway 85 and County Road 18 as the closest intersection. He confirmed the intersection
currently contains acceleration and deceleration lanes, left -turn lanes, and a free right turn, and
the Access Plan indicates the median crossing will be closed at some point in the future, with
right -in, right -out access only.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated water will be provided to the
site from a commercial well, which is permitted, and the applicant is intending to install a new
septic system within the shop building to be constructed on the site. She clarified the applicant
may utilize portable toilets and bottled water during construction of the building; however, the
use of portable toilets and bottled water is typically limited to a term of six months. She further
clarified she is unsure as to when the applicant intends to begin the construction process for the
new building, therefore, amendments to Development Standards #13 and #14 may be
necessary. She stated the Waste Handling Plan indicates fluids from vehicles are captured and
disposed of properly, and the overall Plan is adequate; however, more information is necessary
regarding the disposal of paints and batteries. She further stated the applicant has provided a
Dust Abatement Plan, and she is unsure of where the applicants are intending for visitors to the
site to use restroom facilities. She clarified the application materials did not include use of the
residence within the USR boundaries. Ms. Light stated the applicant has been working with the
CDPHE regarding the APEN permit, and if the business expands in the future, a permit may be
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 3
required for emissions from the paint spray booth. She further stated Development
Standard #20 indicates the applicant must comply with all state and federal requirements;
however, right now, a permit is not required.
In response to Chair Garcia, Ms. Hatch clarified the applicant did not include the residence
within the USR boundary; however, it was discussed that State law requires that the residence
be included because the entire property must be included within the USR permit boundary. She
further clarified, since the residence will be required to be included, the applicant is proposing
for employees and visitors to the site to utilize the restroom facilities within the residence until
the additional shop building is constructed, at which time the restrooms within the shop building
will be utilized. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Hatch stated she is unsure as to
when the construction of the shop building will be completed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
questioned when the State laws were changed that required all of a property to be included
within the USR boundary. In response, Mr. Barker indicated he is not sure that the requirement
is a State law, and in response, Ms. Hatch stated she was previously informed that a USR
boundary had to match the boundary of the parcel, due to concerns with the future splitting of
the property. Mr. Barker clarified the County typically ensures all property utilized within a USR
permit is included within the boundaries of the permit; however, the County is typically reluctant
to allow an applicant to create a USR boundary around specific improvements on a portion of a
parcel.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer questioned if the residence will be required to comply with the
standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if it is included as a commercial use
within the boundaries of the site. She reiterated there is no State law which requires that a
residence on a parcel be included within a USR permit because the uses of the residence would
then become commercial in nature. Mr. Barker indicated the ADA standards are not enforced
until the applicant applies for a building permit to modify the structure. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
clarified if the applicant utilizes the residence as a part of the commercial uses on the site, the
residence is no longer residential in nature, and must meet all the requirements of a commercial
building. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Light indicated the applicant must
provide restroom facilities on the property, and the restrooms within the residence may be
utilized; however, the restrooms will need to be evaluated by an engineer to determine if the
system can adequately handle the proposed load. She confirmed it will be necessary to add a
Condition of Approval to the Resolution to indicate that a review of the septic system is
necessary.
Manuel Balderas, Jr., represented the applicant and introduced his mother, Anita Balderas,
applicant/property owner. He indicated his family's business, a towing service, has been in
operation for 25 years, and the company tows vehicles for the Colorado State Patrol (CSP), the
Weld County Sheriff's Office, and several municipal police departments. He confirmed towing is
the main operation of the business and salvage is a secondary operation of the business;
however, the salvage business has dropped off, so it is currently being phased out. He
indicated the site will be utilized as an impound yard, and when the property was first
purchased, a Temporary Use Permit was granted; however, when the permit expired, the
property was issued a notice of violation. He clarified the CSP utilizes the impound yard to
complete accident reconstruction and mechanical investigations, and he confirmed a letter of
support for this use has been provided for the record. He indicated the family also operates a
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 4
facility within the Town of Keenesburg, as well as a facility within the City of Fort Lupton, and
this facility is expected to contain vehicles which are placed "on hold" by law enforcement
agencies. He confirmed the company is family -owned, and the employees include him, his
father, and two brothers; however, the business is trying to plan for the future and an additional
building will be built on the site once business expands. He further confirmed the site currently
contains two buildings which are utilized for indoor storage of wrecked vehicles, and there is no
set timeline for the construction of the future building on the site.
Ms. Balderas indicated it is acceptable to include the residence within the USR boundary, if it is
required. She confirmed the residence contains three restrooms, and she is open to placing a
portable toilet on the site, for use by visitors to the site, if necessary. Mr. Balderas indicated he
could provide pictures of the other two facilities operated by the family business, and confirmed
the other two sites have complied with all regulations, and there have not been any complaints
lodged by neighbors. He further indicated he could also provide a letter from the paint supply
business, and in response, Chair Garcia indicated the Board does not need to view photographs
of the other facilities; however, the letter may be submitted if the applicant desires. In response
to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Balderas confirmed the business is primarily towing vehicles
to the impound facility, where the vehicles are dropped off for storage. He further confirmed the
main office is located at the Fort Lupton facility, and the employees of the company are only on
this site long enough to pull the tow truck into the site to unload the vehicle. He reiterated the
company is family -owned, therefore, the drivers may occasionally stay on the site for a few
minutes to chat, but overall, the employees do not spend a significant amount of time on the
site. Responding to Chair Garcia, Mr. Balderas confirmed law enforcement officials also
occasionally come to the site to complete investigations on wrecked vehicles. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Balderas indicated the owners of the vehicles do not typically
come to the site to pick up a vehicle; however, representatives of insurance companies do come
to the site, on occasion, to take pictures, etcetera, and then a tow truck removes the vehicle
from the site.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer confirmed the applicant must provide restroom facilities since a
commercial business exists on the site. In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Balderas confirmed
the number of fatal accidents in the area has decreased lately, and when the law enforcement
officials are at the site, they typically take pictures of the vehicle, and sometimes they inspect
components of the vehicle such as the brakes, etcetera. He further confirmed the adjusters
from insurance companies call and make an appointment to come to the site, during the posted
business hours, and they typically take pictures to help determine the salvage value of the
vehicle. He clarified adjusters are typically on the site for approximately 20 minutes, and law
enforcement officials are on the site anywhere between a few minutes and an hour.
Commissioner Rademacher indicated the Board has concern regarding the lack of restroom
facilities since the proposed building on the site, which will contain the restroom facilities, does
not have a finalized timeline for construction. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Light confirmed the applicant has obtained a permit for a commercial well; however, the well
has not yet been drilled. Further responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Balderas
reiterated he does not know when construction of the proposed building will begin, and
Ms. Balderas indicated she previously determined that no future construction plans would be
made until the USR permit was first approved. She confirmed they intend to apply for a building
permit if this USR permit is approved, and she will let staff know in advance when they are
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 5
ready to begin construction. Mr. Balderas clarified the maximum number of people on the site
at any given time is three, if an employee remains on the site during an inspection, and it is fine
for the people on the site to utilize the restrooms within the residence until the new building is
constructed. Commissioner Rademacher indicated if people on the site will be utilizing the
restrooms within the residence, the septic system for the residence will have to be reviewed by
an engineer, to determine adequate capacity, and the restrooms will be subject to the stricter
commercial standards, including ADA standards. Mr. Balderas indicated the only employees on
the site will be family members, since no additional employees are anticipated until after the
new shop building is constructed. Commissioner Rademacher indicated the applicant will be
required to comply with the commercial standards even if people are only on the site for a short
time.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated it is her personal preference that the residence not be
included as a part of the USR boundary since the use of the residence for business purposes
essentially creates a commercial building, which must adhere to stricter requirements. She
further indicated if the applicant, or a future landowner, wanted to sell the residence separate
from the business, some type of land use split would have to occur first. She reiterated the
Access Plan discourages the use of accesses along U.S. Highway 85, unless they are located
within an intersection. She clarified the applicant needs to be aware that as improvements
continue along U.S. Highway 85, the site may eventually be restricted to a right -in, right -out
access only. She suggested that the applicant begin to figure out a way to provide access onto
County Road 18, in the event that the access onto U.S. Highway 85 becomes restricted.
Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated the matter may need to be
re -reviewed by the Planning Commission, depending on the status of the residence on the site
being included within the application, or excluded from the USR boundary. He indicated the
Board needs to consider the timeline for the completion of the restroom facilities within the
proposed building, and he confirmed the restrooms within the new building will be required to
adhere to ADA standards. He indicated the Department of Public Health and Environment
allows the use of portable toilets, for up to six months, and he suggested that the applicant
obtain a building permit within the next six months if they are proposing to allow visitors to the
site to utilize portable toilets. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the application materials did not
originally include the use of the residence within the USR boundary, which is how the Planning
Commission reviewed the application materials. Following further discussion between
Mr. Barker and Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Hatch confirmed the applicant did not include the
residence as a part of the USR boundary; however, it is staff's understanding that the USR
boundaries must include the entire parcel, and she requested direction of the matter from the
County Attorney. She further confirmed the inclusion of the residence will solve the need for
restroom facilities on the site.
Mr. Barker clarified his advice to staff is typically to include an entire parcel within a USR
boundary, so that the boundaries are concurrent, to help avoid confusion in the future if the
property transfers ownership or is subdivided. He indicated the use of the restrooms within the
residence were not considered by the Planning Commission, and typically, it makes senses for
an applicant to divide off the portion of the property which they do not want included within the
USR boundaries. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the USR boundary could include the
entire parcel, as long as the residence was noted as excluded from the commercial uses
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 6
occurring on the property, and remained residential in nature. Responding to Commissioner
Rademacher, Mr. Barker reiterated the Resolution indicates that portable toilets may be utilized
for a period of six months, and an extension of that time limit is at the discretion of the Board.
Commissioner Rademacher expressed his concerns regarding allowing the applicant to utilize
portable toilets without a time restriction.
In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Barker clarified the Planning Commission approved this
application with the USR boundaries being less than the full boundary of the parcel, and staff
indicated they prefer for the boundary of the USR permit to match the boundary of the parcel.
He indicated if the Board moves forward with considering the portion of the property without the
residence, there are still questions and concerns regarding the availability of restroom facilities
since residential restroom facilities are generally not allowed for use by a commercial business.
He clarified staff has allowed the option of utilizing portable toilets; however, the use of the
portable toilets, as written within the Resolution, is limited to a duration of six months, at which
time the permanent facilities will need to be completed. He clarified if the permanent restroom
facilities are not completed within the six months, the applicant will not be in compliance.
Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker confirmed the applicant does have the
option of utilizing the restrooms within the residence; however, an evaluation of the septic
system will be required, and the applicant will be required to complete any work deemed
necessary to bring the restroom facilities into compliance. He further confirmed the construction
of the restroom facilities within the new building will have to comply with the necessary
requirements of the building permit.
Chair Garcia questioned whether the matter must be referred back to the Planning Commission
if the applicant chooses to include the residence within the boundaries of the USR within today's
hearing. In response, Mr. Barker confirmed the matter was listed on the Consent Agenda for
the Planning Commission, therefore, the inclusion/exclusion of the residence was not
specifically addressed. He further confirmed if the applicant chooses to officially include the
residence within the USR boundary during today's hearing, the matter will not need to be sent
back to the Planning Commission for review. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Light confirmed once the applicant applies for a building permit, the building permit is valid
for a period of eighteen months, and the application for a septic permit will remain valid for as
long as the building permit is open. She further confirmed the applicant may also request an
extension of the building permit if the construction is not completed within eighteen months.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she understands the applicant may utilize portable toilets
during construction of the new building, and she questioned whether the applicant may be
allowed to utilize portable toilets on a permanent basis. In response, Ms. Light confirmed
portable toilets are typically allowed for construction workers on the site, not necessarily
employees. She further confirmed portable toilets are allowed for temporary uses, up to six
months in duration, or for seasonal uses. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Ms. Light indicated it is at the Board's discretion whether or not the portable toilets could be
utilized for business operations in general, and if that is the desire of the Board, some
modifications to the Resolution will be necessary. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the Board
has the discretion to allow the applicant to utilize portable toilets for a period of six months, and
then the portable toilets may continue to be utilized during the construction of the new shop
building, as long as a building permit remains open.
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 7
Commissioner Long indicated there have been USR permits approved within the past which
have been allowed to utilize portable toilets on a permanent basis. He clarified this site does
not contain a retail component, and only the employees and law enforcement officials would
occasionally utilize the restroom facilities, therefore, he believes utilizing portable toilets on a
permanent basis could be allowed. Chair Garcia indicated a USR was recently approved which
allowed drivers/employees on a specific site to utilize portable toilets since they did not spend a
large amount of time on the site.
Ms. Light clarified the Department of Public Health and Environment does not consider ADA
standards in the decisions regarding septic permits. She indicated the existing septic permit
was repaired in 1977, and the system may be adequate to serve the needs of the business
since few visitors are expected to utilize the restroom facilities. She confirmed previous
applicants have been allowed to utilize the septic system within the residence on the site, as
long as an engineer has completed a review for adequacy. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated
she remembers that the owners of an antique store were allowed to utilize their residence to
fulfill restroom requirements, and she understands why it was allowed in the past; however, she
is not sure it was a smart recommendation.
Mr. Balderas clarified he understands that he will be allowed to utilize portable toilets on the site
for a period of six months, during which time he will finalize plans and apply for a building
permit. He clarified he further understands he will be allowed to continue to utilize the portable
toilets as long as the building permit remains open and he is working on the construction of the
new shop building, which will contain adequate permanent restroom facilities when it is
completed. Chair Garcia indicated the construction of the new shop building must be completed
in a timely manner, as there are time limits attached to building permits. He clarified the
applicant must indicate that he is committed to construction of the building within a fairly short
timeframe. Mr. Balderas confirmed he is committed to construction of the shop building;
however, he still does not have a specific timeline for completion of the building. He further
confirmed he understands the direction of the Board, that he must be actively progressing with
construction of the building. Responding to Chair Garica, Mr. Balderas indicated he would like
the residence to remain excluded from the USR boundary so that the residence is not required
to meet the standards of a commercial building.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated it is possible for the residence to be included within the USR
boundary, with the understanding that it remains a primary residence and will not be utilized in
conjunction with the commercial business. Following discussion among the Board,
Mr. Balderas indicated he will work on getting construction plans together within the next six
months, and Chair Garcia requested that Mr. Barker and staff work on drafting the necessary
additional language to the Resolution.
No public testimony was offered concerning this matter.
In response to Chair Garcia, Ms. Hatch requested the addition of new Development
Standard #19 to state, "The existing home on the site shall remain as a residential use; no
commercial use is allowed."; and the addition of new Development Standard #20 to state, "A
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 8
building permit including the commercial facilities shall be applied for within six months of the
approval date." The Board concurred with the addition of Development Standards #19 and #20.
Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Balderas confirmed the hours of operation are
sufficient as stated, as long as towing operations are allowed 24 hours per day. In response to
Chair Garcia, Ms. Light recommended the last word of Development Standard #13 be modified
from "facility" to "project." Mr. Barker clarified it will be necessary for the applicant to apply for a
building permit as soon as possible, and during the time that the applicant has a valid building
permit for the site, the site is considered to be under construction. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
indicated it should be made clear that the portable toilets are for both construction workers and
employees and visitors of the business as well. Mr. Barker recommended modification of
Development Standard #13, with additional text to read, "Any portable toilet facilities and hand
washing units provided shall be made available for use by all persons who enter the subject
property."; and modification of Development Standard #14, with additional text to read, "Any
bottled water provided shall be made available for use by all persons who enter the subject
property." The Board concurred with the modifications, as stated by Mr. Barker. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated she prefers for the plat to contain language which indicates the access to the
site will need to be in compliance with the U.S. Highway 85 Access Plan. Mr. Balderas
confirmed the crossover within the median has already been closed. Commissioner Conway
suggested additional language to Condition of Approval #2.C to state, "Accesses to the subject
property shall be subject to, and consistent with, the U.S. Highway 85 Access Plan." The Board
concurred with the modification as proposed by Commissioner Conway.
In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Balderas indicated he has reviewed, and concurs with, the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as amended.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the request of Manuel and Anita Balderas for a Site
Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1696 for a Use Permitted as a
Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial and Industrial Zone
Districts (auto sales, salvage, services, and repair) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on
the recommendations of Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record. Her motion included the
addition of a second sentence to Condition of Approval #2.C to state, "Accesses to the subject
property shall be subject to, and consistent with, the U.S. Highway 85 Access Plan."; the
addition of a second sentence to Development Standard #13 to state, "Any portable toilet
facilities and hand washing units provided shall be made available for use by all persons who
enter the subject property"; the addition of second sentence to Development Standard #14 to
state, "Any bottled water provided shall be made available for use by all persons who enter the
subject property"; the addition of new Development Standard #19, with the required re -
numeration, to state, "The existing home on the site shall remain as a residential use; no
commercial use is allowed."; and the addition of new Development Standard #20, with the
required re -numeration, to state, "A building permit including the commercial facilities shall be
applied for within six months of the approval date." The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Conway, and it carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the hearing was
completed at 11:05 a.m.
2009-1660
PL1692
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS (USR #1696)
PAGE 9
This Certification was approved on the 27th day of July, 2009.
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the
BY
Deputy Cler t o the Board
APP ED AS TO
County Atto ney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNW, COLORADO
KAXL
illiam F. Garcia, Chair
as Radem cher, Pro -Tern
r ,
es_
Sean -P. Conway
1
ar Kirkmeyer
David E. Long
2009-1660
PL1692
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR #1696 - MANUEL AND ANITA BALDERAS
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 07/07/2009)
D. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
Letter on behalf of Scott Busker re: landscaping and
E. AGPROfessionals, LLC screening, dated 07/10/2009
Memo re: Proposed Amendments to Resolution, dated
F. County Attorney 07/22/2009
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
U.
W.
2
0
0
re
0
q
2
/
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2009:
$
m
§
O 22
O co v
.c• \k
]
O k
CO co
-,f• )
§ a) a) N N N
O 0• 0
o00
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
.
/
/
O
/
Cy
\
''
)‘
\
t
\
-/
&
'
\1
Nic
.1,__,
\/
.
®
d
X
\-,f-`
\�l\�
6c/‘,c
d-
ti
6
Z---
2
\J\\
k
2
/
/�«
$
2
John Doe
/
,
It
Pt,
1
\
f)
k
��
Hello