HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070617.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, March 6,2007, in the Weld
County Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer- Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Attorney Cindy Giauque, Hannah Hippely, Chris Gathman, Roger Caruso, Kim Ogle,and Kris
Ranslem. Don Carroll, Jesse Hein, and Char Davis.
Doug Ochsner motioned to approve the minutes of the February 20, 2007 meeting, seconded by Paul
Branham. Motion carried.
CONTINUED ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1596
APPLICANT: Scott & Kristie Fisher
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2NE4 of Section 23, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a Kennel (16 dog maximum) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 23; approx. 1/3 mile south of Hwy
392.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, stated that this case was placed on the agenda as a
continuance item due to the lack of required mineral notification. Since that time a letter from the mineral
owner has been received. Hannah requested that this case be moved to the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the Commissioners if they were in favor of moving Case USR-1596 to the Consent
Agenda. The Commissioners agreed to move the case to the Consent Agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1601
APPLICANT: Russell Pope
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1823; Pt NE4 of Section 8m T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a business permitted as a use by review or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District(weddings, wedding
receptions, wedding seminars, honeymoons, meetings, reunions,
religious ceremonies, private parties, dinner parties, picnics;
business conferences, lectures, seminars and training sessions;
trade shows, car shows, art exhibits; recreational activities
ee»vtiau»CIA LO1•O 3-/v/,a.OO7 1
p0tI-(,)4-77
including badminton, basketball, croquet, golf driving range,
horseshoes and volleyball; outdoor events including Easter egg
hunt, hay/straw wagon rides, pumpkin patch, sleigh rides and
surrey rides; holiday parties and community gatherings along
with accessory uses including bar service and catering) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: %3 mile north of State Hwy 14; west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Chris Gathman stated that Russell Pope is requesting a continuance until April 3, 2007. There is a
recommendation from the Department of Public Works that a drainage report be submitted for their review
prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1601 be continued until April 3, 2007, seconded by Doug Ochsner.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1116
APPLICANT: Lone Tree Estates
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3846, part of the NW4 of Section 27, T7N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Lone Tree Estates PUD, Change of Zone from the A
(Agricultural)Zone District to PUD for three (3) lots with (E)
Estate Zone uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and approximately Y% mile north of
CR 76.
Chris Gathman stated that Lone Tree Estates, in care of Troy Hauer for A Better Job, Inc., applied for a
change of zone from an Agricultural Zone District to PUD for three (3) lots for Estate Zone uses. It was
noted that the Planning Commission hearing was not properly notified in the newspaper. The Department
of Planning Services requests that this case be continued until April 3, 2007 to fulfill these requirements.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the public who wishes to speak for or against the continuance of
PZ-1116. Having none, the public portion was closed.
Tom Holton motioned to continue PZ-1116 to April 3, 2007, seconded by Doug Ochsner. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1594
APPLICANT: Swift Beef Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 of Section 31, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a 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: Animal waste
recycling or processing facilities (Waste Water Treatment
Facility) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District for the property
described below.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 62.5; west of and adjacent to CR
51.
2
CASE NUMBER: USR-1598
APPLICANT: Kinder Morgan
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 5, T11 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including Natural Gas
Processing Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to State Hwy 85; north of and adjacent to
CR 132.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-543
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4SE4 of Section 34, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and an Amended Special
Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility
including a Natural Gas Processing Facility in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 33; north of CR 74.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1600
APPLICANT: SLW Ranch Company(Stow Witwer)
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 11, T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
one (1)single-family dwelling unit other than those permitted
under Section 23-2-20.A of the Weld County Code (a guest
house to be built in addition to an existing 2 story residence) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 58.5; ''A mile east of CR 55.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against any items on the
Consent Agenda, which would include USR-1596. No one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Cases USR-1596, USR-1594, USR-1598, AmUSR-543, and USR-1600 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1586
APPLICANT: Justin &Wendy Markwardt
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1758; Pt SE4 of Section 34, T6N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use
by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles, Boats, Trailers, and
Mini Warehousing for personal/household storage) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to F Street; approx 3/4 mile east of N. 59`h
Ave.
3
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services stated that the property is located South of and
adjacent to F Street and approximately%mile east of North 59th Avenue. The adjacent properties are all
zoned agricultural. Use by special reviews in the vicinity include a USR-978 and 2n°AMUSR-247 for a
gravel pit to the north east and USR-1515 for a telecommunications tower to the north-west.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff December 21, 2006.
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Eleven responded and either stated that they did not
have a conflict with the use or expressed concerns that should this application be approved staff has
attempted to address through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Planning Staff is recommending the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with Sections of the
Weld County Code.
Specifically:
• Section 22-2-110C.1 calls for proposals in the UGB to meet a set of criteria. This proposal is
located within the City of Greeley's Urban Growth Boundary and does not meet all of the
necessary criteria.
• Section 23-2-220A.4. calls for the proposed use to be compatible with future development as
projected by the Master Plans of affected municipalities. The City of Greeley has indicated that
the proposed use does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan.
• Sections 22-2-20.3.b. and 22-2-60 address the need for adequate services and infrastructure
which at this time the applicant has not demonstrated that the project will have adequate water or
sewer services to serve the commercial use.
• Lack of demonstrated service adequacy is also inconsistent with Section 23-2-220.A.7 which calls
for adequate provision of services for the protection of health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants
of the neighborhood and county.
Hannah noted she would like to address one correction to the Conditions of Approval.
Currently Condition of Approval 2.0.9 on page 6 reads F Street is classified as a future arterial roadway.
This classification of road requires a 140-foot right-of-way at full build out. There is presently a 60-foot
right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. An additional forty(40)feet of right-of-way shall be
delineated on the plat as future F Street Right of Way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of
future right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the
right-of-way.
To reflect the corrected Public Works referral dated November 15, 2006 this Condition of Approval should
read "F" Street is classified as a local paved roadway. This classification of road requires a 60-foot right-
of-way at full build out which currently exists so we are not asking for any additional right-of-way.
Doug Ochsner asked for Hannah to point out on the pictures where the proposed parking will be located.
Hannah showed the eastern boundaries of the property and from what she understands the bulk of the RV
parking will be located off to the left.
Tom Holton asked if the property was within any flood zone. Justin Markwardt replied that it was not.
Paul Branham asked if the south boundary of the property is up against the city limits of the City of
Greeley. Hannah showed that according to map the property is approximately 200' away from the Greeley
City limits.
Doug Ochsner inquired about the gravel mine. Hannah replied that a portion of the gravel mine property
has been incorporated into the City of Greeley. They are currently mining and it appears that it has been
in operation for some time.
Justin Markwardt, 4804 F Street, Greeley, CO said that he and his wife plan to operate the RV Storage
business. He has applied for and received cistern approval for public water use last Tuesday February 27,
2007. They have also received a request from the Health Department to obtain an Engineers letter stating
4
that the septic system would be appropriate for the use that they have described. Mr. Markwardt has
received a letter from the Engineer February 1, 2007 and the Health Department does have that on file.
The Health Department chose to wait until the cistern was approved before they do a specific site study
which is currently in process.
Mr. Markwardt said the City has expressed concerns that they do have a park that is located 1A mile away
from property. He also stated that their storage facility is on the east side of the house and the dog park is
on the west side; therefore the public will not be able to see the storage facilities.
Mr. Markwardt handed out a Gravel Resource Evaluation and Reservoir Feasibility Study for the City of
Greeley F Street property which was just completed this month. He commented what this study outlines is
a gravel mining operation on sixty(60) acres and three (3) ponds. The mining operation would be a 7-10
year process and that mining operation would require a change in zoning. In the City's comments they
have questioned the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Markwardt has asked for further input on
what that use would be, and the City was not able to answer that. He believes that what he proposes
would be the highest and best use for the area. Included in the handout information is the last outside
storage facility of which is a mini-storage/RV storage area that was approved into the City of Greeley and
is located in the middle of residential areas. Mr. Markwardt commented that the City of Greeley has
cracked down on RV storage within the City and as a result there is a demand for a place to park the RV's
and would like to help fulfill that niche.
Doug Ochsner asked for Mr. Markwardt to explain any security provided such as fencing and lighting. Mr.
Markwardt replied that Weld County requires a six (6)foot privacy fence to encase the RV storage which
is what they would install. He also indicated that he has submitted plans for a mini-warehouse facility as
well, which are long term plans, and would plan for a metal fence that is decorative around that portion.
He further commented that they will have a security gate for entrance into the RV storage area. Doug
Oschner asked if the property will be lit 24 hours a day. Mr. Markwardt commented that he is open to
suggestions, however at this time he is not thinking of having lighting as they will be open during daylight
hours and does not foresee an issue with vandalism.
Tom Holton asked within the application there was a termination date and inquired what that was about.
Commissioner Holton asked the applicant if there was something else that they plan on doing with this
property within 10 years. Mr. Markwardt replied no, however the City of Greeley did have a concern of
what would happen if he chose not to do the RV storage and if he would build the mini-warehouses. Since
that referral he has done extensive research on buildings and found there is quite a used market for
buildings so should they build a mini-warehouse facility and at some point that not become feasible the
removal plan to remove the structures and return the land to the native condition would be to re-sell the
buildings and scrape the concrete off the property.
Mark Lawley asked if they would decide to put mini-storage units up, would they have to come back
through this process. Hannah replied that because it is included in the current application today they
would not have to come before the Planning Commission again with regard to the mini-storage
warehouses.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Markwardt about approaching the City of Greeley with the possibility of
annexation of the property. Mr. Markwardt stated he did attempt to try to get annexed into the City
because he thought he needed the water; however they informed him that he cannot be annexed into the
City because 1/6 of the land property must border the City and Mr. Markwardt does not have that.
The Chair opened up the public portion of the hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against
this application. No one wished to speak; therefore the public portion was closed
Tom Holton mentioned that the City of Greeley has a sewer main on F Street and inquired if this property
is going to be required to hook up to that sewer if their septic system fails. Char Davis with Weld County
Health Department, stated that if their septic system is working properly and they have a sewer main that
runs by, they don't have to hook up. However, as soon as that system fails and they are within 400' of the
City's main they cannot get a permit to repair it. Right now the Department of Health is working with them
on the evaluation of the septic system and still is in need of another Engineer's letter. Char commented
5
that they have received the one, however it doesn't give enough information and so she talked to Mr.
Markwardt about the letter and basically it only mentions the cistern and does not mention the fact that
they will be increasing the use as far as the numbers of people visiting. Commissioner Holton asked if the
cistern was for water or sewer. Char clarified that it was for water and it is her understanding that Mr.
Markwardt has a domestic well that is primarily suited for domestic uses such as watering of his
landscape and so forth.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated that he has talked with Mr. Markwardt concerning the
main access to the facility. The Department wants to make sure that the tree in the center of the access
gets removed and the access be improved to accommodate larger RV's and rental trucks, etc. Don
indicated that Mr. Markwardt has also talked with the Drainage Division to make sure that we are going to
retain and release the stormwater drainage on site.
Doug Ochsner asked Hannah to review again the staff's recommendation for denial of this application. He
further asked that if there is concern regarding the infrastructure, which is septic and water, if we took
those out and the applicant was able to meet that criteria, is the rest of the reasoning for denial just solely
based on compatibility with the City of Greeley. Hannah Hippely replied that to an extent it is and that the
Weld County Code mentions it twice. She indicated that it is noted once in the Urban Growth Boundary
set of criteria and again in the criteria for USR's themselves. Hannah cited Section 23-2-220A.4, the Use
by Special Review and the Urban Growth Boundary Section 22-2-110C.1c.
Commissioner Auer confirmed with Hannah that no one from the City of Greeley was here to visit with this.
Hannah replied that there was not.
Tom Holton made a motion to amend the Condition of Approval which is on Page 6, Number 9 of the
"Prior to recording plat"as per staff recommendation. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if he is agreement with those. Mr. Markwardt replied that he is in agreement.
Chad Auer commented that according to the Planning Staff's perspective they have to recognize the City
of Greeley's Comp Plan. Commissioner Auer asked Char Davis if there was any other information
regarding the infrastructure. Char mentioned that Mr. Markwardt has a good well but he did not want to
change the designation. She stated that they are planning on putting the cistern out there and not quite
sure how that's going to work. According to Health Department staff they were going to ask for denial of
that cistern before it was approved. Char further indicated that cisterns are usually there for people who
have no water, and is really for a hardship and that's not the case here, although there may be other
circumstances that she was not aware of. Char does not know where they will get their water from
because they are not going to be allowed to take the water from that well. As far as the septic system the
applicants were asked if they have bathroom facilities and if they want their home to be a place where the
public can use the bathrooms. Char indicated that is what they are asking to be evaluated by an Engineer
in which she is still waiting for a letter on what their determination is. She mentioned that at that point it
will have it go through their staff.
Tom Holton asked Char why you wouldn't be able to use the cistern to store that water if you are allowed
to have 15 gpm. Char replied that the reason the State doesn't want him to have the ability to use the well
that he has now is because right now he has a well that produces 15 gpm and is for ordinary household
purposes inside a one-single family dwelling, fire protection, watering of domestic animals, watering of
livestock, and irrigation of not more than 21,000 square feet of garden and lawns. If he changes this well
permit and makes it commercial, he may loose all that. She further stated that she doesn't know where
the water is coming from because he is trying to get around using this well by using another water source.
Commissioner Holton commented that it still seems like when you're allowed 15 gpm and if it's your water
you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it. If the cistern has a finite volume on it, it should be
able to figure out how much you can water according to what he's allowed now. Char indicated that it
would be a different permit because it wouldn't have the same ability to use that much water. Char
commented that basically the situation is that they didn't want to change the designation of their well and
she is assuming that he is getting water from some other source.
6
Paul Branham stated that this is much more complicated than you would think at first glance.
Commissioner Branham said that we have to give some concern to the City's position but there are a
number of circumstances in his opinion to the City's position. First of all, in driving to that area it looks like
a flood plain, however it's not so he would think that would detract from the future use of this as any prime
residential area. Commissioner Branham further stated that he believes the issue with the gravel pit,
which the City owns, is not consistent with a prime residential area. He also said that currently there are
no citizens objecting to this and has a tendency to side with the applicant in this case.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that Greeley had a chance when Mr. Markwardt went to them to ask for
annexation. He believes the argument of the gravel pit and water storage facility across the street is a
strong reason to approve this.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1586, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Paul Branham voted yes with comment. Paul stated that he believes the applicant's proposed use is
compatible with the future use of that area and he based that on Weld County Code 23-2-220a.4.
Erich Ehrlich voted no with comment. Erich stated that because of the fact that it is within 1/2 mile of the City
limits and the Greeley Urban Growth Boundary based on 22-2-110c. He believes that we have to account for
the fact Greeley is saying it's not compatible with their use.
Mark Lawley voted yes with comment. Mark stated that according to the memo Hannah provided,the City of
Greeley indicated that they do not plan to annex the property although according to the applicant he did
approach the City of Greeley and ask to be annexed.
Tom Holton voted yes with comment. Tom commented that he agrees with Commissioner Branham in that it
is compatible with this area given the gravel pit and also he is still not in agreement with protecting the UGB.
Tom stated that if they don't come in to us with an IGA then he doesn't see any reason as the Planning
Commission is the last resort for the property owner.
Doug Ochsner voted yes with comment. Doug commented that in addressing the UGB if the applicant has
stated that he has approached the City and they have told him that this property cannot be annexed he feels
that it has shown that Section 22-2-110c.1 the proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
Municipality's Comprehensive Plan. Doug further stated that since the applicant cannot be part of the City of
Greeley, in his opinion it defaults back to the County Section 23-2-220a.4 the use which will be permitted will
be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning.
Bruce Fitzgerald voted yes.
Chad Auer stated that his vote is no, not because he agrees with the Comp Plan issues, however in this case
he believes municipalities have an obligation to participate in the process. Chad commented that we only
received correspondence from the City of Greeley. Commissioner Auer voted no, citing Section 22-2-60a
which deals with the infrastructure of adequate services such as septic, water, etc. He stated that he
understands that as the application sits right now the integrity of process is still there to a degree; however he
is not so sure the issues have been addressed to that section of code.
Motion carried.
The Chair stated to take a five minute recess at 2:24 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1599
APPLICANT: Carr Community Church c/o Darlene Blaney
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 11, Carr Townsite, being part of the
7
NW4 of Section 27, T11N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a
Public and quasi-Public Building including a Church in the
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Gray Avenue and East of and adjacent
to Fifth Street.
Meeting reconvened at 2:30 p.m.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, stated the sign announcing the Planning Commission
hearing was posted February 21, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The site is located in the Carr Townsite; more specifically north of and adjacent to Gray Avenue and east
of and adjacent to 5th Street.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west are primarily single family homes with
agricultural use. There are 24 property owners within 500 feet of the property in questions and the closest
home is roughly 60 feet to the south. The Department of Planning Services has received one letter from a
surrounding property owner dated January 25, 2007 requesting approval of the application.
The property is located on three lots; the proposed fellowship hall will provide for bathroom facilities as the
church alone currently does not have any. A commercial well permit has been issued.
The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of Larimer County; they indicated in their
referral dated 1/10/07 that they reviewed the request and found no conflicts with their interests.
Ten referral agencies reviewed this case of which eight responded favorably or included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Weld County Department of Health Services is requesting condition 1.A.5 be removed due to being
repeated.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the
conditions of approval and development standards.
Roger stated that the Weld County Health Department is requesting Condition 1.a.5 page 4 be removed and
Department of Public Works is requesting 1.a11 and 1.a12 be removed. The Department of Planning
Services recommends the approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards.
Ken Gunner, Pastor of the church and who lives in the house located at this site. The current church building
that they have was built in 1911 and they have no bathroom facilities. They are requesting to build the
Fellowship Hall to have restroom facilities, classrooms for Sunday school classes and a place to have
fellowship meals and gatherings.
Paul Branham stated that we have a Development Standard#4 on page 7 that says the hours of operation will
be limited to 10:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. every Sunday and then 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the Christmas holiday
season. Commissioner Branham asked if that is what the applicant is wanting as he assumes that this will be
used for weddings and community meetings and all types of activities that might go longer. Mr. Gunner
indicated that according to the application they needed to state the hours of their operation, however they
would like to grow and have more. Commissioner Branham inquired what they would like to have for their
hours of operation. Mr. Gunner commented that they would like to have weddings on Saturdays occasionally,
morning and evening services. Roger Caruso mentioned that staff would recommend eliminating the hours of
operation.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gunner how many members they have right now. Mr. Gunner replied that they
don't keep a membership role but guessed approximately 50 members with 25-30 in attendance in church.
8
Commissioner Fitzgerald inquired that if we remove those hours he assumes that the church will not have 24
hour activities there. Mr. Gunner commented that there would not be any 24 hour activities planned.
Tom Holton questioned Condition#3 with regard to parking issues and asked how that number was arrived at
for parking. Roger stated that it was based on the information supplied by the applicant that there would be at
most 70 people on site. Roger further indicated that they have a parking issue with 17 spaces which includes
a handicap accessible parking stall.
Doug Ochsner asked about the occupancy load. Roger replied that the occupancy load was indicated on the
application as being 128 people. Roger commented that parking may not be an issue as they could find ways
around that utilizing what they have. Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works said that the 17 parking spaces
on site are adequate for this due to its size.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that on Page 4 Numbers 5, 11,and 12 be removed according to recommendations from
planning staff, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Paul Branham moved that on Page 7 of Developmental Standards that we remove items Number 3 and 4.
Bruce Fizgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and
if he is agreement with those. Mr. Gunner replied that he is in agreement.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1599 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; James Welch,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Chad Auer, yes . Motion carried unanimously.
MEETING ITEMS
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, commented that we have a group of people lined up for
presentation for the Planning Commission luncheons and would like to know if you still want to have people
come in from the outside to speak. If so we can schedule speakers for the luncheons at the Greeley office to
accommodate speakers and council as well. Doug Ochsner asked if we can change the lunch to 12:30 p.m.
Kim replied that the time could be changed. Paul Branham confirmed that the lunch would start at 12:30 p.m.
for both the North and South offices. The Commissioners agreed to proceed with scheduling speakers at the
Greeley meetings during the luncheons. The luncheons will begin at 12:30 pm with the Planning Commission
meeting to begin at1:30 pm.
Meeting adjourned at 3:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
9
Hello