HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071386.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday May 1, 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
Chad Auer-Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
--I Og
Erich Ehrlich m 3m
Bruce Fitzgerald -Absent n -4 30
Tom Holton rn �p
Mark Lawley aC
Roy Spitzer-Absent C D zZ
James Welch -Absent M
Also Present: Hannah Hippely, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Monica Daniels-Mika, Department ()Manning
Services: Don Carroll, Department of Public Works:Troy Swain,Department of Health:Cindy Giaque,County
Attorney and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Doug Ochsner motioned to approve the minutes of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning
Commission held on April 17, 2007, seconded by Tom Hoton. Motion carried.
ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1601
APPLICANT: Russell Pope
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1823;Pt NE4 of Section Sm 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 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: /2 mile north of State Hwy 14;west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated since originally talking with Mr. Pope on March 26,
2007 he has made several attempts to contact him via phone and also via email. Mr. Gathman added that
since the last Planning Commission hearing he sent a letter to Mr. Pope via certified mail stating that at this
time Department of Planning Services' perception is that he is requesting withdrawal of the application and
have been unsuccessful in follow-up attempts to contact him via phone and email and indicated that unless he
responded otherwise the Weld County Planning Commission will assume that he will withdraw this application
and will formerly withdraw his application during the May 1,2007 Planning Commission hearing. Mr.Gathman
commented that one item with this is that staff has not yet received the certified receipt back from Mr. Pope.
Mr. Gathman added that there is an adjacent property owner who would like to speak in specific to the
1
C� "9' . ct 5�9��vo.7 2007-1386
withdrawl.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this withdrawl.
Gary Kissler stated that he and his wife own lots 7 and 8 of Prairie Ridge Estates. Mr. Kissler added that their
land sits directly to the west and north of Lot A where this event center would operate. He further commented
that they are here as property owners who have a concern about this event center. Mr. Kissler reiterated what
Chris Gathman had said with regard to being contacted for withdrawl and added that the applicant was
informed by one of referral agencies that he would have to take additional steps to get their approval and he
has not done so. Mr. Kissler commented that Mr. Pope had indicated to Mr. Gathman that he intended to
withdraw and therefore he has expected this to move forward. Unfortunately Mr. Pope has not responded to
multiple requests that Mr. Gathman has given for formal recognition of his withdrawl intentions. Mr. Kissler
stated that since they believe that this has gone on for such a long period of time and because the applicants
have been given ample opportunity to respond they think that it is time to bring this to a conclusion. Mr.
Kissler added that all of the property owners who are either in line of sight or directly connected with this land
have signed a petition with details explaining why they believe the application should not go forward as it is an
inappropriate use for this land given what is surrounding it. Mr. Kissler recommends to the Board to take the
steps to formerly withdraw the application.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting as there was no one else to speak for or against this
application.
Doug Ocshner asked Chris Gathman when the letter was sent out and what is the procedure of the letter
being returned. Mr.Gathman replied that with a certified letter there is a card that is attached to the letter that
upon receiving the letter the applicant signs and then that card is sent back to the Planning Department so that
we can acknowledge that he has signed for it and received the letter. Mr. Gathman added that the letter was
mailed out April 20, 2007. Commissioner Ochsner asked if we are to withdraw this and for some reason it
comes back and he says that he didn't want to withdraw it and wants to go forward with it,will he have to start
the process over and if so he would have to apply and pay the fee for the application. Mr. Gathman replied
that is correct.
Paul Branham clarified if the applicant made a verbal request and asked if he had made it to Mr. Gathman.
Chris Gathman said that he had made the verbal request over the phone on March 26, 2007.
Commissioner Ochsner agrees that there are a lot of problems with the case, but would prefer to continue the
case one more time just to give him enough time in the event they may be out of town.
Commissioner Branham commented that there is evidence here that the applicant called Chris and made the
statement that he wants to withdraw it. Mr.Branham added that we do not have evidence to the contrary. We
have sent him a letter that he has not responded to and we don't know why and feels that under those
circumstances it would be appropriate to withdraw it.
Paul Branham motioned to accept the withdrawal of Case USR-1601, seconded by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, No; Chad Auer, yes.
Motion carried.
CONTINUED ITEMS
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1025
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
APPLICANT: Robert Parsons
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3358;being Part of the NW4 of Section 10,T7N,R67W of the
6'h P.M.,Weld County Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Plat for 8 residential lots, Peace Haven Estates, with
Estate Zoning.
2
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 19 and south of and adjacent to CR 84. For a
more precise location, see legal.
Hannah Hippely,Department of Planning Services,stated that at this time the applicant wishes to continue this
case until the June 5, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. The application was turned in with insufficient
drainage information and the applicant is in the process of compiling a report that meets the criteria of the
Public's Works Department. Staff is supportive of this continuance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved to continue MF-1025 to June 5, 2007, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
The Chair read the Consent Items into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1594
APPLICANT: Swift Beef Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 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.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated that staff had incorrect legal notice for this case and the
Clerk to the Board had caught it when they were in the process of hearing. Staff requests that the board
approve the case as stipulated.
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 read the next Consent Item into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1133
APPLICANT: Michael Faulkner, Faulkner Dairy
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 Section 29,T7N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an
Agriculture Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agriculture,animal husbandry,or horticultural services on a fee or contract
basis,including Livestock Confinement Operation(a Dairy operation with a
total of 9,000 head)as well as the existing permitted accessory to the farm
mobile home(6 total)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 51; north of and adjacent to CR 76.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, stated that at this time they wish to pull this case from the
Consent Agenda to be heard.
Doug Ochsner moved to pull Case Am USR-1133 from consent to be heard, seconded by Paul Branham.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent Agenda which includes Case USR-1594, 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.
3
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1590
APPLICANT: Contreras Farms Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3515; located in a portion of the W2SW4 and all of the
E2SW4 and of Section 19, T7N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and 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 a livestock confinement operation(a calf raising operation
for up to 5,000 head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR78;east of and adjacent to the intersection of
CR 61 and CR 78.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,stated that Contreras Farms, Inc.being represented by Pat
McNear of Scott Realty,Co. have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a livestock confinement operation for a calf raising operation up to 5,00 head in the A (Agricultural) Zone
district.
The site is located north of and adjacent to County Road 78 and east of and adjacent to the intersection of
County Roads 61 and 78.
Eight referral agencies reviewed this case, six referral agencies responded and their comments have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The site is surrounded by dry land interspersed with single-family residences. The nearest single-family
residence is located immediately to the east of the USR boundary. Other adjacent residences are located
approximately 14 south and west of the site.
Staff has received two phone calls from surrounding property owners with no specific objections,just more
inquiries to what the applicants are applying for. No letters of opposition have been received from surrounding
property owners for this case.
There are two access points into the facility and two existing residences on the property. The applicant is
proposing to have two mobile homes for employees. One issue that has come up is that there is an existing
residence immediately to the east of the proposed manure storage area on the east side of the property. Mr.
Gathman said he talked to Mr.McNear in regard to the manure storage area and he indicated that they would
be willing to relocate that to another location on the property so that it is not so close to the residence. There
is also a proposed retention area in this location that staff is unsure whether they would be willing to relocate it.
In regard to water the Office of the State Engineer—Division of Water Resources, in their referral received
December 6, 2006 states:"A livestock confinement operation such as this proposed calf-raising operation is
not considered an exempt use and therefore the use of these wells in such an operation would be a violation
of the conditions of approval of these wells permits. The use of these wells to serve a livestock confinement
operation would withdraw ground water hydraulically connected to an over-appropriated stream system and
will cause material injury to other water rights. As such, an augmentation plan would be required to offset
depletions caused by the pumping of all wells utilized in the calf raising operation. No augmentation plan has
been submitted nor approved by the state for these uses. Therefore there is no evidence that adequate
services (water)are currently available and reasonably obtainable.
Based on this information, the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of this application.
Mr. Gathman further added that this is a pending land use violation so there is an existing facility already out
there as opposed to a facility that has not started operating yet.
Paul Branham asked about on page 7 of the Development Standards, item#6 and#10. Item #6 states that
4
the applicants are utilizing the proposed internal roadway system and the roadway shall be graded and paved
and is not sure how you define paved, is that concrete? Mr.Gathman replied that Don Carroll will address that
but believes that we will not require a paved road on-site so that will likely be a change. Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works, requests that Item #6 be removed.
Tom Holton commented that he understands on the letter from the State Engineer on the water and asked
what does the county have in the code book that controls the water;it's up to the State Engineer correct? Mr.
Gathman stated that his comments were correct.
Mark Lawley asked because of the water issue and the State issue not a land use issue, are we enforcing
something we are not suppose to. Mr. Gathman replied that any land use application,as one of the submittal
requirements for a USR, has to provide evidence of adequate water which they did submit evidence of well
permits with this application and was sent to the Division of Water Resources where we got that response
back from them. At this point the State has indicated that there is not adequate water on site and the other
issue here to deal with is that this is a pending violation case which is an operation that is already in process
as opposed to a new application that has not already started. This case has been continued three times to
address the water issue and the applicants can speak more in detail of what they have or what they are trying
to address as far as water. As from a staff standpoint at this point they don't have evidence that they have an
approved adequate water source out there.
Paul Branham commented that they don't have evidence of adequate water, however if they do use the
existing wells they can come in with an augmentation plan and then it would be approved. Mr. Gathman
stated that we don't know specifically that it will be approved by the State and that is the situation.
Pat McNear, Scott Realty, 1212 8`"Ave, Greeley CO, reiterated some of the statements that Chris Gathman
stated. Since the process began the applicant has researched alternative sites in the market place as well as
researched alternative water sources and supplies for his current operation. The property owner immediately
to the east initiated the zoning violation by complaint and to his knowledge as Chris has voiced this;there have
been no other neighbors who object. Since then,the applicant has contracted to purchase their property and
the owner has joined into the application process as indicated in the application. This is an area where the
majority of the expansion and the confinement facility as well as the proposed commercial well will be located.
The appraisal of the property and a commitment for financing have been satisfied to allow for financing to
purchase that property, so there are no contingencies in going forward there. The only contingency is
approval by the County.
The use as proposed is compliant with the intended Ag Zone District and the applicant has agreed to meet all
operation standards that are set forth in this application process. The containment run-off is designed to meet
all Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmental requirements by construction of lined pits as well
as meeting discharge permit requirements. Mr. McNear stated that the only containment that is allowed into
these containment facilities is from the site itself,everything else passes by the site. Mr.McNear understands
that they can relocate the pit and the applicant would prefer to stockpile any manure at an alternate site on the
property anyway.
Chad Auer clarified the adjacent property that initiated the violation is under contract to be purchased by the
applicant and on that property is where the well augmentation will be. Mr. McNear replied that is correct.
Mr. McNear commented that the questionnaire portion of the application stated that the source for water for
the entire operation would be by pooling of two existing domestic wells and drilling a third exempt commercial
well and this information is incorrect and would not be allowed as per the referral of the State Engineers
Office. The plan to provide domestic water supply has been amended to obtain a permit for a commercial use
well in compliance with the State Groundwater Regulations. The process required recharge of the aquifer to
allow the capture of groundwater at a specific point through a well augmentation plan. The augmentation
agreement for the specific well is in process of being affected at this time and the raw water to be dedicated to
plant has been contractually secured. Although Mr. McNear has been advised that the overstatement of the
aquifer area allocated to the existing exempt domestic well has no effect on the commercial well an application
for the correction of this concern has been submitted to the State Groundwater Division. Mr. McNear added
that he expects that they will have that augmentation agreement signed by next week. Mr. McNear requests
at this time the Board approve this application subject to being able to obtain a specific well permit. The
5
augmentation plan that the applicant has entered into has already filed papers with the State and a typical
commercial well could take up to several years to process a permanent well permit. Since the augmentation
plan is already in place it is Mr. McNear's understanding that they could have a permanent well in place as
soon as 3-6 months. What the applicant would operate under until that time and utilize the waters that he has
secured would be a temporary permit which is the State of Colorado's standard operating procedures. Mr.
McNear feels confident that the well will be in place.
Doug Ocshner asked if they have the temporary permit now. Mr. McNear replied that they will apply for the
permit as soon as the augmentation is in place and then they will need to take it to the State for the next step.
George Palsburg,428 N 28th, Lasalle CO,was present to answer any questions. He commented that when
they initially started this project they designed it for the 100 year storm and since then the feasibility of
expanding to match for a 100 year storm is not needed and will be dropping to the standard 25 year storm
which is part of the County's regulations.
Doug Ochsner stated that since the proposal is to approve a calf raising operation for up to 5,000 head he
asked how many are currently on the place. Mr. McNear stated there are 1700 to 1800 head currently on the
place.
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 to eliminate item #6 on page 7 of the Development Standards, seconded by Eric
Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Troy Swain, Department of Public Health, stated that the Department has a Development Standard that they
would like to change which is Development Standard#33. They would like to delete it and replace it with the
following "If required a storm water discharge permit shall be obtained from the Colorado Water Quality
Control Division for construction activities".
Tom Holton moved to change Development Standard #33 as per staff recommendations, second by Eric
Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Troy Swain added that they would like to enter into record a letter from the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment Ag Program which denies the applicant's permit application for capital discharge
permit.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Swain if this letter is addressed through the conditions and development standards
that they are concerned about. Mr.Swain indicated that prior to recording the plat in Condition G it states that
they provide evidence that a Colorado Discharge permit has been obtained from the Colorado Water Quality
Control Division,evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. Therefore they
need the permit coverage prior to recording of the plat and right now the permit has been denied and he
assumes that they will resubmit all the pertinent information and give it another shot.
George Palsburg clarified that he had talked to Chris with the State and the reason it was denied was due to
the applicant proposing improvements on the plans and they will not approve something with proposed plans,
only after they are built. Therefore once the applicant has approval from Weld County they can start making
the construction and once they have it built then they can resubmit the permit to the State and it should be
approved. •
Tom Holton said that according to a letter from the attorney with the options given at the end asked Chris
Gathman what is opinion was on that. Mr. Gathman replied that the applicant has a pretty good plan as to
how to address the issues. He added that there are a couple of options that if it goes to the Board and if it is
approved it would be a condition that prior to recording the plat that they would have an approved water
source. Another option would be to do it as a condition prior to scheduling of the Board of County
Commissioners hearing. Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Gathman if he would be comfortable with those
conditions given this new information. Mr. Gathman replied that he would be comfortable with that.
6
Commissioner Ochsner asked if it is true that the confirmed plan would take 3-6 months and if it would be that
time frame before it is scheduled to the Board. Mr. Gathman replied that yes that is correct. Commissioner
Ochsner asked if it could be scheduled with just a temporary permit versus the actual permanent. Mr.McNear
stated that the State will let you operate under a temporary permit and utilize those waters to recharge the
aquifer during that time. Mr. McNear stated that he believes they can have a temporary use permit issued
within 2-3 weeks.
Commissioner Branham stated that the site is compatible with surrounding area and the only question that has
surfaced has to do with the water and believes that the applicant has made substantial progress toward
resolving it with the augmentation plan and the commercial well.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1590, 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. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes.
Erich Ehrlich voted yes and stated to make sure the applicant is aware there is only 44 Development
Standards and should pay attention to#44 that the property owner operator shall be responsible for complying
with all the foregoing Development Standards. Not in compliance with any of the foregoing Development
Standards may be a reason for revocation of the permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Paul Branham voted yes with comment. Commissioner Branham stated since we are contrary to the staff's
recommendation he cited Section 23-2-220.A.1 as justification for that.
Doug Ocshner voted yes and cited Section 22-2-60.A.13 which states allowable commercial and industrial
uses are compatible and believes that this application is compatible with the surrounding areas and with what
they've brought and presented at the meeting today Section 23-2-220.A.7 that they have satisfied the
development standards and conditions of approval.
Chad Auer voted yes and cited Section 23-2-220.A.1 in addition to believing that the conditions of approval
and development standards have appropriate safe guards.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a recess at 2:33 p.m.
The Chair reconvened the meeting at 2:42 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1133
APPLICANT: Michael Faulkner, Faulkner Dairy
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 Section 29,T7N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an
Agriculture Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agriculture,animal husbandry,or horticultural services on a fee or contract
basis,including Livestock Confinement Operation(a Dairy operation with a
total of 9,000 head)as well as the existing permitted accessory to the farm
mobile home (6 total)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 51; north of and adjacent to CR 76.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, read the case into record.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted April 19, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The property is located a mile north of Galeton, north of and adjacent to County Road 76 and East of and
Adjacent to County Road 51.
All of the surrounding property is zoned agricultural.
7
Other USRs in the vicinity include SUP-315 for a Hog Farm to the South, USR-1512 for an Ag Service
Establishment to the north and USR-1145 for an airstrip to the north east.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case; eleven responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The oil and gas interests in this case have submitted a letter of objection to the proposal however they are in
the process of coming to an agreement with the applicant as far as surface use. Condition of Approval 1F
addresses the Oil and Gas concerns.
Ms. Hippely is proposing changes to staff comments.
The first is a change to Condition of Approval #3 which is extending the time line of recording the'Tyler plat
from 30 to 180 days.
Secondly, staff would like to add the development standards which read the facility shall comply with the
alleged violations identified in the compliance advisory letter issued by the Colorado Department of Public
Health Water Quality Control Division which is dated March 6, 2007 and any subsequent Notice of Violation,
Cease&Desist Order, Clean-up Order or any other order issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health
& Environment.
Additionally, documentation provided by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer shall be provided as
evidence that all newly constructed wastewater for the confined animal feeding operation will meet seepage
rate standards of the Water Quality Control Regulation #81. This documentation shall be submitted to the
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment prior to operation. Providing evidence that a
standard operating procedure for sludge and manure removal for all newly constructed wastewater has been
submitted and approved by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division within 180 days of placing animals in
the production area.
Ms. Hippely added that she also has a change to prior to recording the plat Condition G. She stated it will be
1.G and will read in the existing text they will be replacing "all" with "existing" in the first sentence and
completely removing"prior to the recording the plat Condition H—standard operating procedures for existing
lagoons have already been approved".
Cody Hollingsworth, Ag Professionals, 4350 Highway 66, Longmont CO, is representing the applicant. Mr.
Hollingsworth stated that as far as the conditions of which Hannah had mentioned the applicant is in
agreement with those. Mr. Hollingsworth added that they would also like to address Condition 1.C with regard
to the landscaping. They have proposed some changes to the language of which are to add the additional
landscaping from the east side of Willow Creek continuing east to the first residential access where the tree
buffering starts again. The Chair clarified that is on page 4 item 1.C. Mr. Hollingsworth replied that was
correct. He further added that the reason is there is not sufficient enough room for landscaping and screening
between the facilities and the County road right-of-way.
Mr. Hollingsworth added that they would also like to address Condition 1.K which deals with parking. They
would like to request for curb stops to be taken out of the parking space requirement as it hinders the grading
and drainage and don't feel it is necessary in the Ag Zone. Don Carroll, Department of Public Works,
commented that he would like to see the curb stops retained up adjacent to the milking parlor and office area.
Mr. Carroll agreed that it isn't need out in the parking areas.
Commissioner Ochsner asked to explain if there was any public parking in front of any barns or buildings. Mr.
Hollingsworth replied that there is not as this is not a public facility and only authorized vehicles, sales or
employees will be parking here. Mr. Carroll stated that he has also asked that it be identified on the plat
drawing. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that they can label the parking more clear on the plat.
Commissioner Branham asked if Mr. Carroll was in agreement with the proposal for amending 1.K.10. Mr.
Carroll stated that he would like to see curb stops placed next to the buildings. Mr.Carroll commented that he
could remove the "each" at the beginning of the sentence and identify the two parking areas with the curb
8
stops placed at both locations. Mr. Holligsworth commented that a simple answer may be that if signs could
be used to delineate parking on these fenced off areas already. Mr.Carroll recommends putting curb stops in
both locations adjacent to the fence.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that if it's a private parking lot and there is no public vehicles coming in,
he doesn't have a problem with a parking sign.
Commissioner Holton asked on 1.C on page 4 about the landscaping/screening plan in the County right-of-
way. Ms. Hippely commented that the applicant has not proposed any plan at this point. Mr.Ochsner asked if
that would satisfy staff if they come to you and say they don't want to put anything there. Ms. Hippely replied
that no, typically they like to see some mitigation of the visual impact and especially in these older dairies
where they come in for new permits we like to try and hold them to the same standards that we hold the new
dairies to. She added that she understands there may be some space issues there, but believes that is
something that perhaps can be investigated between now and the Board hearing and would prefer that the
language stays as it is for now. Mr. Carroll stated that they would not allow any planting or structures in the
County right-of-way.
Commissioner Ochsner moved that Condition of Approval#3 be changed from 30 days to 180 days,seconded
by Commissioner Ehrlich. Motion carried
Commissioner Holton moved to amend the three Development Standards according to staff
recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Branham. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner moved to amend Prior to Recording Plat Condition G and remove Condition H,
seconded by Commissioner Lawley. Motion carried.
Commissioner Branham moved to amend 1.K.10 with the paragraph starting "each parking space" be
changed to indicate two parking areas and identify the two parking areas with the curb stops placed at both
locations,seconded by Commissioner Ehrlich. Motion carried with the only opposing vote from Commissioner
Ochsner.
The Chair asked if applicant is in agreement of the amended Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Hollingsworth replied yes.
Commissioner Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1133,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. Commissioner Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton,yes ; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Chad Auer, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
9
Hello