HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022266.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 6, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Drew Scheltinga, Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Carla Angeli, Robert
Anderson, Sheri Lockman, Kim Ogle, Monica Mika
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 16, 2002,
was approved as read.
The first order of business is to elect Chair and Vice Chair for the upcoming year.
Stephen Mokray nominated Michael Miller for another term as Chair. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray nominated Bryant Gimlin for another term as Vice Chair. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the
motion. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1393
APPLICANT: Beau Rappell and Jed Rappell
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2060; part of the S2 SW4 of Section 10,T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
commercial roping arena (indoor/outdoor) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East and adjacent to WCR 55; north and adjacent to WCR 70.
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a request for a continuance to
September 3,2002.The reason for the continuance is due to the fact that mineral interest owners were not
notified within the 30 day period. The Department of Planning Services supports this request.
Bryant Gimlin moved to continue USR-1393 to September 3, 2002. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1395
APPLICANT: Highland Dairy LLC, c/o AgPro Environmental Services LLC
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 and W2W2 of the SE4 of Section 17, T8N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: 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 Livestock Confinement Operations(a dairy of 10,000 head
��1 Page-1-
ark, S/e/QO 2002-2266
of cattle, with six mobile homes as accessory to the farm) in the
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 39; north of and adjacent to WCR 92.
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a request for a continuance to August
20, 2002. The reason for the continuance is due to the fact that mineral interest owners were not notified
within the 30 day period. The Department of Planning Services supports this request.
John Folsom moved to continue USR-1395 to August 20,2002. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1392
APPLICANT: Tri State Generation &Transmission
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 5,6, 7&18, T2N, R67W; Parts of Sections
1,12,13,14,23,24,25,26,35 & 36, T2N, R68W; Parts of Sections
1,2,11,12,13,14,23, 24, 25 & 26, T1N, R68W; Parts of Sections 30,31,
T3N, R67W; Parts of Sections 25,36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility ofa Public Utility(a 13.2 mile 115 kV transmission line and two new
switching stations) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Commencing South of WCR 6 at the Proposed Erie Switching Station (SE
932), north to WCR 6,west to the WCR 6&WCR 11 intersection, north on
WCR 11 to WCR 12; From Dacono Substation (NCU-329)north on WCR
11 to WCR 20.5; east on WCR 20.5 past Rinn Valley Substation to WCR
13; north on WCR 13 & northeasterly on Firestone Trail to WCR 26;west
on WCR 26 to WCR 13; north on WCR 13 to Del Camino Substation and
Proposed Del Camino Switching Station.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a letter received from Tri-State asking for
an additional 45 day review period that was requested by Planning Commissions at the July 16,2002 board
hearing. Mr. Ogle stated that there is a letter in the packet concerning the Town of Firestone holding a
Planning Commission Meeting with this case on the docket. The date for that hearing is August 21. The
original request for the extension was to August 20, 2002, however, Mr. Ogle stated staff had no concerns
regarding the September 3, 2002 Weld County Planning Commission hearing as there may be an issue
concerning a quorum. The outline for how the case will be heard by both the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners is in an electronic memorandum in your packets. The case is presently
scheduled for a September 25,2002 Board of County Commissioners hearing enabling the county to meet
the 45 days prior to October 1,2002. Jon Beyer from Tri-State is here to address the matter if needed. Mr.
Miller stated that it is tough to get a quorum so close to a holiday. It would be well advised to move the case
to September 17, 2002. Mr. Ogle indicated that this would not be enough time unless the applicant was
willing to apply for a pre-advertisement. Mr. Gimlin indicated it would be more difficult to get a quorum with
the addition of two new members that have not heard the case. Mr. Ogle stated that staff is willing to make
arrangements to have the new board members review the tape and the meeting notes on August 20,2002.
The applicant is in the process of pulling the application materials that were in the packet for review of the
case. Mr. Miller asked if there was anyone on the board that knew they were not going to be available on
September 3, 2002. There was no indication the members will be absent.
Bryant Gimlin stated that one of the primary reason for the continuance of the case was to see how the town
of Firestone approved the application. Mr. Gimlin asked who has final approval,the Planning Commission
or the Town Board on September 5, 2002. Mr. Ogle indicated that it would be the Town Board of Firestone
on September 5, 2002.
Michael Miller asked Lee Morrison,Weld County Attorney,what the procedure was for pre-advertising this
case if it were moved to September 17,2002. Mr. Morrison indicated that the Board has to approve the pre-
Page -2-
ad because it is pre-advertising their meeting. First, it needs to be determined if the applicant is willing to
submit an application for pre-advertisement.
Michael Miller asked how many cases were on the agenda for September 17,2002. Mr.Ogle indicated that
there were presently 5 cases. This case will be heard first because of it being a continuance. Mr.Miller asked
the applicant if they would be willing to apply for the pre-advertisement for the Board of County Commissioners
so the Planning Commission could schedule this after the results from the Firestone meeting were available.
Jon Beyer,applicant,indicated that this could be done. Mr. Folsom asked about a possible meeting between
Firestone and Frederick to discuss realigning the line to County Road 13. Mr. Beyer indicated that the
situation with Frederick was the new appointment of town trustees and a new mayor. Tri-State received the
permits for this line from the old administration. The new administration has contacted Tri-State and would
like to set a meeting to discuss an alternative route for the line. The old administration looked at the
alternative line location and denied it. A meeting will be scheduled and the possible alternative will be
discussed. Tri-State approved the location as it stands now. Mr. Beyer indicated that they will apply for the
pre-advertisement for the Board of County Commissioners hearing. They will need information on the
process.
Michael Miller indicated that the September 17, 2002 hearing date would be more logical since the Firestone
meeting will have already been held.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue USR-1392 to September 17,2002. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion
carried.
Consent agenda
Consideration of St. Vrain Valley School District request related to location of construction of schools in the
county.
Consideration of School District 6 request to location of construction of schools in the county.
Planner- Monica Mika
Michael Miller asked for clarification on what is actually being requested to determine if leaving them on the
consent agenda is adequate.
Monica Daniels Mika,Department of Planning Services,provided clarification with regard to the request being
for the conduction of hearings by the Planning Commission. Correspondence was received last week from
School District 6, a week prior correspondence was received from St. Vrain Valley School District. These
correspondence informed the county of two proposed school site locations. There has been some discussion
with providing the opportunity for the planning jurisdiction to review the proposed locations. The decision
today is where,when and if the Planning Commission would like to hold a hearing to get further information
on the two projects. The information that is available is that the St. Vrain Valley School project is not under
way and the funding will not be available unless a bond issues is approved. The Weld RE-6 project is under
construction.
Lee Morrison stated the statute indicates that a hearing can be held and the final decision for end site location
is up to the school district. The statute does not provide any guidance as to what course the hearing must
follow nor does it give the Planning Commission any substantive authority to change the school boards
decision as to where the site can be located. There is little in the statute that allows for the Planning
Commission to influence the final say of the school board. There can be a request for the school board to
hold a hearing to provide more information on an informative bases only.
John Folsom quoted from the state statute. The St. Vrain School District deal is closed, the financing is in
place and the acquisition of land does not fall under the bond issue. So in essence this is already a done deal.
There is no point to conduct a hearing.
Page -3-
Michael Miller asked if the typical submittal information would need to be done for the school location sites.
i.e.traffic studies,responsibility for road improvements etc.. Mr. Morrison indicated that there is not a statute
that places the school districts in the same category as a private party. The county intends for the school
district to address the issues but in terms of a process that says they need to build the road there is none.
Mr. Miller indicated that a hearing is basically a mute point.
Mr.Morrison asked for clarification with regard to the consent agendas. Ms.Mika indicated that the intent was
to place the items on the consent agenda unless the Planning Commission wanted to take off consent for
discussion.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the consent agenda. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1386
APPLICANT: Brett&Chris Ann Reese
ADDRESS: 21491 WCR 64
Greeley, Colorado 80631
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Bed
and Breakfast Facility in the (A)Agricultural Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Southeast Corner of the E2,SW4 of Section 27,Township 6 North, Range
65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 64 ("O" Street) and 'A mile
west of Weld County Road 45
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1386, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked Char Davis, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, about the
present septic system and if the size can take the additional bed and breakfast part of the home. Ms. Davis
indicated that it would accommodate the increase. Mr. Gimlin asked about the access to North Weld Water
or another water source. Ms. Davis indicated that North Weld does not go that far east. Mr. Gimlin asked
how the system would be monitored. Ms. Davis indicated that in order to get a cistern an application would
need to be done through the Board of Health. The Board of Health approved this with the conditions
suggested, which is not required as part of the ordinance. The water will be tested quarterly for a year and
then re-evaluated at the end of that year. There have been additional requirements including the maintaining
of three years worth of records of where the water came from,transportation of the water must be in a clean
vessel and water testing prior to arrival of guest and everyday thereafter for chlorine residual. There is
sufficient water for the facility. Ms. Davis indicated that the size would be approximately 500 gallons. Mr.
Gimlin asked how it would be monitored so that the applicant could not just run a hose from the well to fill the
cistern. Ms. Davis indicated that this situation is difficult due to the regulations in place. If the applicant would
have changed to a commercial well they would have lost the use of that well water for landscaping. There
were two options to get around this but the state would not budge on one aspect. One of the reasons the
applicant did not want to change their well to a commercial well is that it would be final and could not revert
back to domestic.
John Folsom asked if the water quality in the cistern declined if it was not used within a time period. Ms.Davis
indicated that it depends on time and if it is chlorinated it will be fine. The applicant will test the water if they
want a productive business.
Brett Reese, applicant, stated that he had no further information but is willing to answer any questions.
Bryant Gimlin asked if transportation was arranged to get the water from Severance to the site. Mr. Reese
Page -4-
indicated that there is a pick up that will haul it to the tank for the cistern. The City of Greeley indicated that
they would not allow for the applicant to tap into their metered water. Mr. Mokray asked if there was an
agreement in place. Mr. Reese indicated that they have an agreement with North Weld County Water which
services the area. Ms. Davis indicated that they have spoken with the town of Severance and they are aware
of the circumstances and are agreeable to it.
Michael Miller asked how the bedrooms water supply will be isolated. Mr. Reese indicated that the cistern will
be located outside in a heated area. There will be a pump that runs the water to a pressure tank then to a
water heater which will then supply the bathroom for the two isolated bedrooms.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regard to changing the existing well to commercial and losing the
ability to water outside. Mr. Reese indicated that if the well was rededicated as commercial they would be
restricted.
James Rohn asked if it would be more reasonable to bring the cistern in to water the outside and make the
well as commercial. Mr. Reese indicated that would be fine but if at any time they chose to go back the well
could not revert back to a domestic use, it would essentially be lost.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Reese had questions about the collateral improvements agreement. Ms.Angell indicated this was for the
parking, landscaping basically itemizing their cost. This will be taken to the board defining the amount that
will be spent on improvements. Mr. Morrison indicated that a collateral agreement would not be needed if the
work was done by the applicant. The only problem is if the work is going to be done after the USR has been
recorded. Mr. Reese questioned the ADA accessible conditions. The building does not have to be ADA
accessible because it is less than six units. Planning Staff would like to parking lot to be handicap accessible.
Ms.Angeli indicated that staff would like to see reasonable accommodations. This is a commercial business
and there may be a need for those accommodations. Mr. Miller questioned the rationale with the building not
being accessible. Mr. Gimlin indicated that it could be as simple as one parking spot with a sign. Ms.Angeli
indicated that it was a federal regulations that will assist anyone with a disability, staff would like to see
something. Mr. Miller asked where the line was drawn with accessability to the parking lot but not in the
building itself. Ms.Angeli stated that staff would like to see one space designated for the ADA Regulations.
Mr. Miller asked about the federal requirements. Mr. Morrison indicated that this program is administered
differently because it is less a matter of accommodations and guidelines than absolute. Some of the codes
say this is how we think you can accommodate them. Federal law might not provide for the six unit cut off.
The applicant is at risk for complaints for lack of accessability. The state law does provide any exception.
The applicant provided a copy of the building code that states the requirements for ADA Regulations not
needing to be met if the facility were to be less than six units. Mr. Morrison indicated that the state law does
provide an exception that is consistent with what the applicants have mentioned.
Monica Mika indicated that there were several different types of disabilities. The suggestion would be for
planning staff to work with the applicant before the case goes before the Board of County Commissioners to
assist in the development of an alternative. The concept of reasonable accommodations is what staff looks
at as a guide. Mr. Miller indicated it would be at the applicants risk if"reasonable accommodations"were not
made. Mr. Reese indicated they were willing to take that risk because of the limited number that will be using
the facility. Mr. Miller stated that it may be as simple as reserving a parking space close to the entrance.
Michael Miller indicated his reservations with cistern operation and two independent water systems for two
bedrooms in a home. The requirements being placed on the applicant are satisfactory but difficult to enforce.
Mr. Gimlin agreed it is not the most desirable situation, but the applicant is getting caught up in regulations.
The governing bodies are what is holding them down. Mr. Miller asked if a Health Department representative
would make onsite inspections. Ms.Davis indicated that there will be onsite visits and water tests for potability
will be done. There is a cost associated with this. Ms. Davis indicated she was not thrilled with the idea but
there were very few alternatives. Mr. Folsom asked if the water can be distinguished from the cistern and the
well. Ms. Davis stated that it will be plumbed from the cistern directly to the bathroom. This will be checked
Page -5-
by the Health Department and it will be tested by the laboratory. Mr. Miller stated that the water in the cistern
could sit dormant for a length of time. Mr. Folsom stated that there will be no drinking from the bathroom
sink, but sickness could be an issue. Ms. Davis stated that as long as the guidelines are followed it will be
fine.
Michael Miller asked about the public water supply. Mr. Reese indicated that North Weld County Water is
about 1/2 mile west of were they are located. Mr. Gimlin indicated that this was a reasonable compromise.
The applicant will not be wanting to haul water for the long term and North Weld Water will be in the area in
the near future. The applicant will eventually hook to this water source and will not have to haul water. Ms.
Davis indicated that the well will not be tested. The applicants will provide a nice environment for the guest
because of possible return business.
Carla Angeli provided language for the signage. The Development Standard would state "Sign plan which
conforms to the requirements for signs in the Agricultural Zone District with the exception of Section 23-4-90B.
One four foot by six foot (4x6)double sided sign shall be displayed. The sign shall be illuminated by a light
source. No beams of light are allowed to shine on adjacent property or public rights of way." Ms.Angeli would
like to delete Development Standard#9.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add the language for Condition of Approval L and delete development standard#9.
Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1386, 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. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE : MZ-589
PLANNER: S Lockman
APPLICANT: Elva Griffith
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)to E (Estate)Zone
for four(4) residential lots.
LEGAL: Lot A RE-3212 being pt. SW4 Section 31, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 86;3/4 mile west of Weld County Road
29
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-589, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the access to Lot B through the Recorded Exemption
process. Ms. Lockman indicated that the approved access is located to the west of the proposed
development. The owner of Lot B has no interest in this proposed subdivision and will be required to use the
access that was approved through the Recorded Exemption process.
John Folsom asked Peter Schei,Department of Public Works,about the condition requesting sharing the cost
of improvements to the county road. Mr. Schei indicated that the county is implementing improvement
measures primarily focusing on dust abatement. The county is asking this development to share in proportion
to the background traffic. This is being enforced now due to some problems that have arisen in the past. Mr.
Folsom asked about the language regarding the mineral owners and the agreement being required. In
previous cases the language the applicant was to seek an agreement not have a signed one. Ms. Lockman
indicated that the applicant is given an alternative to show that they have mitigated concerns. The agreement
is typically easier for the applicant to obtain. This allows the applicant to put less land towards oil and gas if
an agreement is in place. Mr. Folsom asked about the mineral owners reluctance to specifically determine
Page -6-
where a well would be drilled. Ms. Lockman indicated that there have been relatively few issues in the past.
Ms. Lockman indicated that in this case the agreement was in the final stages. Ms. Lockman indicated that
the mineral owner notified planning staff and requested an agreement so the language was modified to
represent this. Mr. Miller asked what the process was if the mineral owner was requesting something
unreasonable. Ms. Lockman indicated that the applicant would need to mitigate concerns and the Board can
review it if the mineral owner and applicant cannot come to an agreement. Mr.Folsom asked about the legals
and deeds that were not included in the packet. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff will be sending smaller
packets and if there are issues please let staff know. All the information has been verified by the planners
and that information is available in the file.
Bruce Fitzgerald would like to see the former wording with regard to the mineral rights. There should be a
standard and it should be consistent. Mr. Miller agreed that it should be consistent.
John Folsom asked about the language included in the right to farm. Ms. Lockman indicated that the Right
to Farm language is included on the plat. It is intended to eliminate complaints.
Mikal Torgerson, applicant, provided some clarification with regard to the project. The applicant would like
to see the general language returned with regard to the mineral owners. He also requested clarification
regarding improvements to the adjacent road. The Department of Public Works indicated that this would
entail the dust abatement implementation. Further, Mr.Torgerson indicated the application was in error with
regard to the paving of the internal roadway. The internal road will be gravel.
Michael Miller asked if the water from North Weld Water adequate for the house and the limited number of
livestock that would be allowed as a use by right but no outside water for landscaping. Ms. Lockman stated
it was an amount that was allocated and she has spoken with Allan Overton with North Weld County Water
District. They are allocated enough for the homes and a small area including some animals. There will be
no limit but the cost associated with the amount over the allocation is extremely high. Mr. Torgerson added
that the applicant will limit the access through the cul-de-sac for the elk farm that is located on Lot B.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Sheri Lockman stated that the language for 1A will state"the applicant shall either submit to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services a signed copy of an agreement with the properties mineral owner or
evidence that oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site and that
mineral owners concerns have been mitigated."
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the language stated above as a Condition of Approval 1 A. Bryant Gimlin
seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add 2C stating"The cul-de-sac shall be moved south so as not to provide access to
Lob B of RE-3212. Lot B of RE-3212 shall access at the location approved through the Recorded Exemption
process." Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin moved to change language in 4M to remove the word "pavement" and insert "road." Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case MZ-589,along with the amendments,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. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Case#: MZ-609
Page -7-
Planner: R. Anderson
Applicant: Steve Klen and Lori Guttenstein
6909 Shannon Court
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Request: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to E (Estate)for a 6-lot Minor Subdivision
(Moorea Manor)
Legal Description: Lot A of RE-2812, being part of the west half of Section 2, Township 2 North,
Range 67 West of the 6th Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado
Location: West of and adjacent to County Road 21 Y and north of and adjacent to County
Road 24 '/ .
Robert Anderson,Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-609,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.The Department of Planning
Services requests two corrections. The case title needs to be changed from CZ to MZ and Condition of
Approval 1A Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing needs to reflect different
language.
John Folsom indicated that 2D should reflect County Road 21.5 not 20.5. Mr. Anderson indicated that it will
be corrected.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the county was using the 21.5 versus 21 %. It was indicated by Mr. Fitzgerald that
the 21.5 is not a correct mailing per the United States Post Office. It was also indicated that WCR is not a
accurate description. All United States Post Office data bases use County Road or CR.
Jim Rohn asked if the property was in a flood plain. Mr. Anderson indicated it was not. Mr. Folsom asked
about the referral from Weld RE-1 asking for a 90 foot radius for a school bus turn around. Mr. Anderson
indicated that the applicant representative has spoken with the school district and the issue has been
resolved.
Steve Klen, applicant, provided some clarification with regard to the project. The applicant will provide a unit
of water for irrigation purposes. There will be leach fields and all the utilities will be provided. There will be
covenants so that problems will not arise in the future. There will be water dedicated to each lot for irrigation.
Mr. Mokray asked about the ditch system and how it was going to be delivered to the homeowners. Mr. Klen
indicated that there is a ditch that runs through the property and one that runs to the north of the property.
Mr. Mokray asked for clarification on separation of the water and how it was to be monitored. Mr. Klen
indicated that the ditch company would monitor the amount and there was a divider box located off the main
ditch that would divert the water down the ditch in the subdivision. There is a certain amount of water
allocated per share of water and that is all the homeowners can use for the year. Mr.Miller stated that it would
to the benefit of the subdivision if there was one individual through everything was coordinated. Mr. Klen
indicated it could be addressed. Mr. Miller asked if actual stock certificates were going to be given to each
individual homeowner for the water associated with the property. Mr. Klen indicated that that was going to be
done. Mr.Anderson indicated that additional language can be added to 5E that will accommodate the issue
of the Homeowners Association being responsible for the organization and distribution of irrigation water.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change the language in Condition of Approval 1A to include the above mentioned
language, 5E to include "ditch water allocation" and the title from CZ to MZ. Stephan Mokray seconded.
Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change the reference in the documents from 20.5 to County Road 21 Y . Stephan
Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case MZ-609, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Page -8-
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -9-
Hello