The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20022413.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Revised Tuesday, August 20, 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 1:30p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin James Rown Fred Walker John Folsom Stephan Mokray Cathy Clamp Absent Bernard Ruesgen Bruce Fitzgerald Absent Also Present: Lauren Light, Sheri Lockman, Robert Anderson, Pam Smith, Trevor Jiricek, Peter Schei, Kim Ogle, Monica Mika, Char Davis The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 6, 2002, was approved as read. CASE: The Weld County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,August 20, 2002,at 1:30 p.m.for the purpose of considering Code Changes for the Weld County Code. PLANNER: Robert Anderson REQUEST: Weld County Code Changes to Chapters 23, 24, 27, and 29. Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a request for continuance to September 3, 2002. CASE NUMBER: CC2002-XX APPLICANT: WCR#1 Coalition PLANNER: Robert Anderson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of Section 31, T3N, R68W and part of the NW4 of Section 6,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1 to include 387 +/-acres into the MUD area). LOCATION: South and adjacent to WCR 28; north and adjacent to WCR 26; west and adjacent to WCR 1. Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a request from the applicant for continuance to November 19, 2002. The Department of Planning Services concurs with the recommendation. John Folsom moved to continue case CC2002-XX to November 19, 2002. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried denotot a u,,a(a,, Page -1- - ace a 4-rea-al/3 CASE NUMBER: PZ-613 APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC PLANNER: Sheri Lockman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2637; being part of the SW4 of Section 9,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 8 lots with Estate Zone Uses and 1 lot with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 30.13 acres of open space. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of WCR 29. Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a request for continuance to September 17, 2002. The continuance is required because surrounding property owners were not notified of today's hearing. The Department of Planning Services supports this request. Stephan Mokray moved to continue case PZ-613 September 17, 2002. James Rohn 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 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. Lauren Light,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1395,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 questioned a letter from a neighbor concerning the possibility of the property being located in the flood plain. Ms. Light indicated it was not in a flood plain but there is a small drainage basin. There is a small amount of berming going around the outside for drainage. Mr. Mokray asked for the current head count. Ms.Light indicated it was around 720 head,which is a use by right with 180 acres. Ms. Light indicated the 10,000 head that is proposed is not going to happen immediately. It will happen over a number of years. James Rohn stated he had been in contact with other dairies and they said their problems not only came from flies but also came from mice and rats because of the amount of food stored and skunk infestation. Mr.Miller indicated that the applicant will address the fly issue in his presentation. John Folsom asked for locations of other dairy and feed lots in the area. Ms. Light indicated the Podtburg dairy to the south is in fact vacant land that the applicant owns and can use in the land application. There is a small feeding operation off CR 41 and larger feeding operation off CR 90&CR 39. Mr.Folsom indicated that there might be a problem in identifying where the nuisances are coming from. Mr.Jiricek stated it would be very difficult to determine where the problem initiated from. It can be conducted by checking the management practices on the facility and any facility should be able to show records of spraying. It would be evident in the upkeep of the facility. John Folsom questioned the mineral owners and if notification had been sent. Ms. Light indicated that the applicant had sent letters and there is a development standard that addresses this. Page -2- John Folsom asked Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works, about a Road Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Carroll indicated that the department had evaluated the access to the facility and the traffic count does not or will not exceed the 200 trips per day requirement. The Public Works Department did not ask for any improvement agreements for dust control or re-paving of the existing roadway. Eldon Marrs, applicant, gave a brief history. The dairy is owned by two dairy families from the area. The families purchased the dairy in 2000 due to the increase in population in south Weld County. Mr.Miller asked about the fly problem since new ownership. Mr. Marrs stated that they have contracted with Orkin to do bi- weekly spraying of the area. This is part of the implemented plan for fly control. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the increase in smell. Mr. Marrs indicated he was not aware of the degree of smell from the previous owners. Tom Haren,representative for the applicant,provided clarification to the project. The existing dairy was built on an existing drainage basin and is not in a flood way. This dairy has had minor improvements to the existing pens and fences. There is one free stall barn that was built last year. The plan for this operation contains three phases. The first phase is to upgrade the existing facility. The second phase will include building one parlor and add two free stall barns. There will be storm water ponds for the composting and the existing dry land areas. There is a waste water system that is being improved upon each year. It is gearing more towards treatments using new technology. There are mechanical screening separators that will assist in the waste water treatment. These machines need to be placed in building with heat so they will not freeze. These machine remove 60%of the manure from the water. The drainage will then go into ponds to remove 50% of what is left. The use of aerators have been used on the owners existing dairy with great success. The water will go through a series of treatments and will eventually be used to flush the free stall barns. Mr. Miller asked about the composting and clarification that nothing will be imported to the site. Mr. Haren indicated that the applicant will have no need to import anything to the site. The drainage is a very large issue with regard to the existing dairy and the improvements suggested. The state allows the movement of drainage water but the entrance in to the property and the exit from the property must remain the same as well as the rate and volume. The drainage will be re-routed around the dairy but will not change from the point of entrance or exit. There has been a problem with the drainage on CR 92. The issues on the flies and the odor are related to standing water. The drainage on the existing dairy was very poor. The dirt from the diversion will be used to fill in the low spots in the property. The storm water run off from the roofs will be brought into the diversion system so contaminated water is not put into the lagoons, causing the odor to be minimal. This is unique compared to dry a lot dairy. Mr. Miller asked what the capacity for the diversion system was. Mr. Haren indicated it was designed for 100 year standard. The drainage is aproximately 140 feet wide. There is a possibility of placing native grasses on the banks. Mr. Miller asked how the water from the rooftops will be brought through the compost to the drainage ditch. Mr. Haren indicated that some will be piped. It will be open channel so there is little chance of contamination. Phase three will include the mirror image of the phase two milk parlor and more pens. The permit number totals 5500 milkers. This is designed to be a closed herd with little or no importing from offsite facilities. The applicants are utilizing the old dairy and cleaning it up and adding to the facility. John Folsom asked about the berming and landscaping location and if it is similar to what was shown. Mr. Haven stated that a row of trees are planted and some additional landscaping is proposed to the south around the homes. Staff recommended landscaping on the sides and the applicant believes that there is several hundred feet on the side that can be utilized as a buffer. Once the third phase is under construction and the area is becoming utilized there will be landscaping added. The dirt work was not calculated to add the berm. The applicant proposed that if berming is needed it should be in phase three. Mr. Folsom indicated he was concerned because the residences are to the east of the dairy. Mr. Haren indicated that staff and the applicant disagree on when the buffering should occur. Staff would like to see financial assurance posted now while the applicant would like to wait until phase three. The manure area for compost is in a specific location until the possible build out of phase three. The natural separation is adequate until the building of the free stalls in the third phase of the development. James Rohn asked about the location of the composting being on the east side of the facility where the wind blows west to east towards the existing residences. Mr. Haren indicated that an alternative would be to designate a larger area for composting rather than a smaller area. The area designated is large and the Page -3- drainage of the property limits the possibilities. The drainage was also a consideration along with sun and prevailing winds. The industry does not like to have the waste management system directly adjacent to the county road. There is an alternative with other land available that could be used and done off site but the current county policy of contiguity, means the roads make it a different site. Under the state regulations if composting is done off site there is a need for state permits and a new USR even though it is adjacent. Mr. Haren indicated if the county was willing to look at the possibility and work on that issue the applicant would entertain the idea. Truck traffic was also taken into consideration. There is some flexibility with the plan. Mr. Rohn asked if the amount requested of cattle was excessive.Mr. Rohn researched the subject and found that one of the largest dairies in Weld County only has 480 acres with 3500 head of cattle. Another dairy had 500 acres and 750 head. This seems more in line with acreage use. Mr. Haren indicated that the dairies that are quoted have different elements and situations. Mr. Haren indicated that the largest permitted dairy is at Del Camino and is 6000 head and the adjacent farm ground is leased with the owner having 80 acres. It is also a dry lot dairy not a free stall dairy. This site is on 180 acres but the applicants own adjacent property totaling 160 additional acres to the south and another 80 acres to the west. The total is 420 acres. There is an addition 400 acres of dry land that is leased along with the LDS Farm to the south of 320 acres and City of Thornton property of 200 acres. Bernie Ruesgen asked about the size of the lagoons. Mr. Haren stated that in the application there is a Waste Water Management Plan. Mr. Miller asked if the calculations were in line with the CAFO regulations and they are regulated by the state. Mr. Haren indicated this is true. In the past there is a 25 year 24 hour standard storm that is used to engineer the figures. There is now a CAFO permit that is required that includes a 10 year 10 day storm or a 25 year 24 hour whichever is greater. This application has already designed for those requirements. Mr. Haren added that winter storage capacity and management issues are also calculated into the figures. The lagoons are about 80-100%oversized from the basic storm line requirement. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the projected time line from phase one through three. Mr. Haren stated phase one through two will be within 3 to 5 yrs. Phase three is driven by economics of agriculture. Mr. Ruesgen asked about current volume of biosolids that are generated. Mr.Haren stated that on an as produced basis the total would be approximately 800 thousand pounds, annually 150 thousand tons. When it is applied to the appropriate moisture factors is boils down to 35 thousand tons. It can be reduced even further with composting. This is the forecasted amounts. There is some composting going on and it is static piles. The applicant plans to go to a windrow/aeration system with turners. Mr. Ruesgen asked what the applicant was doing to protect the adjacent shallow wells. Mr. Haren stated that the new confinement facilities were solely on concrete, so leaching will be virtually non existent. The lagoons are required by the state to be lined. There is a development standard in the staff comments that regulates the stock pile having a liner similar to what is in the pens. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has found that manure does make a good pack. Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification of the water source. Mr. Haren stated that the water source will be the use of wells and the North Weld Water taps. As the dairy progresses it will have to buy water from the North Weld Water District as a requirement from the district. The wells are being worked on at the State Engineers office determining an augmentation plan to convert the wells that will be used. Mr. Gimlin asked about the existing well that is not permitted. Mr. Haren indicated that the one that is not permitted is not viable in the operation of the dairy. Mr. Gimlin asked if the North Weld Water will be used for the mobile homes. Mr. Haren stated it would and the parlor will use the tap water and the water for the cows will be from the wells. Mr. Gimlin asked about the drainage plan and the property adjacent. If the applicants wanted to sell that property it is not a part of this permit and what effect would that have on the drainage. Mr. Haren stated that if the applicant made no changes to the historical flow there would be nothing different that what was occurring right now. Stephan Mokray asked about moving the composting to the other side and how difficult. Mr. Haren indicated that it would be additional truck traffic across the county road and the additional traveling time for the dairymen. That would be the expense issues, as far as regulatory, it would include the current comprehensive plan which would cause the applicant to get a special use permit on the property. The property is not considered adjoining so the state regulations would require a state composting permit since they are not on the same site at the dairy. There would also be additional storm water issues for the lagoons. It would also create another year of time in permitting and additional money. Mr. Mokray stated that to the Page -4- residents on the east side it seems to be an issue. Mr. Haren indicated that if the county was willing to waive the USR for the property in question with proposed changes to the comprehensive plan and considering that these properties were contiguous for state purposes,the only effect on the applicant is the distance from one site to the other. Mr. Miller stated that might be something that an alternative plan could be prepared and presented to the county commissioners they would have the ability to deal with it. The Planning Commission does not have the authority. Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, stated that the language is in review right now for a change in the comprehensive plan and there is a process for the change. The applicant can ask to not have a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners until the change occurs.The problem is having pending doctrine changes. To ask for something before the doctrine changes cannot be done. There has been discussions dealing with contiguous property in the way the County looks at it as compared to the different the way the State looks at it. The problem is that right now it is not contiguous because it is split by the road right of way. It can be put in the record that the issue was discussed and if at some point the contiguity issues changes the applicant can respond at that time. The language that is proposed for the changes in the comprehensive plan may not be the final document. Tom Haren indicated that the applicant is involved with screening but there are residences surrounding the site and it is the lesser of the evils. Mr. Haren indicated that the phasing of the project, if there is concerns • the applicant will discuss this prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing to look at some buffering issues versus off site issues. The reality is there is significant distance as buffering before the building of phase three. The buffering is approximately 1500 feet. The ironic thing is legally they are owners of non adjacent parcels according to the county. If there was a farmer that was not involved in this dairy operation the applicant could take the raw manure out to the farm ground and pile it up. The county does not have jurisdiction over that though there are some zoning issues. With this site there is an in integrated plan for composting, screening, stormwater and the ability to redirect storm water. Mr. Ruesgen indicated that it would come down to volume for the projections. Mr. Rohn asked about the number of animals in second phase. Mr. Haren indicated that there would be approximately 5000. There is no time frame for the final phase of the second 5000. Mr. Rohn restated his concerns with the flies and rodents and the food needing to be stored. Mr. Haren stated that there is a comprehensive nutrient management plan that was submitted with the application and there are development standards from Weld County Public Health and Environment to address this. Mr. Haren indicated that there are concrete commodity sheds to store the feed. The animals are in free stall barns with sand bedding with the feed places out when they come back from the milk parlor. The applicant is completely housing these animals so that there will be complete control of the herd. Fred Walker pointed out to the new members that are not aware of the issue of adjacency. The real background behind this, in my perspective , is the people that own the land on both sides of the road. The legal descriptions go to the center of the road so technically those lands are adjacent. The qualifier is the County is saying because the county road is right of way that then renders them not adjacent. That is the crutch of the argument. This needs to be looked at and possibly changed. That is the root of the issue. Mr. Walker does feel that those properties are adjacent. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Lannie Clary, neighbor directly east of the dairy, has mixed concerns. Mr.Clary stated that,"he has a NIMBY mentality." His 15 acres would not be benefitted one way or another with the development. The only detriment would be the decrease in property value. The biggest concern is the contamination of the domestic well. There are other concerns with dust and flies. There are actually no ways of controlling flies. From now until harvest the flies are pretty bad. Is the surrounding neighbors quality of life going to change because of this development. The biggest concern is does the Golden Rule really exist. Mr. Miller stated that if this application passes the applicant comes under the Confined Animal Rules and Regulations which are more strict than what is governing them right now. Mr. Clary stated issues with four animals per acre and the numbers do not match up. Paul Pierce, neighbor to east, has concerns with the regulations and who would enforce the regulations. Mr. Miller stated that if there is a violation the Planning Department and the Department of Health and Environment. Page -5- Mr. Pierce questioned the violation process and needs assurance that something will be done. John Folsom asked if the domestic well Mr. Pierce owns is his only source of drinking water or is there piped in water. Mr. Pierce stated that the whole area is dependent on domestic wells.There is not county water up County Road 41. Bryant Gimlin asked Mr.Jiricek if there were any complaints outstanding on the current operations. Mr.Jiricek stated he is not aware of any. Mr. Pierce clarified that it was the property next to this one. James Rohn asked about the depth of the existing wells. Mr. Pierce stated that the wells are less than 100 feet deep. Mr. Pierce stated that at 70 feet down water is hit and the concerns center around the lagoons seeping to the ground water, it will need to be a good system. Mike Miller asked Mr.Jiricek if there was a way to determine a base line and get the water periodically checked. Mr. Jiricek stated that this could be done and it would be a recommendation for the property owners to do. The rules are designed to be protective of the public health and the capitol rules are geared at water quality. In order to reserve the right for possible future action documentation is needed. It can be done through the Health Department. Mr. Miller recommended that this be done and if there have been impact than there are means for correcting the issue. Stephan Mokray asked about test wells and if it was something that could be put on this case. Mr. Jiricek stated that few have been required. The code is written so that the Board can require monitoring wells and feeding operations. Fred Walker questioned the method of determining baseline wells. He suggests that there be in independent third party. This would accurately represent what the baseline water level is. Mr. Jiricek indicated that that would remove any doubt from the documentation. Mr. Jiricek stated that it is something that the Department of Health would do for a fee. The fee would depend on the analysis that were run and their fees are 10-20% less than what could be found elsewhere. The approximate cost would be $30-40 dollars to have comprehensive look at the water. James Rohn asked who would pay for that cost. Mr. Miller indicated it would be something that the Planning Commission require as a development standard. Monica Mika stated that in lieu of not having an attorney present that it would be beneficial to add it and the Board of County Commissioners can review the resolution and if there is something they are not comfortable with it can be removed. Stephan Mokray asked Mr.Jiricek if the wells get polluted what is the next course of action. Mr. Jiricek stated that the Water Quality Control Division from the State Health Department would get involved and possibly the EPA. James Rohn asked how the water could be cleaned since the property owners will need it immediately. Mr. Jiricek stated that there are remedial processes to clean the ground water and the easiest way is to bring in North Weld Water. Mr.Jiricek reiterated that the facility is being required by the county and the state to comply with state rules that are meant to be protective of water quality. Connie Masden, neighbor directly to the east, stated her concern is the day in and day out life for the families. There is a drainage ditch and an open lagoon that is directly across from them. The question is how much standing water and how large will these be specifically because of the safety for the surrounding children. Another concern is the fly problem. The surrounding neighbors are agricultural families and understand the lifestyle. The flies have been worse in the last couple of weeks, however,the idea of Orkin spraying does not seem to be a better alternative. There have been no details with regard to the spraying by Orkin for the flies but the issue needs to be looked into especially since there will be additional families moved into the area closer to the problem. There has been an increase of litter and traffic on County Road 39 and County Road 92. The services are a concern since they are on a volunteer fire department and there is only one sheriff that patrols infrequently. The response for help takes time. With the addition of families this issue needs to be Page -6- considered. The addition of the mobile homes could affect the property values. Is there any way of knowing how this will effect the property value over time. The use of the forest service trees will not have any effect for around 20 years. The use of a berm and trees is not a benefit due to the fact it will take approximately 20 years for them to mature. Mr. Miller stated that the amount of water in the ditch is not allowed to change due to state regulations so what is there now will be consistent. The berming and the landscape buffer is an issue that Planning Commission generally does not allow them to put in forest service trees. The landscape buffer needs to be with more mature trees that are already five or six feet tall. Mr. Folsom suggested an appraisal in order to determine the property values. Ms. Masden asked about the sheds that are going up with the bright lights and red lights at night and if the new sheds will be like them. Mr. Miller indicated that there is a provision for the facility that none of the lights can shine on the adjacent property. Ms. Masden asked about the time line for mobile homes. Ivy Pierce,neighbor,stated the question is if the flood waters come how will it be addressed. Mr.Walker stated that the government has placed detention ponds upstream on the basin to mitigate the possible flood waters. Another concern is the berms and landscaping is for the public not the neighbors to the east. Mr. Miller stated that with this application there is provisions for berming and landscaping for the neighbors to the east. What happens when the applicant loses the lease agreements made with the City of Thornton and LDS Farms with composting. Mr.Miller indicated that under the CAFO regulations the applicant has to find a home for material. Ms. Pierce asked about the mosquito in the holding ponds and if the ponds are to be aerated. Mr. Miller stated that aeration is one part of a whole process that will help clean the water and the manure. Mr. Folsom indicated that the aeration disturbs the ponds and makes is less likely a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Ms. Pierce asked about milk subsidizing and clarification on a limited liability corporation. The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting. Tom Haren, representative, provided clarification with regard to some of the issues brought forward by the public. Mr. Haren stated that the mobile homes will be with phase three as accessories to the farm. It is for employee housing. Mr. Haren indicated that the drainage basin is not very big, 1.7 miles approximately. The calculations for 100 year storm is approximately 730 c.f.s. That is the design standard that must be used. This is designed as a channel, it does not hold water nor does it have standing water. The flow is continuous. The slope on the ditch that surrounds the east of the property is extremely gradual. The hazard issues are minimal. There are some legitimate issues but there are existing dairies and feed lots that surround this application. The existing agricultural uses are not regulated as much as this use will be. The technology that is associated with the facility is the best the business has to offer. Mr. Haren commended county staff for the work that they have done. He has been present when staff has done inspections on a Saturday night over a holiday weekend. Mr. Haren addressed concerns with Conditions of Approval 1M dealing with the septic system for the existing shop that is on the property. The applicant would like to delete the second sentence due to the fact that the existing shop has no bathroom, running water or electricity. Don Carroll,Department of Public Works,suggested adding an item with regard to the drainage. The drawing will show that the swale will be 100 feet wide and 4 feet deep with the flow of 730 c.f.s. Mr. Carroll would like to add a Condition of Approval stating "the applicant shall supply a drawing on how the storm water will be retained and released at the historical rate." Mr. Carroll indicated that this would supply the county with documentation of an adequate structure or an adequate way to retain and release the water so the water does not wash out the road. Ms. Light suggested it be added in at 1 Q. Mr. Carroll suggests that the applicant look at the 90 degree turn in the northeast corner of the lot where the drainage water is being re-routed. Where the drainage enters the property it needs to be certain that the area is sufficient to accept the water. Mr. Miller asked how the applicant intends for the water to turn. Mr. Haren stated where comes onto the property it is a concrete channel with concrete reinforcing walls and there will be a sweep where the water exits the property, it will not be a true 90 degree turn. This will have either concrete or rip rap to protect the flow of this. Mr. Haren feels that 1Q in unnecessary due to the fact that the applicant is not holding any water or changing any water flows. This is historical water that comes onto the site and off of this site. It currently flows across County Road 92 where there is an existing dip in the road. If it washes out the road it washes out the road now. The applicant contends that they are not changing how the water flows but are changing its flow across the said property. The additional engineering cost associated with redoing the drainage plan would be very cumbersome to the applicant. The water flows over the road right now,there is no culvert. Mr. Carroll added Page -7- that they are now concentrating the flow into one spot instead of sheet flowing it over the road so the impact with 730 c.f.s. located at one spot could wash out the road very easily. Mr. Miller asked what size of culvert it would take to handle that amount of water. Mr. Carroll recommended the engineer look at it and size it. Mr. Miller asked what the suggestion was. Mr. Carroll indicated that they are asking the applicant to retain the water and release it at the historical rate. If the release requires a box or some type of structure Public Works would ask for it. Mr. Miller asked why this was not put in the original document. Mr. Carroll indicated that the applicant did not really address this in the questionnaire. Fred Walker asked where the drainage is and if it would not be going back into the historic channel. Mr.Carroll stated it may be in different locations. Mr. Haren stated that the drainage is shifted slightly because so the water would not back up into the field, run east and then cross the road. The applicant has the water located in the position where it crosses the road now. Mr. Haren indicated that the applicant is given a formula by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and what is coming off the drainage is historically what has come off the drainage. The applicant does not feel that they are altering the historical flow or velocity that would erode the county road. Mr. Haren does not feel that it is the applicants responsibility to design a bridge for a drainage low spot that is presently in the county road. Mr. Carroll indicated a drainage report would resolve it. The report would include how much is going through the property and this would give historical flows and give the Public Works Department an idea. Mr.Walker asked Mr. Carroll if in fact the applicant would not be reducing their flows from the property that would end up in the drainage. The peak flows would change whereas the quantity would not and the fact that the water they are moving around is not their water to begin with. Mr. Carroll stated that the water that is coming from the property is being handled, the concern is the rerouting of a historical flow location. The Public Works is asking that the historic flow be released at the historic rate and that they are not washing out anyone downstream with the larger amount. Tom Haren stated that there was a storm water study that was submitted with the application. There are hydro graphs of 100 and 200 year storm along with channel cross sections and swale designs. Mr. Miller asked if there was a historical problem with the road being washed out. Mr. Carroll suggested asking the neighbors but the basin above has had some issues with flooding. Mr. Miller stated that the applicant is rerouting the water not adding to it. Mr. Miller asked how big the ditch is and what is the normal flow. Mr. Haren stated that there was not water running in the ditch the whole time only during major storm events. Tom Haren stated concerns with Development Standard #28. The applicant wants the county to attempt to contact the owner or agent prior to entering the property. Mr. Haren indicated that this is a safety/security issue. The applicant is not requiring them to contact just make the attempt. The information is available to staff for contact numbers. Ms. Mika indicated that the development standard is consistent language that is used for all use by special reviews or any time a land use application is being done. The county has a proven history that the standard is not abused. County staff is extremely courteous to whomever is on the site. Some additional language could be added but to assume that if there is a concern on the site or the county has a need for access to the site for abatement of a dangerous building or run off they need to attempt to contact first makes it cumbersome on staff if there is a need to make an appointment or track someone down. The intent allows the county, under reasonable circumstances, to have ingress to the property. The language the applicant proposes makes it sound like an appointment needs to be made in order to visit the site. Mr. Gimlin added that it was an attempt to contact. Ms.Mika questioned what attempt would mean. Does it mean attempt prior to leaving, prior to arriving at the site,documentation or what. Mr. Miller stated that he believes the intent of language is obtaining the permission. Ms. Mika indicated that when Code Compliance goes to check on a violation there must be an invitation to go onto the site. If there is not then county staff must stay on the right of way. Mr.Miller indicated that the county staff understand the issues. Will there be an obvious office to which the staff can stop at to obtain the permission and be informed of the security/safety measures. Mr. Haren indicated that the applicant would like county staff, if they are at the office or on their way,to attempt to contact the owners. Mr. Miller asked if there would always be someone at the dairy for contact. Mr. Haren indicated that there will not always be an English speaking representative. Mr. Walker stated that the dairy will be a closed herd and they are trying to eliminate disease by limiting access. The EPA and the Federal Government seem to be the ones that are doing unannounced inspections. When a series of inspections are done in one day the possibility of disease can be transferred. The applicant would like to be notified in an attempt to alleviate this problem or at least an attempt made. Mr. Gimlin agrees but posting notice to the gate for all the public would be beneficial for the safety/security means mentioned. Mr. Haren indicated that there is posting at some facilities and it is not used. The county staff has been courteous. Mr. Haren stated the applicants Page -8- would post including the hours of operation. Monica Mika indicated that the posting was a good alternative. Morning Fresh is handled in a way that the applicant took the responsibility to post the sign and provide a spot to"check in." This eliminated the issue of safety as well as security. Mr. Jiricek indicated that this needs to be an approach that is done by all not just the county staff. These conditions apply to staff only. Mr. Miller asked if there was cell service. Mr. Haren indicated on good days. Mr. Miller questioned the ability of staff to contact an owner when in fact the service is not reliable and there may not be an English speaking person available. Mr. Haren indicated that the applicant will post. The owners will leave it as it stands. Tom Haren continued with other items of concern in the staff comments. Condition of Approval 1 C, 1O and #24 of the Development Standard regarding buffering. Mr. Haren questioned the need for financial assurance for landscaping. The applicant thinks that this is unnecessary. Ms.Light indicated that unless the landscaping was completed prior to recording financial assurance is required. Mr. Miller indicated that if this was done prior to recording there would be no need for a bond. Mr. Haren suggests that in phase two there is adequate screening due to the amount of land between the facility and the surrounding neighbors. There is approximately 1/8th of a mile to the neighbors. Within the facility it is 1000 feet to the house. The applicant is proposing a landscape plan that is dependent on the expansion of the facility. If phase three never goes the applicant does not want to put the money in for the berming and trees when the amount of land to the neighbor is adequate. There has been a row of trees on the western side next to County Road 39. According to staff the seedlings that were planted will not be adequate. Mr. Miller indicated that the applicant is implying that phase one and phase two are not large enough to warrant any landscaping along the east side. Mr. Haren stated that the Agriculture Zone District does not require the landscaping that is being requested for this application. Ms. Light indicated that the need for landscaping was added to address some concerns for the neighbors and it has been done in previous cases. The need for landscaping needs to be case specific with regard to quality and quantity. Mr. Haren is requesting to phase the landscaping as the dairy grows. If it grows faster then larger trees are implemented. Mr.Miller would be more prone to a system where smaller trees were planted now and they would be established, rather than wait and then put in 10 foot trees. The forest service seedlings are not to be used for landscaping or buffer as it states in the agreement when purchased. Mr. Gimlin indicated that this language gives staff the authority and the applicant the obligation to negotiate into a landscape plan. It does not say what or how quickly, that is all negotiable. Mr. Haren indicated that there is a difference of opinion between staff and the owners with regard to what a landscape buffer actually is. Mr. Gimlin stated that the Planning Commission is not going to get into what the landscape is suppose to be so there will still need to be negotiations with county staff. Mr. Haren reiterated that there needs to be some consideration as to how fast the dairy actually grows. The financial assurance would require a burden that would not normally be on a facility in the Agriculture Zone District. This burden is on the extreme side especially when it is surrounded by similar agricultural uses. Mr. Miller indicated that a landscape plan needs to be in place. If a time line can be established for the herd then a time line can possibly be established for the landscaping. Meaning that smaller trees can be begun with but if the herd is at the 5000 capacity in three years then the caliper of the trees and the landscape plan will need to be more in depth and detailed. The need for a flexible plan needs to be established and the planning staff can assist in that. Fred Walker asked planning staff if they are flexible with the landscape plan or are there certain definite criteria that they are going to insist on. Ms. Light indicated that the applicant will submit a plan to the department. The plan will need to make sense then it will be reviewed. The concern is how to keep track of the phasing if the ground is sold to someone else. The department needs some assurance that the landscaping will happen,that is where the collateral comes into play. Mr. Walker questioned the standards to which the plan would be reviewed by. Ms. Light indicated that it would be treated as other dairy landscape plans were. There would be an extension agent,a staff member with an landscape architecture degree and others who are familiar with the process and requirements. Mr.Walker questioned assurance with regard to the applicant agreeing to the plan then not doing it the permit can be revoked. The financial assurance is way above what is necessary and prudent. It goes to the point of saying the applicant is not willing to do what he has committed to do. Mr. Miller stated that in lieu of a bond an agreement that states if the landscaping is not completed within a specific amount of time the operation will be shut down. Mr. Miller asked the applicant what is being offered in replace of the recommendation for financial assurance. Mr. Haren stated that the owners would prefer not to post financial assurance. It is specific in the county policy that if the Conditions of Approval and the Development Page -9- Standards are not followed then the proceedings for revocation of permit will occur. Ms. Light indicated that if phases are proposed then improvements agreements can be done on each of the phases. Ms. Light has not seen anything with regard to the phasing. The mention of phasing in this meeting was the first that it was heard. Mr. Miller stated that the phasing would require submitting an application with definite phases. The applicant has been vague with the number of animals in the separate phases of the project. It sounds like there will need to be more detail in the phasing if the need for landscape phasing will be added. Eldon Marrs,applicant,stated that they are not opposed to buffering. The phasing is driven economically. The difficulty would be in submitting the plan and being bound by it and the economics do not match up. Mr. Miller indicated that phasing could be tied to numbers and does not necessarily have to be tied to a plan. The type and size of buffer is easily negotiated. Mr. Miller asked if this was a standard requirement for a animal confinement operations. Ms.Light indicated that it has been placed on smaller operations such as special uses in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Miller asked if there was a landscape plan prepared. Mr. Haren indicted that the only plan was what is included on the map. The Busker Dairy was the first dairy that AgPro Environmental has done a landscape plan on. Fred Walker asked Ms. Light if a security bond was going to be asked for from the Busker Dairy and if it was in the packet. Ms. Light indicated that the applicant did this prior to recording. If the applicant submitted a landscape plan that staff agreed with there would be no need for a collateral. Staff would want to extend the time for recording. Mr. Walker indicated that he was not familiar with it being requested in the Busker Dairy application. Ms. Light indicated the applicant voluntarily put in the landscaping. Michael Miller suggested that prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing the applicant present a reasonable concept that both can accept. If this can not be done address it with the commissioners. There is no phasing information either. Mr. Haren indicated that this was acceptable. Michael Miller indicated that the first thing that needed to be addressed was the Condition of Approval that Public Works would like to include the request for a drawing supplying information with regard to the historic rate from the drainage basin. Mr. Miller stated that if the historic rate is the same as before than he is hesitant to make the applicant do the additional work. Mr.Gimlin stated that he believes the rate would be less because there will not be as much drainage from this site. The applicant is channeling everything around, the historic rate will go around. Mr. Miller indicated that the drainage from the sheds will be added to the water flow in the drainage basin. Mr. Haren indicated that intention is to not alter the historic rate so if the water from the roof top alters the historic rate it will be modified. Mr. Gimlin indicated that with the addition of that water the suggestion from Mr. Carroll made more sense. Public Works is asking for a report which would include more information than what is currently submitted. Mr. Haren indicated that currently the 160 acres of property is in the historical drainage flow now,the roofs included. Mr. Haren indicated that it would not cause a significant change in flow. The applicant has submitted a full design for this channel with the hydro graphs at the initial submittal and county staff has had the time to review it. The basin is minus 160 acres that would normally have been included in the calculation had the applicant not take the water around the dairy. Mr. Miller asked if the water will end up at the southeast corner of the property. Mr. Haren indicated that the drainage from the pens and barns will be kept internally. The only water that will be added to the drainage is the roof run off. Mr. Haren indicated that the farm ground to the south of the property will remain in agricultural production. James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll if he wanted the applicant to do the additional work to fix the problem with the drainage. Mr.Carroll indicated that roads have been replaced at different locations due to stormwater floods. This application has an historical flow that is west of the tail water pond. The proposal is to bring that flow down to the edge of the property line which is 400-500 feet, east of the low water crossing creating a different situation at the county road. Public Works would like to know what is going to happen at County Road 92 where the storm water is coming down being piped, passed around and rechanneled east of the historical drainage basin. A storm water drainage report would provide all the information with regard to addressing the impact on site. Mr.Miller asked for clarification with regard to the flow that is being proposed. Mr. Haren stated the intent was to take it from where the water entered the property and have it exit at where it crosses the road in the low spot. Mr. Carroll asked if there was a structure directly south where the new drainage area will be. Mr. Haren indicated that there is a structure on the applicants property but it is off set to the west of where the drainage comes across now. Mr. Ruesgen stated that the historical flow will be accelerated and will that flow erode the roadbed. Mr. Haren stated the applicant can take into account velocity and make changes Page -10- accordingly. Mr. Haren indicated that the applicant has no intention of containing the water because it is not contained now. The applicant will work with Public Works on the flow from the inlets and outlets and the velocity. Mr. Miller asked if there was a problem with preparing the report. Mr. Haren indicated that the report is in the application with the exception of a site plan that specifically shows the point of exit which the applicant will add. Mr. Miller indicated that the report does not currently address the velocity of the flow. Mr. Haren stated that there are calculations in there. Mr. Haren indicated that there were things that could be done to mitigate the issue. Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll if it would be acceptable to place a Condition of Approval stating that the applicant shall work with Public Works to address these issues. Mr.Carroll indicated that would be acceptable but they would still like to see some type of engineering report signed stating it will look the way that it is proposed. Mr. Gimlin indicated that with the original language proposed by Mr. Carroll was asking for a drawing showing how the stormwater will be released and retained. That does not obligate the applicant to resolve a downstream problem that is already in existence. While Public Works is asking for the impact and where it was coming out on the road. Mr. Haren stated that if the Condition could change"retain"to"discharge in the condition it would be acceptable. Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll if the language would be acceptable if it stated that the applicant will supply a drawing showing how stormwater will be released at a historical rate. Mr. Carroll indicated that the standard response for something like this is to have a final drainage plan and report stamped by a professional engineering firm along with construction plans conformed to the drainage report shall be submitted with the final plat application. Mr. Haren indicated that this could be a very expensive cumbersome requirement when it could be simplified with the applicant working with Public Works to determine the information that is realistically needed. Mr. Haren indicated that the applicant is willing to show the drainage basin, historic flows and how the applicant plans to not alter them both in calculations and a map stamped by an engineer. Mr. Miller indicated that there is a difference of opinion because Public Works does not feel that what was submitted was adequate. Mr. Carroll indicated that the report went to the Health Department because it has to deal with animal units, but he will obtain a copy. Mr. Carroll indicated that they can review it and if it is not adequate it can be requested at the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Bryant Gimlin moved to add 1O stating "A final drainage report shall be stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Colorado along with construction plans conforming to the drainage report shall be submitted with the final plat." Stephan Mokray seconded 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; Fred Walker, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Bryant Gimlin moved to delete the second sentence on 1M. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried. Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1395,along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the 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; Fred Walker, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1396 APPLICANT: Public Service Company PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 3,4,9, 10, 15, 16,21, 22,27,and 28,Ti N, R67W and part of Sections 27, 28 and 34, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development and Special Use Permit for a 24-inch Natural Gas Pipeline. Page -11- LOCATION: Three proposed alternative routes. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1396,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 if a final route was going to be determined today. Staff agrees with the alternative route. John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman if the pipeline was anticipated when the Yosemite plant was presented. Mr. Gathman was not sure. Bryant Gimlin asked what the problem is with route 1 that the alternatives need to be shown. Mr. Gathman indicated that in the appiclation requirements it states the need to show alternative routes.There is no issues with the preferred alternative. The applicant is required to show alternative routes when they are publishing the information. Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The three routes were evaluated and by code are required to present them. Public Service Company does feel that the preferred route is favored. The pipeline is underground next to an existing pipeline. Is not on a county right of way. The alternative routes would add cost and distance. Bryant Gimlin asked the referral from the Brighten Fire Department asking that at least one lane of traffic be open at all times. Mr. Hodges stated that the intent is to not have any of the roads closed at any time. Fred Walker asked if new right of way will be attained from the property owners. Mr. Hodges stated it will and all the people will be contacted. Bernie Ruesgen asked the age of the existing pipeline that this case will run along. Mr. Hodges stated that the existing pipeline is approximately seven years old and the damage could be minimal. Ken Skidmore, applicant, stated that the existing pipeline is 1015 lbs and this pipeline will be the same. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Todd Hodges stated the applicants concerns with 2C and deleting this. The notification that has been made is adequate. It would be impossible to get an agreement in place with each individual mineral owner. Mr.Miller stated that since the applicant has made an attempt to notify the mineral owners the condition is met. Mr. Hodges continued with 2D and 2E,the applicant is working with the ditch company and will convey that to staff to show that they are working to mitigate any issues that may be had by the ditch company. The intent is to bore and not to trench these ditches for the pipes. Mr. Walker asked what the applicant would do if the ditch company preferred they would no bore. Mr. Skidmore indicated that all the ditch companies would like them to bore. Mr. Hodges continued with 2F concerning the submittal and review of a flood hazard development permit. The applicant requests that this be moved to Prior to Construction of Flood Plain Crossing. Mr. Gathman indicated that this case was unusual in nature due to the fact that the code it did not appear to need a flood hazard permit for this structure because pipelines are not considered structures. When the initial special use permit was done by Public Service in 194 or 1995 they did require a flood hazard permit for the natural gas lines. This would keep it consistent. The question would be how to monitor because pipelines do not require building permits. Mr.Miller asked Mr.Barker,Weld County Attorney, if the flood hazard permit was necessary. Mr.Barker questioned the definition of structure and development. The issue is that there is goung to be nothing above ground and it does not meet the intent of the definition of a structure. It would not alter the course of a floodway. James Rohn moved to add 2H, 21. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried. Bryant Gimlin moved to delete 2F. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried Page-12- Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1396, along with the amended standards, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin 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; Fred Walker, yes; James Rown, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: PZ-622 APPLICANT: Shultz Farm, Inc. PLANNER: Sheri Lockman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2838; being part of the NW4 of Section 31, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 9 lots with Estate Zone Uses along with 9.4 acres of open space. LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 13; '/% mile north of WCR 38. Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-622,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 about the one acre lot size and them being less than what is required in the code. Ms. Lockman indicated that a PUD allows for variances to bulk requirements. One of those bulk requirements is lot size. James Rohn asked for clarification on the letter from the school district and if the applicant will be paying the $750. Ms. Lockman stated that there will need to be an agreement in place with the school district before the final plan is recorded. John Folsom asked Mr. Schei, Department of Public Works, about a memo that calls for dedication of an additonal 40 foot of right of way and if this was missed in the Conditions of Approvals. Mr. Schei indicated that this is required on the final plat. Michael Miller asked about the fire departments request for a second access and where it is addressed on the comments. Ms. Lockman indicated that the applicant is using the ditch road access and there is an approval from the ditch company stating this. Mr.Miller asked about the bus pull out. Ms.Lockman indicated that will be addressed at the final plan. John Folsom asked Mr. Schei if the site has been inspected. There is a hill to the north of the site and is there any problems with line of site. Is there going to be improvements at the Great Western Railroad crossing. Mr.Schei stated that the improvements along County Road 13 will help with the line of site distance and that is one of the reason Department of Public Works is asking for the dedication of right of way. There will be signals at the railroad crossing. Michael Miller asked about the reference in 2C regarding the confirmation from Great Western Railroad verifying their allowance of releasing stormwater onto the railroad right of way. Ms. Lockman indicated that the condition presently has not been met. The Condition is Prior to Recording the Plat. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on Condition 5D that states"the thirty foot maintenance agreement will be measured from the top of the ditch." Mr. Walker indicated that it would be before the slope starts back down. Ms. Lockman indicated that it was confusing on where the ditch lays. Mr. Schei indicated that the language was taken out of a memo provided by the ditch company. The applicant needs to get with the ditch company to determine this. Mr. Miller stated there is a need for verification before interpretation can be done. Todd Hodges, representative of the applicant, provided clarification to the project. The variance allows for one acre parcels if there is a public water system. There are agreements presently in place with the adjacent Page -13- properties. Water supply is being provided in this area by Little Thompson. Public health and safety is a large issue to this applicant. The referral agencies have been contacted and a majority of the issues have been resolved. There is a large amount of public open space designated as a buffer. The ditch is a property line based on an Recorded Exemption that created this lot. The ditch is outside of this application. The applicant believes that the thirty feet easement that is in place as an access that services an additional property to the right of this application. This applicant is proposing an access easement for a emergency vehicles from the end of the cul-de-sac to that existing roadway that services the adjacent property. The applicant feels that it is beneficial to work with the county and actually dedicate the additional 40 feet as long as the county will maintain. There is additional landscape for buffering and it will be a low water usage type landscape. The applicant has been in contact with a seed supplier for drought resistant types of seed. Stephan Mokray asked if there will be animals. Mr. Hodges stated that the intent is not to have animals due to the acreage and the lack of water. There may be the ability for some animals on the lots but it will be defined specifically in the covenants. The animal units will probably be less then the estate zone will allow. There will be no swine/horses/livestock. The intent is to keep the water on the productive areas north of this property. Michael Miller asked about the secondary access road going out of the cul-de-sac and if it has to be accessible for the Fire Department and designed to standards. Mr. Schei indicated that it might have been something that was overlooked and it can be addressed. Mr. Schei stated that it would have to be up to the fire department and the approved standards. Mr. Hodges stated that the fire department has seen this and has had no additional comments. Mr. Miller asked the applicant to clarify this item prior to Board of County Commissioners hearing. James Rohn asked if there was any concerns with safety because of the railroad and the ditch on each side of the property. Mr. Hodges indicated that there is adequate buffer and the homeowners will be allowed to put up fences on the properties. The ditch and the railroad will always be on this lot. Bernie Ruesgen asked about trucking in water for the trees. Mr. Hodges stated that the intent is to establish the trees with potable water and then augment the watering from the lake that the homeowners actually own. The covenants in the final plan will address this so it is clear to each individual home owner. This agreement will be maintained by the home owners regardless of if the property gets sold off or not. The homeowners are keeping control of the infrastructure through the covenants to maintain the area. There will be a substantial number of trees. Mr. Ruesgen asked how long potable water will be needed. Mr. Hodges indicated it would be the first two years until they are established. The trees will be approximately 1.5" minimum caliper and 6'in height on the Evergreens. Mr. Folsom indicated that the lake is dry right now. Mr. Hodges stated they are planning on dredging the lake. Stephan Mokray asked about the safety for the kids along ditch and the railroad. Mr.Hodges stated that there is only a certain amount that can be done except putting a barrier fence around the area. Mr. Hodges stated that the property owners will be made very aware of those issues and they can do things with the individual lots to assist in addressing those issues. Mr. Hodges stated that there has not been any indication that the ditch company wants to fence the ditch in. Mr. Rohn asked about the railroads frequency of use. Mr. Hodges stated that it was used approximately once a month or week. Bernie Ruesgen asked if there was anything in the covenants that would prohibit the homeowners from fencing their lots. Mr. Hodges stated that there will not be. Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the direction of the ditch and the fact that if a child did fall in the ditch there would be no way to get out. Mr. Miller suggested the applicant hang some cable across the ditch to alleviate some of the possible liability concerns. 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 add language to 1D under prior to recording that states "the applicant shall submit Page -14- evidence that the Fire District has approved the turning radius for the emergency access." This language needs to also be added to 1 E 8 under the plat shall be amended"the plat shall show the approved radius for the emergency access." Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-622, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the 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; Fred Walker, yes; James Rohn, no; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried. James Rohn stated his concern with the location of the railroad and the ditch and it is something that could be of concern to a parent. Meeting adjourned at 5:45pm Respectfully submitted Voneen Macklin Secretary Page -15- Hello