HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050310.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10`" Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom Absent
James Welch Absent
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Monica Mika, Kim Ogle, Char
Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 21,
2004, was approved as read.
The following cases are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1494
APPLICANT: Anthony& Diane Goddard
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2862; pt of the E2SW4 of Section 33, Ti N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review(Machine and Welding Shop) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: 1/2 mile west of CR 19; north of and adjacent to CR 2.
CASE NUMBER: AMPF-431
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
APPLICANT: OCON Group LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Blk 3 and Open Space Western Dairymen Cooperative Section 10,
T2N, R68W
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 119 and west of and adjacent to CR 7 1/2. For
a more precise location, see legal.
REQUEST: Amendment to a PUD Final Plat in the Western Dairymen Cooperative PUD
CASE NUMBER: USR-1490
APPLICANT: Nicole Trevethick
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1930; part of the SE4 of Section 17, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Veterinary
Hospital in the A(Agricultural) zone district.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 32; approximately 500 feet west of CR 5.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1255
APPLICANT: L.G. Everist, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, 2, 3, and 4- N2NW4; Lot 6 SW4 NE4 30-2-66; Lot 3 E2 NE4 25-2-67
LeYiac. ?da t'/ -.2005 2005-0310
platted as The Lupton Meadows Land Co. Division 3 of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and a special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including open pit
mining and materials processing; including Asphalt and Concrete Batch
Plants, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: 1/2 mile south of CR 18 and 1/2 mile west of State Highway 85.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Tonya Strobel seconded. Motion carried
The following cases will be Heard:
— SET HEARING DATE FOR: USR-1350
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
APPLICANT: AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, indicated this case was originally presented in 2001. Staff is
asking the case be heard on February 15, 2005.
Michael Miller asked why the need for this process. Mr. Ogle stated this case was heard by a previous
Planning Commission back in October 2001. At that time the applicant asked for the application to be
tabled indefinitely so they could address concerns from the Core of Engineers specific to a river crossing
and wetlands mitigation. The applicants have obtained the needed permits and are making an addendum
to the existing application. Staff comments will be mailed on February 1, 2005 containing the addendum.
Staff is asking for a specific hearing date because it was tabled.
Michael Miller asked why Planning Commission had to go through this process to set a hearing date. Mr.
Ogle stated it was an indefinite continuance by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Morrison added
the membership of the Planning Commission has changed so the original application materials will need
to be referred to. Those will be provided by the applicant.
James Rohn moved to set the hearing date for USR-1350 for February 15, 2005. Bryant Gimlin
seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1492
APPLICANT: Greeley Assembly of God Church
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C RE-3860, Pt N2NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a church and private school in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 66; approx 1/4 mile east of CR 37.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1492, 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. Staff is
recommending the description of the site be revised to delete private school.
James Rohn asked when ConAgra had this site and what the use was. Mr. Gathman indicated he was
not sure how long the operation has been at this location. It may have been a non conforming use that
was in place prior to the use by special review process.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification on the hours of operation in the Development Standards, they were
not specific to weekdays and weekends.
Angel Flores, representative for the applicant, provided additional information. Mr. Flores indicated the
hours are on Sundays from 8:00am to 1:30 pm with some evening activities that are from 4:30pm - 9:00
pm. There is also a Wednesday evening service from 7:00pm - 9:00pm. Those are the typical
congregation hours. The office hours are Tuesday- Friday from 9:00am -4:30pm. Mr. Gathman agrees
that the Development Standard needs to be clarified. Mr. Flores added this is a good opportunity and a
great location. They were unable to obtain a site in Greeley. This site is 21 acres and will suit future
needs also.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the congregation was primarily from Greeley. The reason for this is if the majority
of the congregation was coming from Eaton they would need to make a left turn onto Hwy 85 and that
presents a dangerous situation. Mr. Flores indicated that most of the congregation comes from north
Greeley so they would be going south on Hwy 85.
Doug Ochsner asked how many are in the congregation. Mr. Flores indicated that it varies but the typical
number is between 600-700.
James Rohn asked if the hours of operation could be Monday- Friday 9:00am to 9:00 pm and Sunday
from 8:00am to 1:00pm. Mr. Gathman asked Mr. Flores about the office hours of operation being
Tuesday through Sunday but there is a Wednesday night service. Mr. Flores indicated the Wednesday
night services typically run from 8:00 pm to 9:00pm. Mr. Miller indicated he would be in favor of the hours
being from 8:00am to 9:00pm and not limiting the days of the week because the schedule may change.
Mr. Rohn added there was no residences in the area. Mr. Ochsner asked why there was a need for hours
at all. This location does not impact anyone even if they were there until 10:00pm. The concern would be
if the congregation wanted to have a special New Years Eve this would limit that ability. This is not hours
of operation for a business. Mr. Miller asked if there was any requirement to set hours of operation. Mr.
Gathman stated not on churches.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller indicated there needed to be a motion to approve staff changes in the description to remove
private school.
Bryant Gimlin moved to incorporate staff suggestion for rewording the description of the site. James Rohn
seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Development Standard 20 and renumber. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Chris Gathman added that there was an approved AmUSR-764 that would need to be vacated. Mr.
Gathman added it would only be a partial vacation because the elevators to the east would still remain
intact. Mr. Miller asked if the remaining property would need to file an amended USR. Mr. Morrison
stated that if the use has been discontinued it can be vacated and the two uses are not tied together. A
partial vacation could be done. It needs to be included in Prior to Recording the Plat that a partial vacation
be done for the portion of AmUSR-764. When this is done the current owner of the elevators to consent
to the vacation so there will be no confusion. Mr. Miller asked if this was something the applicant could do
or is it something the owner of the original USR would need to vacate. Mr. Morrison stated the owner of
the land would need to do this but the applicant can vacate the portion they own. Mr. Gathman stated the
church owns a recorded exemption lot. They do not own the agricultural lots to the east so they would
need to coordinate with the additional owner. Mr. Miller clarified that the church portion of the property has
changed hands but the USR did not go with it. Mr. Morrison stated that the USR was probably still in
effect depending on the original language. Mr. Morrison suggest language be added in Prior to Recording
the Plat that the applicant provide evidence the area within AmUSR-764 has been vacated.
Chris Gathman stated the property to the east must be in transition because there is no owner listed. This
item can be addressed.
James Rohn moved to accept the language presented by Mr. Morrison. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1492, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller commented he would like to commend the church and Swift for finding a good use for the
property.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1293
APPLICANT: Roy& Margaret Patton, Dawn Kanzler do Denise Gibbons with Tetra
Tech
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B or RE-147; Pt NE4 Section 30, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review
permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(Co-location on an existing
150 foot Monopole Antenna Tower and the addition of an equipment
shelter) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 15; approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 18.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1293, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application based on the IGA with the Town of Firestone.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification on the annexation process into the Town of Firestone specifically
concerning the right of way on CR 15. The Town of Firestone indicated they have nothing to do with the
road but Weld County Public Works has indicated it was within their jurisdiction. Mr. Carroll indicated
Town of Firestone has annexed the road and the right of way adjacent to the property. The access is
dealt with through Public Works. Mr. Morrison added that access must still be dealt with regardless of
who has jurisdiction, it does make it more difficult with split jurisdiction. Mr. Gimlin asked who's
responsibility was it to notify the town that the right of way does need to be determined, the applicant or
staff? Mr. Miller added the town has been adequately notified of the application, if they annexed CR 15
they should know the own it. There does not seem to be any issues about the access. Mr. Carroll stated
he has no issues with access,just the width of the road for fire access. Mr. Rohn asked Ms. Hatch when
the original USR was processed and how close was the site to the town and what was the town's opinion
at that time. Ms. Hatch indicated that was not researched. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated the town was
approximately 1/2 mile west when the original USR was done.
Denise Gibbons, representative for applicant, indicated Stacy Mathis from Tetra Tech will be speaking
regarding the annexation process. Mr. Mathis indicated that Mr. Patton, the property owner, needs to sign
an annexation agreement with the Town of Firestone and they are at an impasse. The annexation
agreement is all encompassing and this is just a small development. The annexation agreement would
make sense for someone who wants to develop a large portion of the lot. Mr. Patton is asking to expand
an existing use by 300 square feet. The annexation agreement wants 15 feet of right of way for the entire
front of the parcel. It seems as the Town of Firestone is asking for so much in return for Mr. Patton getting
a couple extra hundred dollars a month. Mr. Mathis indicated that the Town of Firestone can involuntary
annex once the site has been surrounded for three years. The applicant decided to come through the
county so they could get the building permit and the Town of Firestone could annex whenever they wanted
to.
Michael Miller asked if the annexation agreement is written so they do not immediately annex but annex
when it is requested. Mr. Mathis stated under State law the Town of Firestone can annex with or without
agreement. Mr. Miller asked why not just sign the agreement and get it over with if that be the case. Mr.
Mathis indicated the concern is why give up right of way when this application is not increasing traffic. Mr.
Mathis added that the agreement requires Mr. Patton to give up the right of way without getting
compensated for it. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the Town of Firestone was asking for dedication. Mr.
Morrison stated the cities have more leverage at the point of negotiating the development standards rather
than granting a permit. The Town of Firestone may be asking for title to the right of way and will not be
paying for this. Mr. Morrison stated that if annexation is forced they do not get the other benefits. Mr.
Mathis added the agreement requires the owner to provide and pay for legal publications, surveying, legal
description, maps and legal documentation. Ms. Gibbons added they are trying to avoid another tower in
Weld County. The application is trying to co-locate and not build another tower. This site will cover north
and south without having to add another tower and clutter the landscape.
Bryant Gimlin indicated this is difficult because Planning Commission typically asks them to co-locate and
they are trying without avail.
James Rohn asked when the original USR came before the board. Mr. Carroll indicated it was October
2000.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission has to stick to the letter of the law with the IGA.
Does the IGA read the applicant must attempt to come to an agreement or do they have to have an
annexation agreement. Mr. Morrison stated each IGA language is different. The later versions state the
applicant must go through the process and if there is no annexation they are allowed to come through the
County. This is an older IGA and an annexation agreement should be required. Mr. Miller states they this
means they are required to come to an agreement. Mr. Morrison stated it does but there is legal room in
some of the language that found they are not subject to the IGA requirement at the time. There may be
reason to accept an amended version of the same USR. Mr. Miller asked if it was within Planning
Commission powers to approve based on the IGA that is in existence. Mr. Morrison stated the approval is
not the issue as much as does the approval require annexation agreement. The annexation can be a
forward reaching agreement it does not have to require annexation immediately. Mr. Miller stated in this
case the annexation agreement that is being asked for is detrimental to the applicant in that the Town of
Firestone is requiring the owner to put out sufficient monies to accomplish what the City should be paying
for if they are annexing the property. Mr. Morrison added that if an agreement cannot be reached the
Planning Commission could exercise whatever legal powers to deny.
James Rohn added that since the County has had a policy for promoting co-location, being the applicant is
not asking for that much square footage, he does not believe this would be in violation of the IGA. This is
more of a building permit that a USR process. Mr. Fitzgerald added he believes Planning Commission
should uphold the IGA and require an annexation agreement. The town is close with its growth. There
are homes within 300 feet of the tower and the town should have the final say. Mr. Miller asked Mr.
Fitzgerald if he agreed the town was being unreasonable by taking the land without reimbursement. Mr.
Fitzgerald stated that was not an issue the Planning Commission can control. Mr. Ochsner stated it was
an issue Planning Commission could control because the property is still in the County. It is unreasonable
what the town is asking. It is taking the land in the County and saying everything that happens on this land
must be done by the town. The land is still in the County with county rules and Planning Commission is
trying to do what is best for County and that is co-location. Mr. Rohn added the Town of Firestone
surrounds the property however, the applicant is talking about adding an antennae on a tower not a
business. It is a building permit issue. Mr. Gimlin stated Planning Commission needs to balance the letter
of the law with common sense adding 300 foot for equipment storage is better than adding another pole.
The Town of Firestone still has an avenue to annex. Mr. Miller stated it is the Planning Commission's job
to put a human aspect into the code. The impact from this proposal is minimal. The wording in the IGA
would not be accepted today. He would be in support of the application because of the common sense
factor, the Town of Firestone is being unreasonable with the expectations. Mr. Fitzgerald added he would
caution the future IGA's and make sure they are consistent. Mr. Rohn asked if the IGA's expire. Mr.
Morrison stated this IGA has been treated by the parties as still being in effect with language indicating it
will be updated. Mr. Rohn stated this could be potentially considered expired. Mr. Morrison stated there is
ongoing talks with all municipalities to update the IGA's. There was an subsequent agreement with the
Town of Firestone regarding design standards.
James Rohn moved that Case AmUSR-1293, that this be approved by the Planning Commission along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. James Welch seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tanya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented that he thinks this application proves the County needs to be careful in
developing IGA's with the municipalities. The IGA puts unnecessary restrictions on the land owner and
gives way to much control to one entity and that being the town.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented there is a need to keep the number of poles in the County to a minimum.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1493
APPLICANT: Stephan Brancucci/c/o Glen Droegemueller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NE4 SE4 and Lot B of RE-3932; Section 30, T1N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District(Commercial Junkyard
or Salvage Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27(Hwy 85 Business); approximately 1/4
mile north of CR 4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1493, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the original application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
The applicant will provide an updated list of the changes they are requesting. If the changes are taken
into consideration, staff requests the case be continued to February 15, 2005 to allow time for the referral
agencies to review the requested changes. Staff does believe these changes are substantial. Staff does
recommend Condition 1 A be removed as this item has been met.
Glen Droegemueller, representative for the applicant with Otis, Goan & Stewart LLC, provided additional
clarification on the proposal. Mr. Droegemueller added the changes the applicant is offering are not
substantial changes which would require a continuance. Mr. Droegemueller presented an overview of the
items then discussed each item. The items are as follows: 1A which has been deleted. The applicant
would also like 1B deleted so the application could be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for hearing. Mr. Miller indicated the Planning Commission hearing procedure is the applicant presents his
case then make amendments to the conditions and Development Standard after the case is heard. Mr.
Miller asked if there was anything further the applicant would like to add to staff presentation. Mr.
Droegemueller stated there will be small comments on each issue the applicant would like to present. Mr.
Droegemueller stated the case was self explanatory and this is not a commercial junkyard because the
vehicles are not crushed. They are vehicles which have been damaged that come to the property with all
fluid removed. The vehicles are stored there and the company offers them for sale over the internet.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the applicant is intending to do all sales online in auction form so there will never
be a group of bidders on site. Mr. Droegemueller stated that all sales will be done by internet, there will
be no bidders on site. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the technology has been proved to work on other sites. Mr.
Droegemueller stated it has worked.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the distribution of the vehicles both in and out is done during regular daytime
business hours. Mr. Droegemueller stated it was. Mr. Gimlin asked if the trucks were limited to light
trucks or are semi's included. Mr. Droegemueller stated semi's are occasionally there. The applicant
has indicated hat 85% of the vehicles are auto, pick ups and SUV, 15% could be semi, trailers or small
backhoes and small tractors. The applicant would like the ability to store and are willing to adjust the site
or construct the site so there would be no visibility from surrounding properties. Screening can be done
on site. There is no way to give the number of semi's on site because it is not known.
Doug Ochsner asked if the vehicles are sold as units or sold as parts. Mr. Droegemueller stated they are
sold as a unit then the buyer decides whether they want to part them out.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Padgett, Patina Oil & Gas, indicated there is no agreement but discussions have occurred. There
has been contact and there is a letter of intent for future drilling. The blanks are not filled in but the
agreement should be in the near future. The letter of intent includes a date in which indicates the
agreement must be done by and if the date is not met Patina Oil & Gas will oppose the proposal. Patina
is not opposed to the applicant setting a Board of County Commissioners hearing date because they feel
the agreement can be done by that time.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Padgett if he would be in agreement with deleting 1 B which deals with the
mineral agreement. Mr. Padgett stated there needs to be an agreement prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting.
The Chair closed public portion.
Glen Droegemueller presented the following concerns that the applicant would like to see changed. They
are as follows:
1B-the applicant is asking for an amendment to 1B as written which would indicated that an agreement
can be reached between the mineral holder at least five days prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing. In the alternative the applicant would show evidence that an adequate attempt had been made
to mitigate the concerns. If that cannot be proven the Board of County Commissioners has the option of
denying the USR.
Bryant Gimlin asked if it would be agreeable to change 1 to Prior to the Board of County Commissioners
Hearing as opposed to Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Mr.
Droegemueller stated that would be agreeable.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Condition 1 to Prior to Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
Development Standard 25-concerning the number of employees, the applicant would like to increase the
number from 10 to 20. The client has changed the operations manager from the time the application was
submitted and there will be a consolidation of operations which are now operating in Denver. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Carroll if this would change the traffic evaluation. Mr. Carroll, Public Works, indicated it does
not. Mr. Droegemueller commented that the additional employees would require additional parking and if
this is the case the applicant would provide a note on the plat addressing the concern. Mr. Carroll added
there are 41 paved spots which is adequate. Mr. Droegemueller indicated the second concern with the
increase of employees is the affect on the existing septic tank. Mr. Brancucci, the property owners, has
indicated the septic tank was designed as a 1000 gallon tank which would accommodate the original 10
employees. The applicant is willing to add a Condition of Approval that they submit evidence to the
County an engineered system to accommodate the increase. This Condition would be done Prior to
Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller asked if there was a Condition that the system be evaluated.
Ms. Davis stated there is not a Condition because there is a permit for 10 people which did meet the
applied for number of employees, now it is not and the system will need an evaluation. Ms. Davis
indicated she has language to address the concern.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch the reason for staff request for a continuance if the suggested revisions
were addressed. Ms. Hatch stated there are numerous items that the applicant would like to change.
Staff concurred that many of the changes were significant and were not in the original application. The
referral agencies should review these proposed changes. Mr. Rohn indicated there were several referral
agencies and they should have an option to review the changes. Ms. Hatch indicated that there are
additional items that are of concern for staff and they felt those referral agencies deserve the chance to
re-review because the new use is more intense. Mr. Gimlin asked if the referrals could be sent out again
and would there be enough time for staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the decision on whether the changes were significant was a call the
Planning Commission needed to make because there are no guidelines. Mr. Morrison stated there are no
guidelines because everything is determined on a case by case basis. Planning Commission needs to
look at what the changes do to the analysis of the USR and that goes to compatibility with adjacent
properties. If Planning Commission is seeing changes that could affect that decision that could be part of
the reason to accept staff recommendation for continuance.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
pg 5#B-concerning addressing the greater Brighton FPD concerns. There are three issues presented by
increasing the number of employees: accommodation on site in terms of parking, affect on the sanitary
service and whether there is an increase in the fire risk because of the number of employees increasing.
The hours of operation remains the same as does the use. Mr. Droegemueller indicated he believes this
is a difference of perspective, it is not significant when you look at the application. Mr. Miller asked if it
was safe to say with the doubling of employees there will be a doubling the amount of activity coming to
the site. Mr. Droegemueller stated he does not believe they will be doubling the activity on site. Mr. Miller
asked if it was not previously represented that there be a consolidation of operations on site. Mr.
Droegemueller stated some operations will be consolidated but they will not double what is coming onto
the site. Mr. Miller stated that by consolidating operations they are changing the impact that was
represented in the original application.
James Rohn asked if Planning Commission could speak to a representative from Copart and find out
what the consolidation means with the use. Mr. Droegemueller stated Mr. Brancucci is the property owner
and Copart did not provide a representative. Mr. Droegemueller is the representative for both.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis if she had standard language for the evaluation of the septic system. Ms.
Davis, Public Health and Environment, indicated it was the standard language. Mr. Miller clarified that if
Planning Commission approved the increase in employees they would also need to add the Condition
concerning an engineered septic system. Mr. Fitzgerald added he believes it is fine.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change Development Standard 25 to increase the number of employees from
10 to 20 and add a new H consisting of language from the Health Department regarding the septic
system. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn asked if these changes receive approval then the Planning Commission will not continue the
case. Mr. Miller stated Planning Commission is addressing each request then addressing the substantial
change regarding the continuance.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
Development Standard 23 regarding the storage of equipment on site. Mr. Droegemueller handed out the
applicants suggestions for modification on both Development Standard 23 and Development Standard 28.
Mr. Droegemueller added the applicant would be willing to add language regarding screening so none of
the items could be seen by adjacent property owners.
Michael Miller asked if there are screening requirements. Ms. Hatch indicated Department of Planning
Services is asking for a screening plan. The original plan was for an eight foot fence around the property.
Mr. Miller clarified that if this was approved the screening plan would require screening any size of vehicle
on the property. Ms. Hatch indicated Condition 2 C discusses screening and possible landscape
treatments. Mr. Gimlin indicated the application does not indicate what type of trucks and this request
goes past the screening. There will be different traffic impacts because there will now be semi and low
boys. These will be hauling backhoes and such which is a significant difference. The original application
does not represent this type of impact in the original application. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Droegemueller how
screening was done on other locations. Mr. Droegemueller stated at other locations there have been
areas where pine trees and lower ground locations have been created to screen the larger vehicles. Mr.
Droegemueller indicated he has not actually seen this. Mr. Miller agrees with Mr. Gimlin that beyond the
screening issue which is feasible this drastically changes the type of traffic that will be entering the site.
This opens the door for anything that is involved in an insurance situation to be stored here. There could
be mobile homes and just about anything hauled in. The road is not suitable for this type of increase. Mr.
Rohn added the proposed changes should be considered by the referral agencies.
Michael Miller asked the Planning Commission their feelings on changing Development Standard 23 to
the proposed language. Mr. Fitzgerald added that this opens the door and he would not agree to moving
forward with this. Mr. Ochsner indicated this is what the company wants, Planning Commission needs to
agree to the requests while reserving the right to vote on the continuance. Mr. Gimlin added if this is what
the company wanted then they should have placed this in the application. Ms. Strobel added it should be
left the same because without referrals she has no idea what the scope of the impact would be. Mr. Miller
presented all the possible options and his preference is to consider the application that was submitted and
if there are these changes a new application should be submitted. Mr. Droegemeuller added he shares
the concern for complete information and he wonders if it would be possible to continue the hearing on
this issue, Development Standard 23, so Copart can get here and the input from the required agencies
can be obtained. Mr. Miller indicated he is not leaning towards continuing any portion of the hearing. He
believes the entire application needs to be continued and the applicant needs to decide what they are
applying for. It is disturbing for the applicant to apply for one thing then show up to the hearing with a
completely different request. Mr. Miller is encouraging Planning Commission to continue this application.
Mr. Droegemueller indicated 30 days would be adequate. Ms. Hatch indicated staff has suggested
February 15 which is a little over 30 days. Mr. Droegemueller stated that would be acceptable.
Bryant Gimlin stated this is an obvious attempt to circumvent the Planning Commission.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch when the changes were proposed. Ms. Hatch stated that she had spoken
to Mr. Droegemueller on December 17 and there were changes on the vehicles and that the list
requesting the changes was received January 3, 2005 and there is an updated list that was received
today.
Doug Ochsner indicated he would be agreeable with February 15, 2005. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there was
time to get referrals back from the agencies in that time frame. Ms. Hatch indicated there was a 28 day
turn around so this should be adequate.
James Welch asked if the application being sent back out for referral would include the changes
requested by the applicant so the agencies would not be reviewing the same application. Ms. Hatch
stated she would update the referral sheet, provide the additional information and include a memo
describing the situation at hand. The referral agencies will be able to contact staff if an entire packet is
needed.
James Rohn moved to continue USR-1493 to February 15, 2005. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented he requests to get the Fire Department and CDOT referrals back before the
case is heard again.
Michael Miller commented he would encourage the applicant to have a complete application including all
the possible modifications.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello