HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051456.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1502
APPLICANT: Chad &Angela Lease & Michael Lafferty
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 of Scott's Acres; Pt NE4 of Section 9, T1 N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a single
family dwelling unit other than that permitted by Section 23-3-20.A(a second
home) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Bruce Road and East of and adjacent to Peak
View.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-60 (A.Goal 4) states,
"Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential,commercial and industrial uses will
be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development.
Such development shall attempt to be compatible with the region." Application materials
indicate that the site can support the proposed use.Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with the region.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District. Section 23-3-40.L of the Weld County Code provides for a single-family
dwelling unit other than that permitted by Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code in the
A(Agricultural) Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The surrounding property to the north, south and east and west are
residential (Scott Acres Subdivision). No correspondence has been received from the
surrounding property owners regarding the proposed development. The Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the City of
Dacono,Town of Erie,Town of Firestone,Town of Frederick,Boulder County and Broomfield
County. The City of Dacono, Town of Erie, Broomfield County, and the Town of Frederick
reviewed the request and found no conflicts with their interests. The Department of Planning
Services has not received a referral response from the Boulder County and the Town of
Firestone.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5—The site lies within the Geological Hazard District. The applicant will
be required to submit a Geological Hazard Permit to the Department of Planning Services
as outlined in the following conditions. Building Permits issued on the Lot will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of County Wide Road Impact Program (Ordinance 2002-11).
4,1
✓P 2005-1456
Resolution USR-1502
Chad &Angela Lease
Page 2
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The lot is too small to be a
viable farming operation in accordance with Section 22-2-60.1 of the Weld County Code.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part,upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. Written evidence from the oil and gas company indicating all requirements and agreements
between the surface developer and the mineral owners and/or lessees have been completed
shall be submitted or evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate their
concerns shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1502 (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2) Peak View Road is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan, as a
local gravel subdivision road,which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out.
There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way. A total of 30 feet from the centerline of
Peak View Road shall be delineated on the plat as right-of-way. This road is
maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
3) The home shall use the existing residential access point as no additional accesses
shall be granted. (Department of Public Works)
4) The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District has provided information regarding the soils on
the site. The applicant shall review the information and use it to positively manage on site
soils. (Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District)
D. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of Mountain View Fire
Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated 2/16/05. Evidence of such shall
be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.(Mountain View
Fire Protection District)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of Colorado Division of
Wildlife,as stated in the referral response dated 3/2/05. Evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.(Colorado Division of Wildlife)
F. The applicant shall submit a Geological Hazard Development Permit or provide written
evidence from the Colorado Geological Survey that a Geological Hazard Development Permit
is not required to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. (Department
of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1502
Chad &Angela Lease
Page 3
G. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of
the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The
Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30) days from the date of the
Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the
recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to maps(W.co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land
disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
7. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed home and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Chad and Angela Lease and
Michael Lafferty
USR-1502
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a single-family dwelling unit other
than that permitted by Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code (a second home) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.(Department of Planning Services)
2. The single family residence shall be for family members only. The home shall not be used as a rental
for non family members. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30 20
100.5, C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act,30 20 100.5, C.R.S.,as amended.(Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
6. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
7. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone as
delineated in 25 12 103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
9. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply(Left Hand Water District). (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
11. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. (Department of
Building Inspection)
13. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required.Two complete sets
of plans are required when applying for each permit. Residential building plans may be required to
bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Provide plans to Mountain View
Fire Protection District for their review and approval. (Department of Building Inspection)
14. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time of
permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2003 International Residential Code; 2003
International Building Code;2003 International Mechanical Code;2003 International Plumbing Code;
2003 International Fuel Gas Code;2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1502
Chad & Angela Lease
Page 2
15. Each residential structure will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed bya Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
16. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and
allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be
determined by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
17. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County
Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring
buildings to determine offset and setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest
projection from the building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be
staked prior to the first site inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
18. The access drive shall be surfaced with gravel or the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent
drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
19. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed development will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department
of Planning Services)
20. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development the applicant/landownershall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,pursuant
to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
21. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
22. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
23. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
24. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Resolution USR-1502
Chad &Angela Lease
Page 3
Motion seconded by Bryant Gimlin
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on April 19, 2005.
Dated the19th of April, 2005.
cit
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
would be considered for removal it would be within Planning Commission rights to make that motion. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Rohn if that was what he would like to do. Mr. Rohn responded he would like to make a motion but would
like the attorney to form the language of the motion. Mr. Gathman added that if the application would have been a
minor subdivision there would be no requirement for open space either.
Bryant Gimlin added this is a non-urban scale subdivision and the only thing that is making the application
considered urban scale is the location. There are only six lots on seventeen plus acres. This provides larger lots
and a more open area plan. If the open space is required it would reduce the size of the lots making it more urban in
nature. Mr. Miller stated it would be 2.4 acres over the entire size of the property. Mr. Miller added that was the
reasoning given by a commissioner, was they live in open space and this goes against the principle behind open
space. The intent of the open space is for the neighbor to be able to gather where they are not on a private property.
There is no common area for people to gather. Mr.Miller disagrees with the removal of the open space requirement
in the code. Mr. Rohn added there is an HOA on the property that could be responsible for any open space. Mr.
Gathman added the retention/detention pond will need to be addressed with regards to maintenance. Mr. Miller
stated the biggest problem with the amendment is that the application does not include open space and for Planning
Commission to require the open space would make the applicant have to submit basically a new application. Mr.
Morrison stated the lots will need to be drawn at final plan; this is a change of zone application. It would not inhibit
the County process. The change of zone will be approved and if the applicant comes back with five lots instead of
six he will not need to begin again.
John Folsom stated each case must be determined on its own merit. With just six lots there is no need for open
space. Mr. Miller disagrees with the elimination of open space as a whole but not particularly in this case. Mr.
Fitzgerald added PUD's come in the MUD area with many more lots than nine.
Lee Morrison provided the language requested by Mr. Rohn. The language would be added to 2 B "the Planning
Commission does not concur with staff determination for the following reasons,the development is considered urban
scale and the development is next to a town and therefore recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
not sustain the waiver."
James Rohn moved to provide language that the Planning Commission does not agree with the waiver
recommended by staff. No second, motion fails.
Lee Morrison added the covenants deal with open space which there is none. The comments need to modify 3 B.
Mr. Gathman stated the retention pond would need to be addressed specifically for the access for maintenance.
There will need to be an easement to access from the road.
James Rohn moved to amend 3 B to remove the language open space and replace with retention. James Welch
seconded. Motion carried
Chad Auer moved that Case PZ-1077, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,
yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller commented on the open space issues and he would encourage the Board of County Commission
to review the policy on open space in PUD and take this issue up again and find ground in the middle to make m
sense. fLi
The following cases were read into the record. They will be presented at the same time but voted upon g 2
separately. C...)
_. CASE NUMBER: USR-1502
APPLICANT: Chad &Angela Lease & Michael Lafferty
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
' + '
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 of Scott's Acres; Pt NE4 of Section 9, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Wel
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a single family
dwelling unit other than that permitted by Section 23-3-20.A(a second home) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Bruce Road and East of and adjacent to Peak View
Road.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1503
APPLICANT: Chad &Angela Lease & Michael Lafferty
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 of Scotts Acres; Pt NE4 of Section 9, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Livestock
Confinement Operation (150 cows) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Bruce Road and East of and adjacent to Peak View Road
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services presented Cases USR-1502 & USR-1503, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of
both applications along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked how many calves are on the property. Ms. Martin indicated from conversations with the
applicant there are approximately 80 but the applicant can better address how many animal units are on the
property.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated that USR 1503 would be for 3.71 acres and how many animal units are allowed for the
area. Ms. Martin indicated 4 cows per acre are allowed. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated there could be 14-15 animal units
allowed as a use by right.
Michael Miller asked if the application were to be granted it would be for animal units not specific to age. Ms. Martin
indicated it would.
Chad Lease and Michael Lafferty,applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. Mr. Lease addressed USR-1502
and indicated their intent is to replace the existing farm house and make the site a legal plot plan. Mr. Lease
provided a history of the land. A quick claim was done in 1976 which caused the illegal division. Mr.Miller asked Mr.
Morrison rather the division was done prior to the code. Mr. Morrison stated it was done after the subdivision
restrictions which were done in 1972. Mr. Morrison added lots less than 35 acres in size created after November
1972 have to go through the County process. Mr. Miller indicated there had been a home on site for thirty plus years
and to make the applicant go through a lengthy process to replace seems odd. Mr. Lease added the lot had been
sold, surveyed and title search done with nothing illegal found out. Mr. Morrison stated that title companies ignore
subdivision regulations. Mr. Miller asked if this was approved would the 3.7 acres become two lots and they be able
to sell one home or split. Mr. Morrison stated they would have two homes on one lot. Mr. Lease indicated they were
informed by the Department of Planning Services that the USR was the process that needed to be done. Mr.
Lafferty addressed USR-1503 and indicated the calves are from newborn to 6 months old at the most. Mr. Lafferty
stated he would not have any concerns if the USR was recorded with the limitation on the ages of the animals.
There is no intent to bring cattle on property. If the USR application would limit them to a specific age the applicant
will adhere to this. Mr. Lafferty added there are approximately 100 calves site now.
Michael Miller asked what how many animal units have been historically kept on site. Mr. Lafferty stated the
numbers go up and down. Mr. Miller asked how long has this use been on site. Mr. Lafferty indicated he had been
doing this for approximately 30 years.
Michael Miller asked why this is a violation when it has been done for thirty years. Mr. Lafferty added there have
been times when there were fewer calves and times when there were several calves. Ms. Martin stated a NCU was
applied for and it was denied. Staff went back through and reviewed aerial photos and it was determined there was
no calves on site therefore the reason for denial. Ms. Martin added the aerial photos were taken in 1963 and 1973
and there were no calves present at the time. In order for a non conforming use there needs to be calves on site on
or before 1972.
Michael Miller asked about a letter in the packet concerning the visibility of the huts and is there anything in the
Development Standard regarding screening. Ms. Martin indicated that with feedlots there is typically no screening
required. The applicant has spoken with the property owner regarding the concerns and has agreed to relocate
some of the huts.
Michael Lafferty indicated the huts have been moved to address the concern of the neighbor.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Everitt McKulley,neighbor,indicated his concerns. Mr. McKulley added, Mr. Lafferty has had animals on site but no
specific calving operation. The huts are not disturbing to them and there is very limited noise and smell. There is no
visual pollution on site,this is an agricultural area and the uses are to be expected. Mr.McKulley added the second
home should be allowed.
John Folsom asked how long the calving operation has been in business. Mr. McKulley indicated he was not sure
exactly the time but it has been approximately ten years. Mr. McKulley added the number of huts has changed but
the animal operations have been in business for quite a while.
Chair closed the public portion.
Lee Morrison asked Ms. Martin about the use limited to the calves and rather it was a use by right or use by special
review. Mr. Miller clarified that he asked was if this was approved would this be specific to young animals or animal
units, the understanding is animal units regardless of age. Mr. Morrison stated that the USR could be limited to a
particular age. If this was just for animal units there could be several different types of animals on site. Mr.Morrison
added that when CAFFO regulations are involved there are several different options dealing with design and waste
created and such. Mr. Miller stated the application refers to animals from newborn to one year and is that binding.
Mr. Morrison stated it was and the applicant does not appear to have any issues with this because that is his intent.
Mr. Miller asked if there should be a specific Development Standard to limit the age. Mr. Morrison stated it could be
done but the application materials define this. Mr. Morrison stated that the application materials are binding but
when a recorded plat is being reviewed they will see the limitation without having to do further investigation. Ms.
Martin suggested placing this as a note on the plat limiting the age. Ms. Martin suggested placing this as a
Development Standard #2. Mr. Lafferty would agree to the limitation of a maximum age of six months old. Mr.
-- Folsom agreed with the six months since a one year old cow can be significantly different.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there were presently any cows on property. Mr.Lafferty stated there were none and he has
no intentions of having any.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add Development Standard#2 to state"The maximum age of any animals on site will be
six months." John Folsom seconded.
James Welch asked if they wanted to place an additional language to exclude out animals for personal use. This
would address possible complaints from neighbors that see a larger animal.
Bruce Fitzgerald withdrew the original motions.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add Development Standard #2 to state "150 cattle under the age of six months old in
addition to the animals allowed for a use by right." John Folsom seconded.
Michelle Martin commented the number of cows that would be allowed as a use by right is included in this USR. Mr.
Morrison stated that the way the motion is written the applicant would have 150 plus 13 other animals it can be done
but with a small parcel that could be mis-interpreted. Mr. Miller stated he would be more comfortable saying 150
maximum six months old plus up to 4 mature animals.
There was extensive discussion on the language.
Bruce Fitzgerald withdrew the previous two motions and moved to add Development Standard #2 to state "Allow
maximum 150 calves with a maximum age of six months and allow, in addition allow up to four mature animals for
personal use." John Folsom seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,
yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously
Michelle Martin suggested amending Development Standard#1 to include 150 cattle plus the four additional units
outlined in Development Standard#2. This would give them 154 animals on the property.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend Development Standard#1 to read 150 cattle plus the four additional animal units.
James Welch seconded.
There was additional discussion as to the exact language for both Development Standard #2 and Development
Standard #1.
Lee Morrison suggested striking the reference number in Development Standard#1 so there would be no conflict.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to strike the language in Development Standard #1. John Folsom seconded. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1502, 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;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1503, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,
yes;James Welch, yes;Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello