HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051672.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom Absent
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 3,2005,was
approved as read.
The following items are being continued:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1231
APPLICANT: Larry& Margaret DeHaan
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW4 &W2SE4 of Section 27, T2N R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit
for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy) and Animal Feeding
Operation for 2,300 milking cows along with approximately 1,700
replacement heifers, dry cows and calves in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 16 and 1/4 mile east of CR 19.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services. The Weld County Department of Planning Services,
on behalf of the Weld County Department of Public Health, is requesting that AMUSR-1231 (DeHaan) be
continued to the June 21, 2005 Planning Commission hearing. The Department of Public Health, in their
memo dated April 11, 2005 requested additional information regarding the water supply and septic
systems on the existing dairy. This memo was sent to the applicant's representative as well as the
Department of Planning Services. A final Health Department referral was contingent upon the receipt and
subsequent review of this information. The information was not received in a sufficient amount of time for
the Health Department to review and supply referral comments to be included in the staff
recommendation. Therefore, a continuance is requested to allow time for the Health Department to
review this information and finalize their referral comments.
As there was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against AmUSR-1231, the Chair closed the
public portion of the hearing and asked for discussion or a motion.
Jim Rohn moved that Case AmUSR-1231, be continued to the June 21,2005 Planning Commission hearing.
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
ClbU„j 4 to 4-2005 2005-1672
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1058
APPLICANT: Francisco Garcia
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B or RE-3300; pt of the W2NE4 of Section 5, T4N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone for Eight Estate Lots and one Agricultural Lot and
11.2 acres of open space (Las Haciendas PUD).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 60; 1/4 mile west of CR 5.
The Chair stated there were not enough Commission members voting for removal, therefore it will remain
on the Consent Agenda.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1508
APPLICANT: Longmont Broadcasting LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3507; Pt of the NW4 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Permit for two communications transmission towers (two guyed
broadcast towers approximately 1,180 feet in height with support
buildings) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17 and % mile north of State Hwy 52.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to have this removed from the consent agenda. Kirk Goble, Bell Five
Land Company, representing the applicant, requested it remain on the consent agenda. The Chair asked if
any members of the board wished to have it removed. As there were none, the floor was opened for public
comment. There was no public comment regarding PZ-1058 or USR-1508. The Chair stated the first two
cases will remain on the consent agenda and asked for a motion.
Bryant Gimlin moved that PZ-1058 and USR-1508 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
their recommendation for approval. Doug Oschner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn, no; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried.
The following items will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1504
APPLICANT: The Bluffs, John Villano &Josef Guetlein managers & Ray Edmiston
owner of Aerial Sprayers, Inc
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the N2 Section 5, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
Airstrip and an Agricultural Service Establishment. More specifically, an
airstrip for private use and for a crop dusting, and a spraying operation
facility. The facility includes hangar, landing strip, fertilizer storage
facilities, insecticide storage facilities, fuel storage facilities and offices
accessory to the crop dusting or spraying operation in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 26; approximately%mile east of SH 85; west
of and adjacent to CR 29
The Chair asked that the record show that Tom Holton was recusing himself from case USR-1504.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services. The Bluffs,John Villano and Josef Guetlein managers,and
Ray Edmiston,owner of Aerial Sprayers Inc.,have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for an Airstrip and an Agricultural Service Establishment. More specifically, an airstrip for
private use and for a crop dusting and spraying operation facility. The facility includes hangar, landing strip,
fertilizer storage facilities, insecticide storage facilities,fuel storage facilities and offices accessory to the crop
dusting or spraying operation in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The sign announcing the Planning
Commission hearing was posted May 6,2005 by Planning Commission staff. The site is located south of and
adjacent to CR 26; approximately one half mile east of State Highway 85; west of and adjacent to CR 29
section line. The town of Platteville is approximately two miles northwest of the site. Surrounding properties
are agricultural in nature with few homes in close proximity. Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case,nine
responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval. Four letters have been received requesting denial of the operation. In addition, our
office has received two letters in support of the proposal. The Weld County Department of Planning Services
is recommending approval. The commission members have been handed copies of the additional letters, a
pilot log, and the new referral from Weld County Department of Public Works. Staff has made two changes to
our comments. The Department of Public Works is no longer requesting a Non-exclusive License Agreement
for county road rights-of-way,therefore Condition of Approval 2.C has been deleted. We have also asked for
evidence of approval from the FAA for the"Notice of Landing Area Proposal"which the applicant is required to
apply for. That is Condition of Approval 2.B. The applicants are being represented by Lauren Light with
AGPROfessionals. I will be happy to answer any questions the commission members may have.
Lauren Light,AG & LANDPROfessionals, representing the applicant,4350 HWY 66, Longmont, CO 80504.
Aerial Sprayers has been in operation in Weld County for over forty years. They are currently operating out of
the Kugel-Strong Airport,which is adjacent and south of CR 32, east of CR 31. They are leasing the facility
and would like to relocate in order to own their land and buildings. Mr. Edmiston would also like to utilize the
airstrip as a private runway for friends and family.
Crop dusting is a business which depends on the agricultural industry and as more farm land is converted to
development, aerial spraying becomes more difficult. The FM requires all planes fly 500 feet above all
structures.This site was chosen by the applicant as it is not located in a heavily populated area. The buildings
and airstrip will be located about 2200 feet from CR 26. The proposed business will not have a noticeable
impact on the area due to the limited number of existing homes in the vicinity. Adjacent properties are farm
ground and have been serviced by Aerial Sprayers for several years. There will be one identification sign
which will not exceed 16 square feet as allowed in the agricultural zone district. Water will be provided by a
well and an individual septic system will provide sewer. When the Weld County Code was updated in 2002,it
included the right to farm statement,located in Chapter 22,Appendix 22-E. The right to farm specifically calls
out the use of pesticides and fertilizers on fields and the use of aerial spraying as off-site impacts that may
occur in rural areas. The right to farm was established so that development would not force agricultural uses
out of an area. The first sentence of the right to farm states, "Weld County is one of the most productive
agricultural counties in the United States, ranking fifth in total market value of agricultural products sold." The
chart provided in Appendix 22-D of Chanter 22 shows that agribusiness is the leader in income and jobs in the
county. Aerial spraying is an important component in the agricultural community.
There were three letters of opposition received from adjoining property owners. Mr. Edmiston personally
contacted two of the parties. The Wilcher property is a recorded exemption lot with a home on it and is
presently for sale. The exemption does include the right to farm on the plat. When the property is sold, the
note will be on the title work as well as the plat so the new owners will know what kind of agricultural
operations can occur in rural areas. Mr. Edmiston has met with Mr. Wilcher and his mother and has also
given them a tour of his present facility. Mr. Jeff Boock also submitted a letter. His mother is a co-owner of
the 320 acre parcel to the east of the airstrip location. Any development which occurs on their property will be
80 acre lots which are of sufficient size that homes wouldn't have to be located adjacent to the property line
unless they wanted to build there. If recorded exemptions or subdivisions are done the plats will include the
right to farm statement which notifies of the possibility of aerial spraying. Mr. Edmiston contacted Mr. Boock
regarding his concerns, but no resolution was reached. The third letter was received yesterday from the
Kunzmans, located adjacent and south of this facility. The Kunzmans have concerns regarding drainage,
waste disposal, noise and wildlife. The development standards address many of their concerns.
Mr. Edmiston met with Mr. Sakata, president of the Platteville Irrigating and Milling Company. Mr. Sakata
expressed no concerns with the proposed facility. The chemical storage area at the existing facility is
contained and the chemical storage area of the proposed area will be located 4500 feet from the ditch.
Mr. Frank Bradford, inspector with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, is present and can speak to the
issues of pesticide contamination if the board desires.
Aerial Sprayers is a small business and the development standards limit the business to a maximum of five
crop dusting planes. This is not a high intensity business and is compatible with the area. The closest
existing home would be one half mile from the airstrip. Crop dusting currently occurs on the adjacent farms.
Mr. Edmiston has spoken with two of the landowners who submitted letters of opposition. Letters in your
packet from land owners near the current facility express no concern. Weld County has received no
complaints regarding his past or current facilities. The Hermans,owners of farm land adjacent to the property
also sent a letter of support.
In summary: the pilot's log indicates that this is not a high intensity operation; personal planes average one
take off a week;crop dusting planes fly only half the year;chemical storage must follow specific guidelines and
is regulated by the state; the Colorado Department of Agriculture must approve the loading facility; the FAA
has specific regulations that must be adhered to; United Agri-Products delivers and disposes of all chemicals
and containers so there is no waste on site. Mr. Edmiston has been a good neighbor at his present location
and affirms he will be at his new location as well.
Michael Miller inquired about the commercial well and that it allowed only one third of an acre foot, 108,000
gallons annually and the consumptive use should not exceed ten per cent of the volume of ground water
diverted. On the plan it indicates water storage tanks on the property. Are those 10,000 gallon water storage
tanks for the mixing of chemicals prior to loading on the plane? Ms. Light replied that they do mix the
chemicals with the water. Mr. Miller said he understood that the permit is for indoor use only. Ms. Light said
that was correct. The applicant plans to get a commercial exempt permit first to haul in water and once the
application is approved we will be going through the augmentation process with John Scott.
The Chair opened the hearing up to public comment.
Michael Weiss and Pamela Sheeley, reside at property northeast of the proposed facility. They are opposed
to the application with respect to noise, chemical storage, livestock in the area, and the number of aircraft
allowed under the proposed application. How can the commission approve more private than business
aircraft? What is the overall use down the road? Crop dusting is one thing but a private airstrip next door is
another and he felt that was in conflict with the zoning regulations for the area. Ms. Sheeley expressed her
concern regarding the noise as she runs an equine rescue operation and is concerned about the aircraft
spooking her horses.
The Chair responded to Mr.Weiss by explaining that they encourage an applicant to apply for future needs,
thus mitigating the need to amend the permit in the future.
Kirk Wilcher, 14149 CR 26, Longmont, CO 80504, said he is not concerned with Mr. Edmiston's procedures
for chemical storage, rather if this is the only business or will there be more business developed in the area
and what this will do to his property values as he is trying to sell his home. Mr.Wilcher asked who regulates
procedures and do they stay on top of this regarding training and knowledge of safety in chemical mixing?
The Chair responded that this USR is specific to this business, but if the applicant were to start up anything
else out there, they would be required to go through this process again.
Steve Sewald, 17303 CR 13, Longmont,CO 80504,stated he farmed almost twenty five years at the Reynolds
Cattle Farms located at CR 13 and CR 32. Mr.Sewald said Mr. Edmiston has had his runway on those farms
for over twenty years and there has never been a problem with stampeding cattle, nor had there been a noise
problem in the neighboring Grandview subdivision as far as he knew. Mr. Sewald closed by saying he fully
supports Mr. Edmiston's application as he runs a clean operation, has been a super neighbor the past twenty
years, has never had any chemical spills, and today's planes run so much quieter that noise should not be a
problem either.
Joe French, representing the surrounding property owners immediately to the east who own approximately
320 acres, asked if Gene Allen, 1120 Sherman Street, Longmont, CO 80504, land use consultant, could
speak on behalf of three specific property owners to the east, whose property line is approximately 100 feet
from this operation. Mr. Allen expressed concerns: regarding the required process that should have been
completed by the applicant through the FAA;the application through water resources has not been completed;
the environmental questions or requirements;anything having to do with drainage;disposal of used water. Mr.
Allen said he felt that all of these issues should have been addressed prior to the application being heard by
the Planning Commission. He expressed concern whether the Platteville Fire Department is adequately
prepared to deliver emergency services for aircraft and/or fuel fires. Access should not be improved with
public funds because of privately initiated business which impacts these facilities and does not recall seeing
any solutions to these concerns in the application. Mr. Allen also expressed concern about the water
augmentation plan, water source for mixing spray, disposal of water from cleanup of tanks, planes, etc.
Where does it go after use? No mention of security for the site preventing terrorists access to the site; bald
eagles nest in the area and what has been done to protect their habitat;aircraft as a 4:30 a.m. alarm for area
residents; contamination of groundwater supplies. Mr.Allen ended by suggesting that the application was not
complete enough for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Mr. French addressed the same concerns Mr. Allen addressed and called this a "risk oriented operation."
Mr. French summed up saying uses of the site have changed considerably since its inception, even
though the applicants were encouraged to ask for future provisions so that they did not have to reapply at
some point in time. The burden is on the applicant to show why this fits, why it doesn't change the area or
impact the neighbors since this is a use by special review rather than a use by right.
The Chair responded that the Gilcrest-Platteville Fire Departments were given the same referral packages
and are well aware of the requirements of a facility like this. The eagles, in his opinion, should not be
impacted by the activity in the area.
Frank Bradford, 1335 South Keough Street, Watkins, CO, inspector for the Colorado Department of
Agriculture, was asked by Mr. Edmiston to present information regarding the regulatory aspects of an
aerial application business. There are two specific laws a business must follow, the Pesticide Applicators
Act and the Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection Act, Senate Bill 90-126. If anyone has
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me for information. The applicators act is responsible for
ensuring that pesticides are applied in the legal manner according to the label and that there are very
specific storage, training and record keeping requirements. The chemical and groundwater act ensures
that groundwater is protected from agricultural chemicals. Businesses must have specific containment for
fertilizers and pesticides in their state or engineer approved facility. Mixing and loading pads must contain
larger than the tank capacity being mixed. Facilities must be impervious to liquid so the majority of them
are concrete and/or steel. Regarding complaints, the Department of Agriculture will perform an inspection
of a facility.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Bradford if facilities of this type were regularly inspected each year. Mr. Bradford
replied that they are, roughly three times each year. Mr. Miller asked if they were required to report any
spills or accidents. Mr. Bradford said they are not. Mr. Miller then asked Mr. Bradford whether he has had
the opportunity to inspect this particular facility. Mr. Bradford said that he had and found it to be in
excellent condition and it exceeds the requirements of both the Pesticide Applicators Act and the
Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection Act. Mr. Miller wondered if facilities of this type were
regularly inspected and whether he had seen any facilities of this type that had catastrophic spills or
failures which affected surrounding property owners. Mr. Bradford replied that in his eighteen plus years
as an inspector he had seen only one in this area, and in that one instance all of the fertilizer had been
captured.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Bradford if there was a release of pesticides, was there someone specific they
need to report it to. Mr. Bradford said that to the best of his knowledge the Environmental Protection
Agency would have jurisdiction.
Mike Atencio, 14757 CR 26, Longmont, CO 80504. Mr. Atencio recently met Mr. Edmiston and did not
think he would personally be affected by Mr. Edmiston's business. However, this morning he heard the
noise of a plane before he saw it and it was flying very low over his house, though it was not a crop
dusting plane. Mr. Atencio is opposed to this special use permit if this is what he has to look forward to.
Mr. Edmiston, when contacted by Mr. Atencio, said he did not know whose plane it was.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Edmiston, 5112 CR 32, Longmont, CO 80504, the applicant, stepped to the microphone to address
concerns. Mr. Edmiston said that he owns two personal planes, that his hangar holds six, and that he has
three spray planes for a total of five planes. He said he has no plans to own more aircraft as he can only
fly one at a time. The Chair asked Mr. Edmiston if he had a problem with lowering the number of planes.
He replied that he was merely taking the advice of the Planning Department which was to ask for more so
the permit would not have to be amended in the future. The Chair asked if a maximum of six planes was
agreeable. The Chair then inquired about disposal of waste water from aircraft washing. The applicant
said they have rinse tanks built into the aircraft and the rinse water is then applied over the fields that were
just sprayed. The EPA has determined that the water used in washing the bugs and dirt off the planes
contains no hazardous material. They do not bring any pesticides or rinse water back to the facility after
spraying. The Chair then inquired as to his plans for security. Mr. Edmiston replied they will all be in a
locked hangar with a barbed wire fence surrounding the property. Access will be through a gate and he
also has plans for a caretaker apartment at the facility. The Chair asked for clarification about landings
and take-offs. The applicant said take-offs will be to the west and land back to the east with an altitude of
500 feet. Landings would only occur to the west on windy days. The Chair asked if all of his planes were
turbine engine planes. The applicant said his crop dusting planes are turbine and are dramatically quieter
than planes of the past and will be less noticeable than the jet traffic already in the area.
James Rohn asked about the identity of the plane flying over the neighbor's house this morning. Mr.
Edmiston replied it was not one of his planes and he did not know to whom it might belong.
Ms. Light addressed the Planning Commissioners again and reiterated that the applicant would continue
to pursue the water augmentation plan; chemical handling and containment would follow all state and
federal regulations; storm water drainage was investigated by an independent engineer and because the
facility is so small it will not affect off-site drainage; the planes are for the crop dusting business and
personal use only; noise levels will be regulated by the health department in the development standards;
impact to livestock should be very minimal; Mr. Edmiston is doing everything possible to insure that his
proposed business will impact the surrounding property owners as little as possible.
The Chair asked Ms. Light if the applicant had a problem with amending development standard seven to
permit a total of six planes on site, rather than the eleven called for. She agreed with the amendment.
The Chair then asked Planning staff to address their amendments. Ms. Lockman replied that they had
already been taken care of. The Chair asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, about the
adequacy of county roads for fire equipment and any improvements that would have to be made to the
road to meet those standards. Mr. Carroll asked the Chair if he was referring to CR 26 or the section line
access road. The Chair said he imagined the section line access road would be the applicant's
responsibility. Mr. Carroll replied that he was correct. As the applicant indicated that additional traffic
would be for only four employees, the Department of Public Works has no concerns or requests for
additional improvements. CR 26 is open and maintained by the county at this time. The applicant does
have the responsibility to improve the access road to meet the standards for the fire department; off-street
parking, including the access drive shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete or equivalent and shall
be graded to prevent drainage problems.
The Chair asked Char Davis, Weld County Health Department, if she had anything further to add. She did
not.
The Chair then asked for a motion. James Rohn motioned to amend development standard seven to read
"a maximum of six airplanes total may be stored on site".
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Welch inquired again about regulations regarding altitude minimums for aircraft. He also felt the
application was compatible with the area and the county. The Chair responded that if the neighbors do
have any concerns they need to get the identification numbers of the aircraft and then contact the FAA
and they will review the complaint.
In reference to concerns over the bald eagle habitat, Bryant Gimlin added that the Colorado Division of
Wildlife expressed no undue concern in their referral.
James Rohn agreed that the application was compatible with the area, as did Michael Miller who said he
would not support it if the resident's concerns had not been mitigated. He also felt confident that the
applicant would be responsive to any problems. James Welch said he had family that previously resided
in the area and they had never expressed any problems or concerns with the applicant's facility.
Ms. Light cited Conditions of Improvement 1-B, and expressed concern over written agreement of
surrounding mineral owners and lessors. They had sent certified notification to those parties but had only
received five letters from those owners. She is not sure they will be successful in contacting all of the
owners. Development Standard 27 addresses mineral owner's rights to drill on the land and she asked for
advice from Lee Morrison, County Attorney, regarding how to handle this issue, other than removing the
condition. Mr. Morrison said a reasonable accommodation must be made for the mineral use. It may
necessitate some evidence from experts whether wells are available to be drilled in current space that
haven't been drilled, whether those wells are adequately accessed, and how they will be affected by the
use proposed in the special use permit. It would be appropriate to add the alternative that they either
present agreements or they present evidence of reasonable accommodation of the mineral interest right
to access the minerals.
Michael Miller asked if these were private mineral owners or small obscure companies? Ms. Light
responded that some of them were larger companies. She can't answer why they got five letters back.
Mr. Morrison suggested that she may want to check with the Oil & Gas Commission to see if some of
these interests might have merged with other entities and they haven't recorded anything on this property
that would lead you to that. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Light where she obtained the addresses. She responded
they were from public records. Ms. Lockman said that eight of eleven sent back were from very well
known companies. Mr. Morrison suggested that perhaps the addresses were no longer good and
checking should be done with the Oil &Gas Commission, or the current operator signage posted on the
wells, or the Oil & Gas Commission's GIS data base. Mr. Morrison suggested that Ms. Light provide some
evidence as why they did not go to the right place and they need to be re-mailed with correct addresses.
Ms. Lockman said 1.8 states that"the occupant shall submit evidence that the mineral owner's concerns
have been addressed", so there is a little leniency in that, or should it be changed? Mr. Morrison pointed
out that they have not shown any concerns, so the mineral interests have been reasonably
accommodated.
Ms. Light asked to add "prior to recording"? Ms. Lockman said it takes approximately 45 days for the
BOCC hearing and she has no control over that. Ms. Light asked that Development Standard 23 read that
specific times changed "to daylight hours only", due to daylight savings and that spraying for mosquitoes
must be done at dusk so as not to kill bees.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Development Standard 23 be changed to say"plane take-offs and landings are
limited to daylight hours, seven days a week". James Rohn 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; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes, Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Development Standard 1.8, page 3, be amended to read "The applicant shall
submit evidence that the mineral owner's and operator's interests have been reasonably accommodated".
James Rohn 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; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes, Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked Ms. Light if she had heard the Development Standards and Conditions of Improvement
as amended and is in agreement with them. She replied that she was.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1504, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, including the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards as amended. Chad Auer 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; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes, Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
d Y r1A,if0---- l j / LP
Donita May
Secretary
Hello