HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050803.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer •
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Brad Mueller, Monica Mika
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 20,
2005, was approved as read.
Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1089 •
APPLICANT: MBM Enterprises LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3006; part NE4 of Section 19, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone for Nine (9) Estate Lots; two Agricultural Out Lots,
one at 17.9 acres and one at 23.9 acres; and 0.16 acres of open space
(Sierra Acres PUD) in the A(Agricultural)Zone.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; south of and adjacent to State Hwy 392.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1329
APPLICANT: Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete Inc dba Johnstown Ready-Mix
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 and part of the NW4 of Section 30, T5N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for Mineral
Resource Development Facilities, including Open Pit Mining and
Materials Processing, a Concrete Batch Plant, and the importation of
sand and gravel aggregates in the A(Agricultural)Zone.
LOCATION: South and west of the Big Thompson River and immediately southeast of
the intersection of CR 13 and CR 54.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1039
APPLICANT: Charles Messerlian
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt N2 of section 10, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plan for 9 (nine) residential lots (Prairie Hollow
Estates).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 84 and west of and adjacent to CR 21.
The Consent Agenda was approved.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously
`
6naL.+,�- g"' /o/9i/aods 2005-0803
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1526
APPLICANT: Rick &Tammi Fisher
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3779; Pt SE4 of Section 16, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
by right, an accessory use or a use by special review in the Industrial
Zone District (storage of landscaping materials and equipment along with
employee parking associated with a landscaping business) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and approximately 1/4 mile
west of CR 43.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1526, 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.
Chris Gathman indicated the Department of Planning Services has no contact information for the Sand
Creek Ditch.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked rather there was any onsite or offsite flooding at the time of the field check.
Michael Miller asked about further development beyond the USR permit and the possibility of more run off.
Mr. Gathman stated the application indicates a tree farm and possible residence in the future. There are
no additional buildings being proposed. Mr. Gathman added that the standard is to have asphalt/concrete
or equivalent for the staging areas.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the topography of the land and does it drop off. Mr. Gathman stated it does
slope towards the highway but a minimal amount. The ditch is located on the east side of the property.
Rich Fisher, applicant, provided clarification to the proposal. Duke Energy installed a new well on this
property and in doing so put a new culvert in to get their equipment onto the site. The culvert is too small
to handle the water in the area and from Sand Creek. There is an issue but it is with the Duke Energy, the
ones who placed the culvert. The site will remain agriculture and the amount of run off will not change.
There are plans for a home at some future date. There is a drop of 11 feet from the north end towards the
east at the lowest point. There will be no water draining into the creek since this ground will not be
irrigated. There area of land that will contain the business and the home has not been historically farmed
or irrigated. There will be a retention pond for the tail water from this site. The new culvert is about 30
feet from the old culvert to the tank battery. The majority of this site flows towards the road the
surrounding farms tail water flows to Sand Creek.
Michael Miller asked if the two culverts were the same size. Mr. Fisher stated they were similar in size but
need to be larger. There is irrigation water seeping from the ditch. Mr. Miller asked if the drainage
problems pre-existed before this application was submitted and whether the site drainage will change. Mr.
Fisher stated there have been flooding problems before. Mr. Miller stated the oil company needs to be
contacted for a larger culvert. Mr. Spitzer added that Duke Energy should be the ones to increase the
size. Mr. Fisher stated he has not been in contact with Duke Energy. Mr. Spitzer asked if the flooding
was due to rain water or irrigation. Mr. Fisher stated it was irrigation causing the creek to overflow.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Morrison what a property owner could do in a situation like this. Mr. Morrison
stated that the first contact should be with Duke Energy. Duke Energy has an obligation not to
unreasonably interfere with the use of the surface. The next step would be with the Oil & Gas
Commission. Mr. Miller stated there is a sign at the battery that will tell who owns the tanks.
Dianna Bystrom, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the proposal and the flooding that occurs on her
property. Duke Energy has placed a culvert in the area which is too small which in turn causes more
flooding. This is an inconvenience and extremely costly. Ms. Bystrom believes that by taking more farm
ground out of production and placing businesses in the area it will cause more flooding due to the lack of
ground absorption. The front 20 feet is muddy and the driveway becomes a river. Sand Creek floods
almost into the barn. This site is 20 feet above them so all the water that is presently being absorbed will
not flow onto this property. The building that exists is new and has not been there since it has rained
heavy. There is water standing on at least two acres of land. Eleven feet may not sound like much but all
the water ends at the house. There are concerns with mosquitoes and West Nile due to the stagnant
water. The flooding happens whether irrigating or not. They have spoken to the State and Duke Energy
with no resolution. If the area stayed in agriculture at least some of the water would be absorbed. The
area will get rain eventually and it will flood the home again. There is no one addressing the problems that
come with the proposed development. The access will compact and cause the water to run off. They
have spoken to the extension agent whom stated there is no solution for their problems on the property.
Their home sits in an area that floods. Any development that compacts the ground will cause more rain
run off to gather at their home.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Tom Holton asked Mr. Gathman if there was anything in the Development Standards addressing the
retention pond. Mr. Gathman stated there was nothing specific; they dealt more with the business.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated there was nothing about the retention pond, it could be agriculture
related. Mr. Morrison stated it does not have to be part of the USR to mitigate the effects of the USR.
The focus needs to be what the effect of the USR will be not the historical issues.
Michael Miller stated the proposed use will not have an increased effect in the run off for the water. A tree
farm is still an agriculture use and there is no significant impact with the proposed application.
Don Carroll stated Ms. Bystoms home is in a 100 year flood plain. The roadway is compacted now and
will not add to the water run off from the site. The parcel is a large enough agricultural piece of land to
absorb any drainage caused by this use.
Rich Fisher stated he is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1526, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton commented that the applicant should work with the neighbor to address the culvert and the
retention to possible mitigate the concerns.
Doug Ochsner agrees with Mr. Holton's comments.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-1081
APPLICANT: Gold Stone Center, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2NW4 of Section 16, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A minor subdivision change of zone from A(Agriculture)to E (Estate)for
nine (9) single family residential lots.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 29 and 1 3/4 miles north of CR 90.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-MZ-1081, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The
Department of Planning Services is recommending the cul-de-sac and internal access be extended so
that it borders lots 5 &6.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the access road is above the flood plain. Mr. Gathman stated they would need
to get a flood hazard permit. The applicant will have to address the flood plain concerns. The access will
need to be further to the west of Spring Creek.
Doug Ochsner asked about the concerns from the Town of Pierce and if those have been addressed. Mr.
Gathman stated that any development in the flood plain will have to get a flood hazard permit and the
concerns will be addressed in that process. There needs to be a road accessing those two lots and it will
be done with an easement to those lots from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Ochsner asked who owned Spring Creek
and whether it was a maintained ditch. Mr. Gathman stated it was a drainage way. Mr. Ochsner asked
about the concern of the Colorado Water Engineer regarding the 9 acre feet of water. Mr. Gathman stated
they were outlining what the typical condition was for North Weld Water District but the applicant can
better address this concern. Staff is waiting for a response from the Division of Water Resources
regarding whether the subdivision can injure existing water rights. The main issue is the well permit that
was issued for this parcel. The Division of Water Resources is requesting clarification in regards to
whether the property owner has installed or plans to install this well.
Tom Hahn, applicant representative, provided clarification on the proposal. The subdivision is intended to
provide and area for 4-5 acre lots for families that have children that do 4H projects and things of this
nature. The land does not meet the prime agriculture designation but can be utilized. The design was
done to accommodate the floodplain in the lots to the east. The internal access will be a public paved
street that will be maintained by the County once dedicated. Private easement to the two east lots, try to
satisfy the non pave access to this area from Public Works. Mr. Hahn stated there is a well permit but
nothing is recorded. There is no intent to drill and it will expire in November of this year. The applicant
does have concern for the Board of County Commissioners regarding the school fees being collected at
final plat but this does cause a significant cost. The street name would be more acceptable if it were done
by the County road grid system. Nunn Fire District agreed with this direction. The applicant is in
agreement with the rest of the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Paul Branham asked about the concern from the Town of Pierce and the damming of the access to those
lots. Mr. Hahn stated the design in conjunction with Public Works allows for conveyance will not create
the dam effect. Mr. Hahn added that the design allows for conveyance of flow for low and high water.
This will not function as dam and they will meet with Pierce to address this. Mr. Gathman stated the
county does not have authority to make them address this since there is not an IGA with the Town of
Pierce.
Michael Miller asked about lots 4 & 7 containing the floodplain and if there will be enough room to build on.
Ms. Smith stated the septic systems will need to be 100 feet from the floodplain boundary. Lot 4 has an
area outside plain of about 4 acres. The applicant has additional comments regarding the septic
envelopes. Ms. Smith stated she is asking for the envelopes to ensure the locations of them. Ms. Smith
added the 3.S needs to have the section in parenthesis deleted. Mr. Hahn stated that lot 4 is 11.5 acres
and 3.5 to 4 acres is available for the home site. The lots are adequate for the envelopes and septic
areas. Mr. Hahn added that the concern for placing septic envelopes on site could cause the need for
future process since the owner may want their home located in a different place. In doing this it will cause
the various departments more work in the long run with additional inspections and processes.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Schei about the road and cul-de-sac being extended in the middle of the
floodplain area which would be an issue if there was a flood with no place to turn around. Mr. Hahn added
that the access turn around will not be in the flood plain it will remain in the middle and the remaining road
to the east will be gravel with the needed area for turn around. There could be other alternatives for
emergency vehicles.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Crystal Dirks & Bernie Dirks, neighbors, indicated their objections to this proposal. Their property line is the
north boundary of this proposal. There is nothing in this location and CR 29 is a concern. The traffic will
double in the area and property values could decrease. They wanted to raise a family in the country and not
have to see the growth. The crime rate will increase also. The water is a big issue due to the possible loss in
pressure and ability to serve. Spring creek will flood it always does. There are also an endangered species of
owls on the back of their property. The school buses do not drive into the area so she takes the kids to
school.
Ruby Scheller, neighbor, indicated concerns with the development. Spring Creeks does flood with about 3-6
inches of rain. The water has gone over the Railroad tracks and Hwy 85. Ms. Scheller does not approve of
this type of use in an agriculturally predominant area. There are several homes for sale in area so there is no
need to build more.
Sharon Scheller, neighbor, indicated concerns with the proposal. This is a viable agricultural property. It has
raised wheat in the past and the area is good for 4H children but this proposal does come with the red flags.
Spring Creek is a viable Creek and should not be viewed lightly. The neighbors are not in support of this and
an additional nine homes will bring issues that do not need to be addressed.
The Chair closed the pubic portion.
Tom Hahn stated it is difficult to respond to emotional comments. The County allows for this type of use and
provides for it through County Code. A traffic study has been done to determine the existing traffic and any
additional traffic this may cause. It was deemed to fall within the standards. With regards to property value,
this type of development may bring the value up. There is no way to respond to the possible crime rate but
there will be increased activity in the area with the homes. The concern for the well permit will take care of
itself and this project will use a domestic system. North Weld Water requires raw water shares and they are
requesting a pumping station which will be provided. This proposal will enhance the area. Agriculture is
important and will continue to be. There are small parcels in the area which gives some the opportunity to
afford them. Brian Shear, Shear engineering, provided clarification on the water concerns. Doug Ochsner
asked if Lots 4 & 7 will flood. Mr. Shear stated that studies have been done for Spring Creek. There have
been studies done dealing with flood control and drainage improvement for the Town of Pierce and this is
included in the drainage report. There is a specific number of cubic feet per second (c.f.$) as it hits Pierce
according to this study which is 9000 c.f.s. which is a large number. The numbers were used and this model
was reviewed. A meeting was set with Mr. Schei discussing the possible flows and design. The access
through the flood plain is lower with box culverts. The actual flow was 250 and the design was accommodated
to this. The flows have been addressed according to the projected flows.
Michael Miller asked if there were any alternative accesses to Lots 5&6 in the event of a 100 year flood. Mr.
Shear stated the water would not be 3 feet in depth and the homes and driveways would be raised. Mr. Hahn
stated there is no alternative access.
Peter Schei added clarification to the roads in the county located above this and there configuration and
design. Chapter 24 table was referenced. There is no standard for access to home with 100 year flood. A
local roadway is designed to handle a 10 year storm while a collector is designed for a 25 year storm. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked what would be required. Mr. Schei stated there are no standards or requirements. Mr.
Morrison stated there is a general standard about access but no numeric study standard.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Shear if there were any studies done to determine what would make that access
impassable. Mr. Shear stated there were box culverts installed to handle 250 c.f.s. and the County standard
contains allowable depths. Mr.Shear stated a 10 year study was done for the Town of Pierce and it indicates
4000 c.f.s so the box culverts will overflow with approximately 2 feet of water and will act as a weir.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on staff changes. Mr. Gathman addressed the changes. Ms.Smith is
requesting the deletion of the language in the parenthesis on 3.F.
Michael Miller moved to accept staff changes to 2.D, 3.A and 3.F. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated there seems to be two issues that need to be discussed. The first issue is having a
subdivision built next to rural residential areas while there are other places to build. There are no neighbors
that want a subdivision next to it. The second issue is there are significant design flaws in the studies with
water and the creek. Lots 5 &6 being not accessible are not acceptable. Mr. Miller will not be in support of
this proposal.
Paul Branham agrees with Mr. Miller. Lots 4&7 are in a floodway restricting the area for septic or structures
and the water is a definite concern.
Roy Spitzer stated he is confused by the comments made regarding the Mr. Schei. Mr. Schei stated the
county roads to the north would not be passable in a 10 year flood. Mr.Spitzer suggested a standard might be
beneficial. Mr. Schei stated that if the road was built up it could cause a dam effect.
Tom Hahn indicated there was no intent for an unsafe situation. What was attempted was something that
adhered to the County standard. They had looked at open space to the east of the floodway. The applicant is
willing to reconfigure the lots to address some of the concerns brought forward.
Michael Miller indicated this would be a redesign of the application and would need to be a new application.
Mr. Morrison stated this is a change of zone application which will be recorded and the lots are not on the plat.
Mr. Hahn stated the layout can be further discussed. Mr. Gathman is willing to look at redesign of the lots.
There will be no platting at this stage. The change of zone is in part to see what is proposed not final. Ms.
Smith would like to see septic envelopes on all lots. This can change until building permit are issued. Change
of zone specifically deals with the ground not the development itself. Ms. Smith clarified the need for septic
envelopes and the acreage needed to satisfy the requirements. There is a process that will allow the applicant
to modify the septic envelopes.
Peter Schei indicated that Public Works did not intend to lead anyone into false assumption with regards to the
access.
Tom Hahn indicated they were in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions.
Chad Auer asked if there were other lots in the County that do not have access during a flood situation. Mr.
Schei indicated there are other properties in the County that do not have access during flood conditions. Mr.
Schei stated there are others in the county but the intention is to not promote this. Mr. Miller stated that there
have been some but they have slow water crossing the roadway. Mr.Auer stated it is hard to make a decision
based on margins.
Michael Miller moved that Case MZ-1081,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Michael Miller,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,no; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, no. Motion carried.
Tom Holton commented that this application is not complete. Passing the proposed plat on to the Board of
County Commissioners is not acceptable and if the plat is submitted as part of the application it will be
deemed as part of the application.
Roy Spitzer commented that he would not vote for this if the lots 4-6 are included as presently platted. It has
been seen what happens when homes are in these types of situations.
Erich Ehrlich commented that he agrees with Mr. Holton. He would like to see the open space to the east.
Doug Ochsner commented this is a change of zone only and this is the highest and best use for the property.
Mr. Ochsner stated the safety reasons are a major concern; it is great to have a subdivision for the 4H type
projects. Do not make a nine lot subdivision; make it fit the surrounding area. Even though nine lots are
allowed this does not have to be a situation that utilizes all nine lots.
Michael Miller commented this case will come back to Planning Commission at final plan. A yes vote does not
mean the existing lot layout is approved as it.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented lots 5 &6 should not be considered as buildable lots.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1527
APPLICANT: Waste Management Disposal
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 7, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use
by right of accessory use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts
(Administration Facility, Container Repair Facility, Fueling Station, Truck
Wash, Container Storage, and Truck Storage in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 25 and south of and adjacent to CR 82.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1527, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how long the landfill has been in business. Mr. Gathman stated it has been at least
10 years.
Doug Ochsner asked where the home owner that wrote the objection letter was located. Mr.Gathman stated
they are north west of the site.
Michael Miller asked about residences in area. Mr.Gathman stated there was nothing in the general location.
Chip Wertz, applicant representative, provided clarification on the project. Mr.Wertz indicated that they had
some questions as to the traffic study being done and having comments prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners. Mr. Gathman stated they would like it prior to scheduling so that CDOT has time to
comment on the study.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked where this was being done presently. Mr. Wertz stated it was scattered throughout
several facilities in area, this is part of long range plan to manage the operation. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about
the number of employees being 125 at commencement. Mr.Wertz stated the application included everything
and it will be phased in three group, the administrative, truck drivers and maintenance that works at facility.
The future expansion addresses 129 trucks with 161 spaces for employee parking.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about Development Standards#3 numbers. Mr.Gathman stated that there is a
potential in the future to go to 160 employees. Mr. Wertz stated 160 employees would be sufficient.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if this was notified for. Mr. Gathman stated that the number is not advertised but the
use is. Mr. Gathman added that CDOT would still be reviewing the traffic study and the county is covered by
the uses.
Michael Miller asked about the hours of operation and the need to amend them. Mr. Gathman stated that the
administrative employees will be 8:00am — 5:00pm. but the operational maintenance will be different. The
application stated there is ongoing maintenance. Mr.Wertz stated the commercial roll off operation begins at
2:00 am. then stagger throughout the morning. Typically they work in 8-10 hour shift with everyone back by
4:30 pm. There is maintenance in evening. Dan Ward, Director of Operations, stated that there are three
staggered shifts. Maintenance is done indoors and is done seven days a week, twenty four hours a day;
administration is 8-5pm. All maintenance should be inside; outdoor maintenance would be by emergency
only. Maintenance is done Monday—Saturday with the typical Saturday ending by 3:00 pm with no Sunday
operation. The maintenance is on call on holidays. Mr. Auer stated that at full capacity there will be 160
people, 130 drivers, 30 administration and maintenance. Mr. Ward stated that the driver portion is 120 with
the rest being administration and maintenance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what the haul route was going to be. Mr. Ward stated it will be down CR 25 to
Highway 14. Mr. Carroll added that will be a paved.
Erich Ehrlich asked if Waste Disposal owned the land between land fill and this site and if it will stay agriculture
until a larger site is proposed. Mr. Ward stated they do own the land and it will stay in agriculture.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the truck wash aspect and if there was any monitoring standards for
what could come out of water. Ms. Davis stated the water that is being used for the truck wash will be re-used
on the road for dust control. Ms. Davis added that the Water Quality Control Division will monitor and staff has
asked for a design operation plan for truck wash. The monitoring will be up to the State Division.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what other permitting does the State do. Ms. Davis stated the air emission, water
retention area,storage tanks and wash and repair shop have all been included in the conditions. There is also
a condition regarding the underground injections wells.
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 about the injection well permit for the drainage and repair shop. Ms. Davis stated the
injection wells will be monitored by the UIC. They take care of the wells and the septic systems.
Michael Miller moved to accept the staff recommendations by Ms. Davis and delete Development Standards
#27, insert Ms. Davis language in prior to certificate of occupancy at 5.B.C.D and re-letter. Doug Ochsner
seconded. Motion carried.
Char Davis would like to delete Development Standards#12 
.
Chad moved to remove. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller moved to amend Development Standards #3 to reflect 160 employees and Development
Standards #4 to reflect 130 trucks. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated it would be difficult to break down the operation hours into separate categories. The
hours would be 365 days, 24 hours.
Michael Miller moved to approve the above language. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Don Carroll added that CR 25 will be paved because of the intense use and the applicant has agreed to this.
There have also been improvements agreements for the maintenance. The staff has asked for a stormwater
drainage plan which has been approved.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the power lines on CR 25. Brett, Icenogle, representative for Waste Disposal,
indicated the power lines are not compromised, there is an easement provided for those. Mr. Ehrlich asked
about the setback at the building. Mr. Icenogle stated that there is a 75 foot setback.
Chip Wertz stated the only difference in the traffic will be during the day when the trucks are being picked up.
The only question the applicant has is if there is a way to define when a change can be done. Mr. Gathman
stated there is a Section in the Code that deals with substantial change.There is no way to put Development
Standards in the comments. The process is for the applicant to write a letter addressing the changes and staff
will determine a substantial change.
Chip Wertz agrees with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Michael Miller stated this is a good use and should be approved.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1527, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about a previous cases vote not reflecting the true intention of the Planning
Commission. There were several members that were unfamiliar with the procedure for final plats and them
coming back to the Planning Commission. The vote would have been 8-0 had they understood the procedure.
Can a vote be stopped in the middle and explained or how is this done? Mr. Morrison stated that a motion of
reconsideration can be done if you are on the prevailing side. That is something that can not be done at this
time since the applicant is gone. Anytime someone might not conceive the facts of the motion it could be
moved to reconsider if on the winning side. It can be done before the next meeting or during this meeting.
The members of the Planning Commission that voted no did not understand the procedure by the comments
made by them. Once a vote has begun it needs to be completed. Mr. Miller asked if now would be the time to
ask for a reconsideration vote. Mr. Morrison stated that now would be a difficult time since everyone present
for the case is gone. The record would be different and would not necessarily reflect the additional vote. The
motion to reconsider by the Board of County Commissioners would need re-notifying those property owners
affected and those applicants. The Board of County Commissioners does review the minutes.
Michael Miller would like to make sure that the Board of County Commissioners is aware of the fact that the
vote would have been a majority approval had the vetoing members been aware of the process.
Paul Branham asked if there was a list of cases that would signify what is brought before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Morrison suggested that staff place something in their speech or presentation signifying this.
Mr. Morrison stated that the things that require zone change and platting the Planning Commission does not
see twice. A convention subdivision the Planning Commission would not see the final. Special use is seen
once.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15pm
Respectfully submitted
(_A) V t (
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello