HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040631 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24 V2 , Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice.Chair,
Bryant Gimlin, at 1:30p.m.
-
ROLL CALL E.. I
Michael Miller Absent
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Tim Tracy Absent
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Char Davis, Pam Smith, Sheri Lockman, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris
Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 3,2004,
was approved as read.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1455
APPLICANT: Mineral Reserves Inc./Lafarge West
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3714; pad of the NE4 of Section 16, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for mining in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 20 %:; approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 7.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to April 20,2004.
This continuance will allow for time to finalize the ditch design.
The following Case is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-851
APPLICANT: Alternative Homes for Youth
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 6, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Child Care
Center in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; approximately 1 mile east of CR 1
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
The following Cases will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1456
APPLICANT: Barbara Schottelkotte
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
dcmiznl (2i, a-oa5 aCoci
2004-0631
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 20, Aristocrat Ranchettes, Section 27, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a kennel in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Caroline; approximately 1/8 mile west of Richard
(15337 Caroline).
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1456,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.
James Rohn asked about Condition 19 regarding mineral owners. Ms. Hatch indicated it was standard
language to cover any possible future owners.
Doug Ochsner asked about the limits of dogs and cats under the USR. Ms. Hatch stated the definition of a
kennel is anyplace where five or more household pets of one species or a total of eight or more pets of two
or more species. Ms. Schottelkotte is over on this number.
John Folsom asked Ms. Hatch about the violation and in her opinion has the noncommercial junkyard been
addressed. Has there been adequate fencing for screening from adjacent property owners and public right
of way. Ms. Hatch stated that the fence is approximately 7-8 foot in height and screens a majority of the
property. The north side of the property is not currently screened but is being asked for in staff comments as
a condition of approval. Mr. Folsom asked for clarification with regards to the this case being only a kennel.
Ms. Hatch stated they are asking for proper screening in this case. One of the mobile homes will be removed,
there will be only one mobile home on site. The existing foundation was for a home that was to be moved on
but that has fallen through so it is currently not useable. Mr. Folsom asked about other animals and if those
units were within the animal units for the zone district. Ms. Hatch stated the number of animal units, for the
other animals, is within the use by right.
James Rohn asked about the condition for the removal of the foundation and mobile home and the need. Ms.
Hatch stated that one mobile is being asked to be removed as a part of the process.
Bryant Gimlin asked about Development Standards #17 the request to specify the number of cats but not
other animals. Is the kennel specific to the cats? Ms. Hatch stated that all the other animals are under use
by right. The dogs could be called out in the Development Standards but this application is specific to the
number of cats.
Barbara Schottlekotte, applicant, indicated that the cats are not confined in a typical kennel setting. They are
free ranging. They are not kept in cages they have access to the house. Mr. Gimlin asked if they are wild.
Ms. Schottlekotte indicated they are semi wild. Mr. Gimlin asked why is a permit being applied for on a wild
animal. Ms. Hatch stated that Ms.Schottlekotte takes responsibility for them. She takes them to the Humane
Society for vaccinations and neutering. She feeds and cars for the animals. Ms. Schottlekotte has concerns
about the conditions.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch about the kennel. His understanding of a kennel is a building where an animal
is housed. If they are free range animals how can it be justified as a kennel? Mr. Morrison clarified that the
code has a special definition of kennel but basically it is tied to the number of animals. The fact there are
more than the allowed number of animal units is what places it in the category of kennel. Mr. Rohn asked if
there would be buildings placed on the plat indicating where the cats will stay? Mr. Morrison stated that there
some facilities because they are being cared for but it will not be a type of dog run. Ms. Hatch added the cats
are not confined and will be free. Mr. Rohn asked if there will be some sort of identification on the animal.
Ms.Schottelkotte added that she was told that if food,water or shelter is provided she must take responsibility
for the animal. Ms. Schottlekotte stated she has papers from the vet showing which animals have been
vaccinated and that collars on feral cats is not a good idea. Mr.Rohn asked how Ms.Schottlekotte associated
the vaccination papers with the cats. Ms. Schottlekotte stated she could write a description on the papers.
Bryant Gimlin asked how the number of 25 will be enforced? Ms. Hatch stated the number was given by the
applicant and staff felt she had a good grasp of the number due to vaccinations and papers.
Bryant Gimlin asked if Ms.Schottlekotte could keep the number at 25 or lower. Ms. Schottlekotte stated this
is an estimate. Feral populations replace themselves,other strays will move in but because they are territorial
they will not stay. The number will remain or be fewer.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Barbara Schottlekotte has concerns with Conditions 1 A and the need for a sign age plan. This operation will
not be commercial so there will be no signs. Mr. Gimlin stated a letter indicating this would address the
condition. Ms. Schottlekotte continued with Condition 2A and the need for additional information regarding
square footage, dietary requirements and typical daily requirements of the animals. The animals are not
confined therefor there is not a typical regiment, will a letter stating what this is be adequate? Mr. Gimlin
added that documentation of what is occurring will adequately address the condition. Ms. Schottlekotte
indicated concerns with 2E regarding the septic system. The system was approved for the house and that
is all it will continue to be. Ms. Davis stated the system is fine if the new home will be of comparative size.
The concern would be if the home was larger or did not fit the requirements of the prior property. Ms.
Schottlekotte stated that the building permits information was turned in it was approved at that time. Ms.Davis
stated that there will be nothing more than changes to the paperwork.
John Folsom asked if there was a need for an engineer for the septic system. Ms. Davis stated that staff
would work with her and make final determination.
Barbara Schottlekotte continued with concerns on Condition 2F the manure and storm water plan. This is
not a contained commercial facility. Mr. Gimlin stated that the Health Department is willing to work with the
applicant on this. Ms. Schottlekotte continued with Condition 2H 2 & 3 concerning chemicals and waste
handler. There are no chemicals on site and the waste handler will be the neighborhood waste disposal. Is
the requirement for the north side to be screened still applicable. Ms. Hatch indicated that staff wants this.
James Rohn asked why Condition 2C regarding garbage being removed is in the Conditions. Ms. Hatch
clarified that while out on a site visit staff noticed piles of garbage but is aware that the applicant is in the
process of cleaning the site. This is just a note to make sure it is completed.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1456, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1459
APPLICANT: Mike Whistance &Tony Dowdy
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of RE-1039; NW4 of Section 20, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right in the Commercial Zone District (vehicle sales
and detailing establishment) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 20; east of and adjacent to Hwy 85.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1459,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application based on the referral received from Fort Lupton.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison for clarification on the phrase"extent legally possibly" in the IGA definition.
Is Planning Commission to assume that since it is in the code it is legally possible for grounds alone to be
the basis for denial. Mr. Morrison stated no,that the language refers to the facts surrounding each individual
case. In all circumstances it could not be legally denied. The Board of County Commissioners has approved
cases in which it would have been a problem to deny based on there not being any other feasible use for the
property.
James Rohn asked about the access onto the site. Ms. Hatch stated the applicant will utilize a joint access
on the east side of the property with Tote-A-Shed. Mr. Rohn asked Don Carroll, Public Works, about
intersection and possible future plans. Mr.Carroll stated this area is designated as a public road un-signalized
intersection. Acceleration/deceleration lanes will need to be improved. When this is evaluated it may be
determined that a turn lane might be needed. CDOT will contact the applicant and inform them of this. Mr.
Rohn asked about the access that looks to be a frontage road is it not part of this USR. Ms. Hatch stated
there is a frontage road for Hwy 85 and CDOT stated that is to only be used for the home. Mr. Rohn asked
if this was to be taken out when this development occurs. Mr. Carroll stated that was a CDOT question
because it is within their right of way.
Tammy Ellerman, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. A handout was
provided and reviewed. Chapter 22 states the county will support agricultural activities occurring in Weld
County. The conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural uses will be accommodated only in areas that
have the ability to support such development. The applicant has been working with several referral agencies
to ensure compliance. The sewage system will be a professional engineered septic system to accommodate
the commercial use. A drawing of the building was provided and it was indicated the structure will meet all
the requirements. Section 23-2-220 states that uses will be compatible with the surrounding uses.
Commercial use is the highest and best use of the property. This area is not prime farm ground, it does not
have water and is surrounded by existing commercial uses. The business will be very clean and well
maintained. This is also part of the Enterprise Zone which is a state mandated zone. There is a letter in the
packet from the Greeley and Weld Enterprise Zone. The Fort Lupton referral letter indicated they did not
recommend denial for the business and minutes from their board meeting was read. A letter from the Fort
Lupton Chamber of Commerce was read indicating approval and stating this proposal will be an asset to Weld
County.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch about the parking requirements. The rules are for every two employees there
is one parking spot, for every 500 square feet there is another parking space. The recommendation is 3
parking spots because of the 570 square feet. The plot plan indicates the building to be 3000 square feet.
Ms. Hatch stated the 570 feet is office space. The warehouse area requires one space for every 1000 square
feet, 2088 square feet of warehouse. The parking was broken down for the uses of the buildings.
Stephen Mokray asked about the sewer disposal and if this is an issue. Ms. Davis stated that there is a
condition that the site needs to have an engineered septic system. Mr. Mokray clarified that the comments
indicate there is no information on the septic system. Ms. Davis indicated that there is an existing facility
which is for the home. Mr. Mokray asked about the future facility, Ms. Davis indicated that was the reason
for the condition, it is for the proposed building. Mr. Mokray asked if there will be a collecting system for
chemicals that are used in the washing process of the detailing. Ms.Davis stated it was not her understanding
they would be washing vehicles on site. Mr. Mokray stated that in detailing chemicals are used for cleaning.
Ms. Davis stated she has asked the applicant about this and they were taking the auto's off site for washing.
Mike Whistance, applicant, stated that there will be grease trap and the vehicles will be washed inside. The
detail work will be done off site by professionals. The use is to clean the vehicles, there will be no extensive
steam cleaning or anything of this nature. Mr. Mokray indicated his concern that if there is detailing occurring
they will be detailing the whole vehicle including steam cleaning of the engines. Mr. Whistance stated that
at the current location most of the vehicles received have already been detailed. Mr. Mokray asked if a
separate collecting system was required for this type of cleaning. Ms. Davis stated that there is a condition
that requires them to contact EPA and meet all the requirement,prior to recording the plat, if they will be doing
this type of washing of vehicles.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr.Whistance for clarification on what will be on the property. Mr.Whistance stated that
there will be 45-50 vehicle. Mr. Gimlin asked about the two bays on the building and their primary uses. Mr.
Whistance stated that the intensive detailing will be done inside. There is a need to have two bays so they
can both be in use at the same time. For example,while one vehicle's carpet is drying another can be started.
There will be no extensive cleaning, this will be contracted out to others that do this as a profession.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kevin Willard, neighbor and previous owners of property, indicated that this site is more suitable for
commercial property. This will be a tremendous business and it will enhance the area.
Scott Busker,would like to encourage growth along the Hwy 85 corridor. Fort Lupton has limited potential for
commercial growth. This is a great commercial business for this area.
Tony Dowdy, applicant, provided information on the septic system. $15,000 -$20,000 will be spent on the
septic system, a grease trap will be placed on the system. The system will also be an engineered system.
Chair closed the public portion
James Rohn commented that this type of growth will happen sooner or later. If Fort Lupton wants to miss the
boat then Mr. Rohn suggestion would be they should annex the site.
John Folsom commented this is an appropriate use fo the land. It is unfortunate that the City of Fort Lupton
in their report did not have the guts to approve this they just wanted to scrutinize which does not say anything.
Planning Commission has to fall back on the code which refers to the"extent legally possible." According to
Mr. Folsom belief, Planning Commission must stick by what the code states and leave it to the Board of
County Commissioners to decide if in fact it is "legally possible."
Doug Ochsner added that his trouble is with the IGA agreement and the City of Fort Lupton is using their
power to say no this should not happen because we don't want it to. The proposal has met all the rules
according to zoning but is still being denied by Fort Lupton because they do not want it.
Stephen Mokray added that it is the right application for the site, the applicant is doing his best to meet the
requirements.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission is making a legal stance against the IGA if they are
simply making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Morrison stated the
consideration of the IGA needs to be included in recommendation. The difficult aspect is applying the
language of the IGA to the actual case presented.
Stephen Mokray moved to forward Case USR-1459 to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission recommendation of
approval.
Mr. Morrison suggested that since the staff recommendation was for denial based on a single issue you are
essentially adopting that language that staff would have used had their recommendation been for approval.
Planning Commission also needs to address the IGA as to how you are dealing with this in the motion. Mr.
Mokray asked for clarification as to how to apply it to the motion. Mr. Morrison stated that there is language
in the IGA that allows for latitude for consideration. Consider rather these circumstances fall into the phrase
"to the extent legally possible." Is the uses of this property limited to where that phase would apply. It is no
appropriate to deny this application due to the limited uses available. If the consideration that the IGA does
not make sense in this case due to the limited uses,there is no other use is available. It could be stated that
the reason the Planning Commission is not relying on the IGA is there is no other reasonable use for this
property therefor it is not legally possible to deny the application.
Bryant Gimlin clarified that the motion will indicate approval on the basis that staffs recommendation for denial
based on the Fort Lupton IGA does apply due to the fact that the alternative uses on this property would be
extremely limited.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1459,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented this is a very appropriate use of the land however he cannot say in his mind that
there are no other uses of this property. Mr. Folsom would rather leave it to the Board of County
Commissioners to determine.
Bryant Gimlin commented the use is limited based on the configuration of the property and it being surrounded
by commercial uses. This does allow the county some flexibility with the IGA . A legal determination is not
being made just a recommendation.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1035
APPLICANT: Morris Quick & Mark Holliday
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 E2 NE4 of Section 6, Ti N, and part SE4 of Section 30, and part E2 E2
of Section 31, T2N, all in R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for an eight (8) lot residential
subdivision along with an 81.93 acre agricultural lot.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 39; north of and adjacent to State Hwy 52.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1035, 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.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the runway and rather this was part of this PUD. Ms. Lockman stated there are
taxi ways that will be used to get to the airstrip on the Airport PUD adjacent to this site.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman if there was any referral from the Division of Wildlife on previous case
information. Ms. Lockman stated there was a response in the sketch plan file and it indicated no conflict.
John Folsom asked about the county attorney referral. Ms. Lockman stated Mr. Morrison reviews covenants,
HOA information and improvements agreements. A referral is not always received at this stage it comes at
the final plat stage. This is part of a standard procedure. Mr. Morrison added it was really not a referral, it is
the way staff sends packages of information. The attorneys office does not recommend for or against,just
review specific items. Mr. Folsom asked if this flagpoles down to Hwy 52. Ms. Lockman stated this was
incidental in the purchase of the property. It used to be a site for a USR for a train museum, the train track
followed the general route of the land.
Doug Ochsner asked about the out lot and no water being allocated. What is currently there and how will this
change in the future? Ms. Lockman stated it is now dryland with some areas dug up, due to the removal of
the museum,that might need to be re-seeded. There has never been water there but the applicant would like
to put cattle on the lot and bring water in.
James Rohn asked the reason for CR 39 to be created or paved. Ms. Lockman stated the road does not
reach the PUD at this time, it stops at the entrance to the Airpark PUD. It will need to be brought further to
access the proposal.
Peter Schei, Public Works,added that CR 39 ends at the south end of the airport property. The applicant will
be required to build CR 39 along the frontage of the development. PUD's require a paved internal roadway
and frontage. There is a request from the applicant for alternatives to this paving.
Bryant Gimlin asked if a referral was sent to the FAA and if there are regulatory issue with the taxi ways. Ms.
Lockman indicated one can be forwarded to them. Mr.Gimlin asked about reference 2G concerning the weed
management plan. Ms. Lockman stated the soil conditions in the area need a weed management plan. Mr.
Gimlin asked about Condition 2 C 2 and 100 foot of right of way needed for Hwy 52. Mr. Schei stated this is
just the right of way that is needed for Hwy 52.
Marilyn Taylor, representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the proposal. The airport is privately
owned so the FAA does not regulate but they work closely with them. The covenants will address the
regulations of the airport. The property is rural and there is a concern with the paving of the internal road.
All surrounding roads are gravel. The HOA has granted the easement for CR 39 to Hwy 52 with the
understanding that it may be developed in the future. This will benefit the airport as well. The HOA has
placed in their projection to pave along the frontage of the subdivision and along CR 39. There will be dust
mitigation down CR 18 and on the north side of the PUD. The applicant would like to request and alternative
road treatment in lieu of paving along the front of the subdivision and the internal roadway. This is a unique
situation since they are not adjoining another residential PUD. The applicant would like to work with the
County Departments to determine another suitable method. The applicant would still like the road to be
maintained by the county. The development will be paving the taxiways for the planes. There are no runways
on the Red Baron properties. The applicant has addressed all the issues regarding Patina, Duke Energy,
Kerr McGee and the Fire Department from the Town of Hudson. There is a fire cistern that will be provided
for fire protection.
John Folsom asked if there is an agreement with mineral owners for any possible well sites. Ms.Taylor stated
they the have spoken with the involved parties. It is the applicants understanding that if Patina, Duke or Kerr
McGee would deem a well site necessary they would work with the property owners. Red Barons still owns
the mineral rights to the property as a whole. As it stands now there are no future wells on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Russell Riley, neighbor, asked where the homes will be built and is there any proposal for CR 39 to be
continued down to Hwy 52. How is the applicant addressing CR 16? Will there be a fence on the east side
of the property so his cows do not end up on their property? The area has been cleaned up nicely. A major
concern is water. Their well had to be dropped 200 feet due to lack of water. Another concern is over the
number of homes and if there will be more in the area. Erosion is an concern as the ground is sandy.
Bryant Gimlin added that CR 39 to Hwy 52 would be something in the future. Mr. Riley asked if this would
indicated a fence would be needed? Mr. Gimlin stated Planning Commission could ask the applicant. Mr.
Riley continued with the question of future growth in the area. Mr. Gimlin stated that this proposal was for
eight residential lots only. Mr. Morrison asked about the concern for the fence. Mr. Riley stated that CR 39
borders his east property line, if the road is opened and the fence torn down and who will replace it. Mr.
Morrison asked if the fence was located on the section line. Mr. Riley stated he was not aware if the fence
was on the section line. Mr. Morrison added that if the county already has the right of way they do not normally
compensate or build fences. If the right of way is acquired then arrangements can be made. Mr. Morrison
asked Mr. Schei if the right of way was to be dedicated by Red Baron Estates. Mr. Schei stated there is right
of way on the section line from Red Baron and there is right of way in various segments along the east side
of the section line. Mr. Morrison stated that Mr. Riley does not have any leverage if the County already has
the right of way but in the areas where it is not dedicated there may be some negotiation possibilities over the
fence. Mr. Riley asked where the road will be built. Mr. Morrison stated the road will straddle the section line.
Mr. Riley stated that there is a sprinkler that runs to the fence line. The sprinkler has been there for years.
Mr. Morrison stated that the negotiations would depend on if the county has the right of way or is needing to
obtain it. Mr. Riley indicated he is aware of the right of way on CR 16 but is not aware of the right of way
location on CR 39. Mr. Morrison suggested talking with Public Works to determine the location.
Chair closed the public portion.
Marilyn Taylor addressed some of the concerns brought forward. There will be eight homes in this proposal
and they are pilots who will utilize the runway. The covenants address the inability of the owners to further
split the lots. There is no intention of CR 16 being opened. The applicant feels it is better to open CR 39 to
Hwy 52. The HOA has no intentions of developing CR 39 in the near future, it will be down the road when
financially possible. In Ms.Taylor research there is an easement already existing on the east side. The well
requirements are 770 feet and this was determined by the engineers. The water decree indicates there is
adequate water with the inclusion of the 80 acre out lot. There have been request for cattle on the out lot.
At that time the covenants require the leaser of the out lot to build a fence and have water brought in. This
would give Mr. Riley a double fence essentially.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the construction phase and erosion. Ms. Taylor stated the development will be
done in phases and there is a weed management plan in the process for the out lot and lot owners. The
county has regulations on dust control during construction.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification on the requirement for the paved roads. Ms.Taylor pointed out there are
no paved roads in the area, dust mitigation is being requested instead. Pavement is being requested on CR
18 along the frontage of the subdivision and on the internal roadway. The applicant is also requesting a waiver
for sidewalk and curbs in the development. The taxi ways will be paved. Mr. Schei added that due to the
rural nature of the subdivision this would be acceptable. The paving is part of the requirements but this
situation is unique. The internal roadway will need to be maintained by the development if it is not up to county
standards. The county recommends a stabilized base on internal roadway.
Bryant G imlin asked i f t his w ill be h andled by a road improvements agreement or is it handled in the
comments. Mr. Schei stated it is handled in the comments presented. There is one sentence that need to
change in Condition 2A. The first sentence needs to be moved to Prior to recording the final plat number 5
at the beginning. There are onsite and offsite improvements agreements recommended. Ms.Taylor added
the internal roadway and taxi ways are to be maintained by the HOA according to the covenants.
James Rohn moved to delete first sentence for 2A and move it to 5. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
John Folsom asked Ms. Lockman if there needs to be access for the Fire Department. Ms. Lockman stated
that nothing was mentioned by the Fire District, therefor it was not requested.
Doug Ochsner stated in the PUD section 27-2-20 it states that an exception to paved roads may be granted
by the Director of Public Works for residential PUD's for nine lots or less. Can Planning Commission indicated
according to this section a waiver has been granted? Mr. Morrison suggested that Planning Commission
recommend that the waiver be provided.
Doug Ochsner moved that the internal roadway paving be waived according to Section 27-2-20. James Rohn
seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Morrison how this language will be reflected on the plat. Should there not be
language in the Development Standards to reflect this. Mr. Morrison stated it will show up in the
improvements agreement by not being there. There will be dust abatement issues addressed. Mr. Gimlin
added this will address the internal paving but the paving along CR 18 needs to be addressed.
Peter Schei proposed to amend 5C suggested it read "the applicant shall submit a proposed offsite
improvement agreement outlining dust stabilization for CR 39 along the entire proposed route." This would
clarify and negate the paving. It would simplify the task.
James Rohn moved to add the proposed language by staff to 5C. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1035, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented this is a good use of the PUD process.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello