HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040846.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, 1:35at p.m.
ROLL CALL Na
E�1
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray i_ ., o
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Tim Tracy Absent ) -
Doug Ochsner to
N
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Michelle Katyryniuk
•
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 17,
2004, was approved as read.
The following is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1462
APPLICANT: Prima Oil and Gas
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 34, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas production facility (four oil and gas wells) in the I-1 (Industrial) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 257; north of and adjacent to CR 62.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: USR-1428
APPLICANT: John Walkusch
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE-485; part SW4 Section 18, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, Accessory Use o r Use b y Special Review i n the C ommercial o r
Industrial Zone Districts (repair work on heavy duty trucks and farm
equipment).
LOCATION: Approximately 600 feet north of Hwy 392; 1 mile east of CR 25.
Mr. Morrison added that this case has been heard but the issue was with publication. If there is public
comment due to the re-publication, it should be taken.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
The following is on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1441
APPLICANT: Farmland Reserve Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
£.bath O r d o 3- 15-aoc-j 2004-0846
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part Lot B RE-1901; being part W2 E2 Section 1, T5N, R65W 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 or an accessory use in the Industrial Zone
District (agricultural truck terminal and wash) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 263; 1/4 mile west of CR 49.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1441, 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. Farmland Reserve, Inc. has
applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a business permitted as a use
by right or an accessory use in the Commercial Zone District (agricultural truck terminal and wash) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted January 23,
2004 by Planning Staff
The site is located North of and adjacent to Hwy 263; 1/4 mile west of County Road 49. The City of Greeley
and the Town of Kersey are within the 3 mile referral area.Vacant farm ground is directly adjacent to the site
on the west with the Greeley-Weld County Airport within '/ mile. Vacant farm ground is directly adjacent to
the site on the north with Griffin-Holder Onion Produce facility within 1/2 mile. On the south and east sides
adjacent to the property is the Murata onion storage facility. Beyond the Onion storage facility on the east side
is vacant farm ground. 1/4 mile east of the site there lies a feed lot which it permitted for 59,000 head of cattle
by SUP-163 and SUP-160. Directly south of the site there is one single family residence and a Colorado
Department of Transportation facility.
15 referral agencies reviewed this case, 10 responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. The Greeley/Weld County Airport
authority voiced concerns regarding possible odor from the site. In a referral response from Dr. Howard
Schwartz, Professor of Plant Pathology at Colorado State University, Dr Schwartz stated concerns with the
increase in humidity in the holding ponds increasing the storage rot problems in the adjacent onion shed. He
also stated concerns with the possibility of onions absorbing air-borne odors that could affect the quality of
the product. In a referral from Jessica Davis, Manure Specialist with Colorado State University, Ms. Davis
stated that it appears that there is potential for reduction in quality of the onions stored in the shed.
13 submittals from surrounding property owners have been received requesting or supporting denial of the
USR. 2 letters have been received in support
Ms. Lockman stated this has been a very difficult case for County Staff to review. Issues regarding the
contamination of vegetables have been discussed at length. However,staff has been unable to locate anyone
who is willing to say that they are an expert in this case. Further, the referral responses indicated that the
potential exists for the damage to the quality of the stored onions. They did not state that there would be a
health concern. Planning Staff also questions why, if the onion storage facilities in the area have such a great
concern with manure,fecal dust,smells ect, that they placed their facilities within 1/4 to'%mile from a 59,000
head feedlot.
Ms. Lockman indicated that staff does have major concerns with the issues being brought up by the
surrounding property owners. Especially those related to the contamination of adjacent onion storage areas.
County Staff as well as the applicant and owners of the onion facilities have made a diligent effort to locate
studies to ascertain if the fears are justified. Little was discovered that is directly related.
Stephen Mokray asked if the building shown in the pictures was on site. Ms. Lockman indicated that the
building is adjacent to the site.
Char Davis comment "in my capacity I am assigned the task of sifting out the issues directly related to the
concerns of public health. After numerous hours investigating the compatibility of a livestock truck wash
operation and an onion storage facility I found the most relevant to this application was a concentrated animal
facility in close proximity to an edible crop production. When this study was concluded, no known evidence
of food born pathogens or human illnesses were definitively linked to this situation.Survival of pathogens with
resultant contamination of the stored onions should be considered a concern but is not a known fact. Odor
and insect infestation is also a possibility u nder the right conditions. However, if the applicant follows
appropriate operating methods and the conditions and development standards as recommended by staff
these issues should be curtailed."
In closing,based on my educational background and studies available in regards to this application this is not,
in my opinion, considered a public health concern.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Lockman where the storage of onions is located. Ms. Lockman indicated north
west and south of the site.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Lockman about the use and its intensity. Ms. Lockman stated that if approved as
recommended they are limited to washing 10 trailers per day and 50 trucks parked on the lot.
James Rohn asked if the 50 trucks are cleaned and ready on a daily basis. Ms. Lockman stated the truck
terminal use will vary. They are not all there to be washed.
John Folsom asked about liability to the county if this is approved and there is proof that the operation will
have a damaging affect on the onions. Mr. Morrison stated when the county acts in a regulatory fashion it will
not be a concern. The operation is permitted so under those circumstances liability does not transfer.
Michael.M iller a sked M s. L ockman a bout the different a pplicants I isted. M s. L ockman stated t hat the
representative of the applicant can better address this.
Lauren Light,representative for the applicant,provided additional information. Ms.Light will address the basic
land use for the proposal while Tom Haren will address the waste handling system. The application was
submitted for the truck terminal only last July due to the need to get it running. The truck wash and terminal
was pursued, therefor an amendment was made to the application. Prior to the hearing concerns were
expressed by Murata Farms and a continuance was requested to attempt to mitigate those concerns. There
was some concerns as to who the applicant was. This site is 10 acre on a 56 acre lot that is owned by
Farmland Reserve. Hancock &Assoc represents LW Miller Trucking who will be leasing the 10 acres from
Farmland Reserve for the facility. This use is being pursued so LW Miller will have their own washing facility.
There is only one business of this type within 115 miles of Greeley. LW Miller Trucking hauls nationwide. Ms.
Light provided illustrations of the facilities that are in existence. The headquarters is located in Utah. Only
the inside of the trailers will be washed in the outside truck bays. Farmland Reserve farms the ground to the
west and east of this site. The advantage of this location is it is within the airport overlay district and this area
should not be used for residences according to the Master Plan for the airport. The property is located next
to existing feedlots. The access is off of Hwy 263. The odor from this facility will be minimal, there are no
animals on site and the amount of materials is much less than a livestock facility and there is a waste handling
system. Colorado Department of Transportations (CDOT) concern was number of trucks dispatched from
the site. There will be 15 trucks leaving the site. The confusion is the number dispatched and the volume of
trucks using the facility. There will be no increase of truck traffic. They will be moving locations on the same
road. An overhead with the site layout was shown. There will be a wash located inside of the shop for the
insides of the cabs. The internal bay will go through a screening system. It will be filtered through the waste
management system. The building will be self contained, there are no drains. Any material will be hauled
away by a contracted company. There will be landscaping around the building. There is a water tap and a
septic system which will be constructed to the standards. This land use is consistent with the surrounding
area. The main concern is not the land use but the impact on the stored onions close to the pond. The pond
can be moved to help mitigate concerns from the neighbor if it can be proved that there is an impact to the
onions because of the location of the pond. A majority of the reports provided indicated that none were
experts in this type of research. A report was provided from a PhD.that is an expert in air quality. Tom Haren
continued the presentation. The design and operation of the waste management system was addressed.
If this was a private truck wash on a feedlot it would not fall under commercial regulations of the State Health
Department. A Minimal Industrial Discharge application through the state must be applied for and all the
regulations will be adhered to. There is a design process required by the State. The wash water from both
the truck washes will go to a collection basin then to a dual static screen separator. This separator eliminates
a majority of the solids. The screen will be elevated and in a building. The water will then go to a oil and
grease separator and finally to either the recycle system or the lined pond. There is an existing irrigation pond
and a lined pond will be added. The lined pond will contain wash water and during irrigation season both
ponds will be combined and utilized for pivots. The pond can be moved to help mitigate the neighbor
concerns if there is proof of an impact to the onion storage. The main concern is with oil and grease. The
state MIDI application takes care of the ground water. The water will be land applied which is permitted by
the state but there will also be monitoring of this system including the farm wells in the area. This is not a
lagoon, a lot of water will be used and the pond is very diluted. The pond volume will be at a minimum. The
solids will be collected in building and taken off site. There is one existing washout, the Greeley Washout,
and the client is leasing the terminal at that facility. This application is requesting their facility to be the same
size and type as the existing facility. Mr.Haren addressed some financial perspectives on the truck wash that
has been leased by the applicant. The prices have increased for the washes to accommodate the increasing
cost for rental of the site. The applicant wants to own his own facility because of cost. The existing facility
is outdated and the cost for sale is to much besides being in the city limits of Greeley. The applicant is
requesting this land use due to cost and financial benefit for them. Continuances of this proposal cost Mr.
Harens client money per month. There is a definite need for the washout based on the financial gain for the
applicant. The applicant wants to be on a level field with the existing facility including hours of operation and
other standard. There will be no difference in the traffic,the facility will be moved 2 miles down the road. The
access will be no different. The next concern addressed will be with the onions. Bliss Produce is closer to
the existing washout than this proposed site,Murata is next to a feedlot. The washout issues regarding flies,
humidity, truck traffic and odor were valid when the onion facility was put into place. The two main concerns
regarding the onions are rot and loss and food safety issues. There have been reports done on food safety
for years. This concern has been going on for decades. Most of the reports indicate there are no concerns.
Mr. Haren cited information from reports that are included in the public record. The reports speak of
application of the manure directly onto the land not in a building 200 feet away. The food safety issue is not
relevant since the pathogens cannot get to the raw produce. Cheryl McCall, Colorado State University
Environmental Health Department, provided information regarding the pathogens in the air. Ms. McCall
reviewed her report that has been submitted as evidence. The most common mode of contamination is use
of dirty water. This is done with direct application of un-composted manure on the land. Unwashed hands
can also be a form of contamination. The exterior of produce acts as a barrier for the produce. Onions and
potatoes have these. If the surface barrier is broken there is greater risk of bacterial growth. Any food crop
grown in soil has been contaminated. Ms.McCall is unaware of any food born illness containing bacteria from
onions. Onion bulbs have antifungal and antibacterial properties. The onion maturity is the most important
in the storage of the onions rather than contamination. Harvest time is crucial. There is no evidence that
onions absorb odors. Onion is dominated by organic sulphur compounds, the chemicals are released when
the onion is cut. Ms. McCall described the research that was done to determine the possible pathogens in
the air. This research was done at two separate facilities and from varying distances during an actual truck
washout. The results of these test are available in the report submitted. The bacteria and mold counts appear
to be normal from the first facility. There were several samples taken from a wash facility as the truck was
being washed to gain better in-site on the possible contaminates.At 10 feet there were some contaminates
but at 30 feet nothing was found. The complete results of the testing from both sites is in the report submitted
and reviewed by Ms. McCall.
Stephen Mokray asked if it was her opinion that the concentration from the truck was similar to the
concentration in the pond. Ms. McCall stated the pond was less concentrated due to the dilution factor. On
the surface of a pond there is no spray or aerosol created. Mr. Mokray asked if the bacteria will breed
because of the heat from the sun. Ms. McCall stated that this bacteria is susceptible to light. It has to have
moisture and the right temperatures to survive. Mr. Mokray asked if there will be odors since the pond will
be stagnant. Ms.McCall stated there would not be because of the dilution. Mr. Mokray indicated that on Hwy
66 there are odors due to the ponds. Ms. McCall stated that this pond will be diluted and no solids whereas
those ponds are for livestock facilities.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the significance of the coliforms content. Ms.McCall stated these are an indicator
bacteria. Not all cause disease. Coliforms are present in soil and in the environment. Mr. Gimlin asked
about the measurement. Ms. McCall provided clarification with regards to the measurement and calculations
that are used. Mr. Gimlin asked about the water evaporation from a pond and if there will be an increase.
Ms. McCall stated that the bacteria would not survive well. The water in the pond is diluted with no solids.
Solids contain the bacteria. Mr. Gimlin asked if there was a type of bacteria that could become air born and
be harmful. Ms. McCall stated there is nothing different than what is in the air outside now.
Tom Haren continued with the presentation. Coliforms are a sign of fecal contamination. The applicant is
trying to show there are no issue. Bacteria is transported on dust particles or in aerosol, they are not formed
by evaporation. The a pplicant has utilized people who have d one tests o n site and valid reports from
professionals. A resume for Mike Veenheisen was submitted to prove his qualifications as a professional.
All the research indicates that the onions will not absorb odor and go bad. The impact of this site will not affect
the storage of the onions therefor there will be no impact. There is no data on onion odors. Mr.Veenheisen's
assessment was reviewed. This assessment was submitted as evidence by the applicant and is in the record.
Janine Bratta, AgPro, provided information on the onions and a test storing onions adjacent to manure that
was done by AgPro in an attempt to simulate possibilities. Mr. Miller asked for the validity of the test. Mr.
Morrison stated the representative is in the process of explaining the test and the process of that test. Ms.
Bratta described the test,the onions and the process to try and gain some data. Mr. Folsom asked if a taste
test was done. Ms. Bratta stated no because cutting the onion would release the aroma. Mr. Haren stated
the intent of the test was to show that there is no data on onions absorbing odor. It was important to the
applicant to gain real information regarding the concerns that were brought forward by the neighbors. The
only thing to regulate on is what will happen not all of the things that could or might happen. This land use
is almost identical to a use that is down the road that has been in operation for several years.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if in his opinion will this area support two establishments like this. Mr.
Morrison stated the question could be asked but how is it tied to the criteria? Mr. Folsom stated that there are
situations in which USR are applied for for negotiation purposes only. Does there still exist the possibility that
Greeley Truck Wash will be negotiated with. Mr. Morrison stated that may not be relevant to the decision.
The assumption should be made that the new facility it will exist and be used. Mr. Miller stated that the
economics of rather two sites can be supported should not be reviewed. Mr. Haren added that whether the
county will support two truck washes is not the issue.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Haren if the truck wash will use recycled water and could this affect the air tests that
were done. Mr. Haren stated recycled water will be used in the truck wash for the initial wash, then clean
water will be used. This will be subject to availability of water. The design includes operating levels in the
pond for odor controls. With regard to the odor the applicant has established setbacks of 200 feet so that
evaporation does not carry pathogens.
John Folsom asked if consideration was given to having the washout inside the building. Mr. Haren stated
that there has been an area set aside for a buffer. Ms. Lockman stated the condition in staff comments will
be part of an odor control plan. The plan will be put into place when or if odor becomes a problem.
Michael Miller asked about the number of times the applicant used the Greeley Washout and the differences
between the numbers in a letter from Mr. Dinner. Is the applicant the only company using the washout? Mr.
Haren stated the numbers are from LW Miller for washouts when they leased the facility. The numbers above
that are not known. Mr. Miller asked about parking 50 trucks and dispatching only 15 a day. If dispatching
15 a day and allowed to only wash 10,what is happening with the other 5? Mr. Haren stated that this is also
a maintenance facility so the spaces are not just for semi trucks. The spaces could have trailers in them. The
concern is the trucks coming in and out. Mr. Miller asked about the other five trailers dispatching and not
being able to wash them. Mr. Haren stated that staff indicated 10 trailers and the application indicated
approximately 10. If there is going to be a limit then the applicant would like for this to go to 15 trailers. Mr.
Miller asked Ms. Lockman if there was a limit on the number of trucks that will be dispatched. Ms. Lockman
stated that there was no limitation but the applicant must meet CDOT requirements. There is a limit on the
number of parked trucks and a limit of 10 trucks that can be washed. The applicant must follow what is in the
application. Flexibility can be granted in these areas. Mr. Miller stated the application indicates 15 trucks
dispatched and 10 trailers washed but nothing in the Development Standards or Conditions of Approval is
there a limit on either. Mr. Morrison stated it could be addressed after testimony when the conditions and
standards are discussed. It will be difficult to enforce a limit. Mr. Miller added that any of them will be tough
to enforce. Mr.Gimlin indicated a trailer would not be washed every time it comes in and out of the yard. Mr.
Haren stated that they are not always washed. The term dispatch is not applicable due to there being several
trucks from around the country that are coordinated at the same time for this business. CDOT has placed
limits and triggers for this type of business and the applicant is comfortable with this. Mr. Miller asked about
the new technology in this application. Mr. Haren stated this facility will contain a screen system that did not
exist 5 years ago. There is also designs that are sized to maintain levels regarding the water and the ponds.
Mr. Haren referred to the report from Dr.Veenheisen and the sizing design. There is equipment that was not
available when the existing facility was built. Mr. Miller asked if the collection pond used aeration. Mr. Haren
stated aeration was not used. Dr.Veenheisens report was referred regarding this concern. In aeration the
ponds need to be constructed in a specific design or it will not be affective. Mr. Miller indicated that the
Greeley Truck Wash was using aeration to keep odor down and this system is not using aeration to
accomplish the same thing.
James Rohn asked for clarification on dispatching of the trucks. Mr. Haren stated there are trucks that can
be dispatched and not come back for a week. The trucks leaving and entering the site will vary as to length
of time spent out.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jesus Perez, neighbor, indicated his property used to be a truck wash in the 1990's and he would like to know
what the difference is this time. Mr. Miller indicated the information as to why it was shut down is not known
but he is aware that it was not run within the standards required. If this case was approved it will be run
according to the standards or will be shut down also.
Lola Jo Lauck, neighbor, indicated concerns with the project. There is a concern with the number of trucks.
The issues are now affecting her home. It was stated that two business are not a concern and could be
supported. Weld County should be concerned because everyone has a right to live and have their business.
One incoming business can affect the existing business.
James Coulson, land owner, indicated concern due to the sprinkler system on the property. The material
from the pond will be put through the sprinkling system causing additional airborne pathogens.
Molly Murata, Murata Farms and neighbor, read from a letter that has been submitted into the record. The
letter expressed their concerns with the proposed facility. The ventilation is the major concern. Ms. Murata
also expressed the opinions of three separate professionals regarding the possibility of pathogens and the
affects on the onions. In summary Murata Farms cannot sell rotten onions,sell onions that smell like manure,
and cannot sell onions that are contaminated with human pathogens. This review is designed to promote the
health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants.
James Rohn asked if there is a condition on temperature or humidity. Ms. Lockman indicated there was not.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Murata about the possible contaminations from the truck wash versus the feedlot
with trucks driving by with loads of manure. Ms. Murata stated that the trucks from the wash out will be
entering by the storage unit adverse to driving by. The trucks for the feedlot do not go by the bay doors or
ventilation system.
Brian Murata, neighbor, indicated that the prevention of contamination is a new science. In food production
the regulations want to be able to go from farm to table. The regulations want everyone to be more diligent
on keeping the products safe for the consumer. The problem with the feedlot was not an issue when the
building was constructed. They are asking that nothing be added to the problem. The contents of the shed
is worth a substantial amount of money. If this is approved and a problem occurs that amount of money will
be lost. Mr. Murata would like the Planning Commission to consider who was there first and deny this
proposal.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Murata if there has ever been at any time someone who stated the onions smell like
manure. Mr. Murata stated this has not happened but the warehouse to the north has had some indication
of this. Generally the odor flows toward the river and not up the hill. The concern is adding to the existing
situations.
Stephen Mokray asked if they have ever considered a filtration system to de ionize the odor. Mr. Murata
stated they do have ozonators. The only way to filter into the ventilation system is to build a building
surrounding the vents that have enough volume and service area. In reality this is not practical.
Ed Duggan, owner of Greeley Wash Out, indicated that the representation of money spent on the washout
is not correct. The terminal money is not represented in the financial information presented. Why is there a
need for five bays when 10 trucks can only be washed. This could be a commercial washout because the
application states owned, leased or dispatched trucks. Who keeps track of trucks going in and out?
The Chair closed the public portion
Tom Haren stated that the money is still spent either renting or leasing. This facility will be owned by the
applicant giving him the right to control the expenses. There is a lot of information regarding possibilities of
pathogen concerns and ways to mitigate them. The applicant is flexible in willing to relocate the pond if
needed to help mitigate some of the concerns expressed. The applicant is willing to review ways to mitigate
as long as this process is continued. Regulations have to be made as to what is in the file not what could
happen. If something is changed an amendment has to be made.
John Folsom asked if the water in the pond could be treated to destroy the pathogens. Mr. Haren stated that
chemical or physical treatment is typically what happens. For this type of operation the physical treatment is
not practical and the chemical treatment could not be done due to the system is not designed for this. The
pond will contain good bacteria and sun rays to deplete the bacteria. Ozone is effective in removing odors
and it is also used to contain the bacteria. The best way to mitigate is to have setbacks and lack of
aerosolation.
Michael Miller asked the difference between not aerating the pond but running it through a sprinkler. This is
essentially making it air born. Mr. Haren stated aeration and aerosolation. Aeration can create aerosolation.
Aerosolation can be in sprinkler system. The sprinkler will have a 200 foot setback around the land application
areas.
Doug Ochsner asked if the minimum distance from the sprinkler to the loading door is 200 feet. Mr. Haren
stated that the distance from the sprinkler to where they are loading is more than that. In the information
presented in reports indicate there was no bacteria from 30 feet and only some at 10 feet.
Stephen Mokray asked Mr. Haren if a cover can be placed over the pond or have sprayers around the
perimeter to saturate the air and kill off the odors. Mr.Haren stated that there are concerns that can be looked
at to help mitigate. The pond can be relocated and the site can be changed for broader separation. The intent
is to keep the pond de-watered. It will contain a minimal amount of water so the liner will be saturated. The
water will be applied to land because the concentrations are low. Mr. Mokray's concern to protect another
persons investment and how to do this in a practical way.
John Folsom asked Mr. Haren for an estimate of water use and duration in a washout. Mr. Haren stated it
was approximately 3000 gallons and approximately 1 hour per trailer.
James Rohn asked for detail on how this site was chosen. Mr. Haren stated the Church of Later Day Saints
is the owner of the property in conjunction with Farmland Reserve. An employee of LW Miller is associated
with the Farr Feedlot, Mike Survey. He leases all of the Farmland ground. A discussion ensued regarding
the facility and the approached the Church about buying property. There was not a piece of property that
could be split off due to Recorded Exemption time frames. The Church identified the farmland that is good
and there are areas that could be released that would have no impact on the farming. This was one of the
areas. The applicant is leasing because it cannot be split off at this time but will be done in the future.
Michael Miller asked about the CDOT letter and the request for traffic study. Ms.Lockman stated that a study
is not being asked for at this point. Staff is asking them to get a permit and meet the CDOT requirements.
John Folsom stated that the number of trucks needs to be addressed. Mr. Miller stated that would be tough
to enforce. Based on the historical numbers presented they are below what the limits are.
James Rohn indicated his concern is the business will want to grow and what they are asking for is restrictive
to them.
Bryant Gimlin stated there is m ore concern in limiting the number of washes. The number of trips is
unenforceable. The control needs to be in the number of washes. The water generated and through the
process is the issue, rather in pond or land applicated.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1441, 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. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,no; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that this is a difficult case. The Murata's do have an investment but it has been
proven it will not affect their business.
James Rohn stated "he hates to see anybody lose money or have to worry about their family income on a
situation like this- I believe that two feedlots to the east of them are would possess a greater harm-I am very
reluctant to vote no in a minute but I am going to have to say yes."
Stephen Mokray commented he is concerned about the onion storage,all the considerations for that business
may not have been reflected.
Bryant Gimlin commented that the applicant has demonstrated there is no significant chance of harm to the
onion shed.
Mike Miller commented that he encourages the applicant to have an alternative location for the pond prepared
prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing. It will not be a significant threat but it is a concern.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1454
APPLICANT: Michael Arrington
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-354; part of S2 SE4 Section 33, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas support and service facility, semi-trailer and cargo containers, situated
as permanent storage units, and a use permitted as a use by right, an
accessory use, or a use by special review in the commercial or industrial
zone districts, (an industrial machine shop) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 50; 1/2 mile west of CR 43.
Michelle Katyryniuk,Department of Planning Services,read a letter requesting a continuance to April 6,2004.
The legal description is incorrect.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1461
APPLICANT: Rodney& Karen Steely
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-787; being part of the SW4 of Section 14; and a portion of
the NW4 of Section 23, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas support and service facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 34; 340 feet west of CR 45%.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1461, 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.
John Folsom asked about the exact facilities that will be on the site. Ms. Lockman stated there will be one
shed which will be the shop and their home.
Michael Miller asked why this is designated as oil and gas support when it is a trucking facility. Why designate
a specific type of trucking, if the type of business changes will an amendment have to be made? Ms.
Lockman stated that staff would determine rather it was a substantial change to determine rather an
amendment was needed. This is the way it is listed in the code under Mineral Resource Development
Facilities. There is no separate listing for agricultural trucks. Mr. Miller stated the applicant is hauling crude
oil from tanks to terminals, drilling rigs are not being hauled. Mr. Morrison stated refined petroleum products
are treated different, there is not a specific category. The code addresses certain kinds and not others. Mr.
Miller stated his concern is if the oil business goes bad and the applicant goes to hauling cattle, this cannot
be done since the application is limited to an oil and gas facility. Mr. Morrison stated that it would likely require
an amendment. Mr. Miller does not like placing an applicant in one category that he must stay in. Ms.
Lockman stated that there are items that will be reviewed in determining a substantial change. Mr. Miller
asked if an application for a trucking company would have come in would staff have asked about the type of
commodities to be hauled. Ms. Lockman stated that the application does ask for what is being stored on site.
Mr. Morrison stated that if a general trucking application with maintenance was made and they will haul
anything, it would be evaluated on that basis.
Jim Vetting, representative for applicant and landowner, provided clarification on the proposal. The initial
concern from the neighbors was with the road and the access. The access has been changed so it will not
run directly behind the adjacent homes to the east. The only concern is the hours of operation.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about the change to the road and if this was a concern. Ms. Lockman
stated that was one of the conditions of approval that needed to be addressed by the applicant.
John Folsom asked if there were any issues with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Ms.
Lockman indicated CDOT has spoken with the applicant and relayed to staff the number of trucks in and out
on the site. The only comment was concerning the right of way width.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kathy Weigle,neighbor,indicated concerns with the access. Property value is a concern along with the view.
The water rights have been sold and it will never be agricultural. The growth was assumed to be residential
not industrial. This type of facility is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. The trucks will be
operating 7 days a week 24 hours a day. Ms Weigle is aware that the applicant is limited to 9 trucks on site
or a turn lane will be needed according to CDOT. This intersection on Hwy 34 is a very congested
intersection. There is a concern for the future plans of the remaining acres. The applicant is willing to attempt
to block the view of the shop with landscape or fencing. The landscaping would be very difficult due to the
water concerns. The water for the landscaping will be from Central Weld County Water District which will be
costly, a fence might be better option. Ms. Weigle is opposed to this.
Michael Miller asked Ms.Weigle if she would rather have houses than a business. Ms.Weigle indicated she
would. The homes would not affect her property value but it could possible increase,a business such as this
will be detrimental.
Gary Wagner, neighbor, indicated concern with the trucks hauling oil and will they be cleaned or could this
be contaminated. The hours of operation are a great concern being 24/7. Mr. Miller stated that the hours of
operation will be worked on and this type of business is heavily regulated.
Cliff Kellgore, neighbor, indicated concern with the access and the time of trucks running. There will be
congestion at the intersection of the highway.
Rodney Steely, buyer of property, provided further information with regards to the project. There is no way
to know how long the crude oil business will occur. Right now the oil is being hauled from Weld County. It
is difficult to find a place where this type of business is welcome. A tanker operation is scrutinized by several
different agencies. When this property was reviewed it seemed as though 28 acres would be enough to not
cause a burden on the neighbors. The operation is 24 hours a day. The bulk of the trucks go out from noon
to 2:00pm and return at midnight to 2:00am. There is a possible expansion because the market is good for
crude oil. There are currently seven trucks and all seven will be running. There will be on site oils and grease
for maintenance but there will be no fuel. There is no intent to have any contamination of oils. In the future
the hope is to have a washing facilities. The applicant will do their best on the landscaping to mitigate the
neighbors concern. The residences to the east are 15 feet above this land. Landscaping will be better than
the fence. The intent is to keep the area in a natural state.
Doug Ochsner asked about the expansion and if this would put them over the 9 trucks. Mr. Steely stated it
would and this would not occur right away.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Sheri Lockman asked Mr. Morrison about the expansion if this would be a concern when they go over the 9
trucks. Mr.Morrison stated this is a potential problem because the 7 trucks have been published and referred
to. There is some flexibility but staff needs to use what is proposed as the maximum. This can be proceeded
with and then evaluate according to what is in the application. Ms. Lockman stated the application did not list
a number of trucks,just what was involved in the operation. CDOT stated there would be 10 trips for the
single family dwelling, 7 trucks total for the business, 6 on site or 12 trips per day, 7 employees for a total of
36 trips. Mr. Morrison stated the number came about as result of the referral not prior to the referral. He
would not be limited to that number if it was not in the original proposal. Ms. Lockman stated that there would
need to be something from CDOT if the number is increased. There is also a condition that addresses
meeting the requirements of CDOT. Mr. Miller asked where CDOT got the number of 7. Ms. Lockman
indicated that in an email she received stated the only concern from CDOT was the right of way after CDOT
discussion with the applicant. Ms. Lockman emailed CDOT asking them what the applicant had told them.
In a return email CDOT indicated the applicant had told them 7 trucks.Mr.Carroll added that CDOT's request
is usually adhered to. If 7 is identified as a maximum and when they exceed this there will be further requests
for possible turn lanes.
Michael Miller stated that 7 trucks will not be enough for the proposed use. Mr. Steely indicated in his
testimony he will soon exceed the 7 trucks. The Development Standards can be expanded beyond 7 trucks
but a CDOT referral is then needed. Mr.Morrison stated that the referral indicated if they exceed that number
there will need to be improvements made. There are Development Standards to address CDOT
requirements. Planning Commission can proceed and address the Development Standards with the
applicant.
Bryant Gimlin commented that Development Standards#3 indicates that 7 trucks will be stored on site. This
could be eliminated as long as any expansion requires approval from CDOT.
Michael Miller has concerns with the number of trucks in conjunction with the location. Historically Planning
Commission has denied cases of this type and suggested going to an industrial type zone due to the hours
of operation. This is the same type of operation and is this an appropriate location. Mr.Gimlin added that the
Development Standards call for a daylight operation and Mr. Steely has indicated that this operation requires
24 hours a day. Mr. Miller has trouble supporting a 24 hour a day business in this location with this intensity.
James Rohn stated that if Planning Commission is going to allow more trucks there must be a limit. The
previous case was on county road and this one is on a State Hwy. This proposal is not as near to homes as
other case was.
Doug Ochsner commented he feels this is off a state highway therefor it will lead to more industrial type use.
If this becomes a major amount of trucks this is significant and different from the small operation being
represented.
Stephen Mokray believes they should be consistent. He does not support this type of operation in the area.
There will be complaints and it is out of place.
Michael Miller indicated that compatibility of present and future uses of the area must be considered. There
are residences increasing i n t he a rea. T he area a djacent to Hwy 34 i s m ore prone t o industrial type
development. This may not be the best area for this.
Bryant Gimlin stated there are three issues-the number of trucks,the hours of operation and the washing of
the trucks. It needs to be determined if the applicant is in agreement with these because it will make a
difference in the application.
Jim Vetting,representative,indicated that this is a business operation and limiting the number of trucks would
cause a strain. The applicant would like to have the ability to have more trucks. This is a 24/7 operation just
like the oil and gas industry. It is more of an emergency situation for the tank to be emptied. Mr.Gimlin stated
this goes to the amount of impact on surrounding neighbors. 20 trucks has more impact than 7 and 24 hours
a day is a significant impact. Mr.Vetting stated that CDOT was the ruling party on the intersection. Mr.Gimlin
stated that Planning Commission is trying to evaluate the impact on the neighbors. Mr.Vetting added that the
reason for the State Hwy is to have accesses for business like this. Mr. Miller added that a bigger impact is
the hours of operation.
Jim Vetting indicated concerns with Development Standards concerning the hours of operation and the
applicant is requesting to change this to 24hours a day 7days a week.
John Folsom stated that an operation like this has to be 24/7 or it will not work.
Doug Ochsner stated that the application needs to be decided based on the applicants need for a 24/7
operation.
Stephen Mokray stated he would not vote for a 24/7 operation and this is not the right place for this type of
operation.
Sheri Lockman stated that a previous case was approved by Board of County Commissioners but the hours
of operation were changed to indicate daylight hours except in the case of an emergency they could respond.
Staff can ask for proof of that emergency. Mr. Miller stated an emergency is a public emergency involving life
and death. Mr. Morrison stated that emphasis was placed on hours of operation were placed on the receiving
disposal facilities which are not allowed to accept material for disposal after 10:00pm. That framed what
constituted an emergency.
Bryant Gimlin added that if this was a 24 hour operation he would vote against it because of the impact, but
a daylight operation would be more of a minor impact. The application states the hours vary depending on
need for pick up. The drivers will pick up the trucks between 6:00am and 11:00am and return in the late
afternoon or early evening. This would support the daylight hours approach. There are two ways to approach,
either change the Development Standards to be 24 hours and vote against and leave the Development
Standards and potentially vote for it. Mr. Miller added that if the hours were limited the business could not run.
Mr. Miller opened the public portion to ask Mr. Steely for clarification.
Mr. Miller asked Mr.Steely if his business could be done during daylight hours only. Mr.Steely responded No,
Sir.
James Rohn moved to approve and there was no second.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1461, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. 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;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner stated that based on the information that this operation cannot run on daylight hours and that
is what the Development Standards indicated the vote was for denial.
John Folsom commented this does not conform with the following sections:
Section 23-2-220 A-1
Section 23-2-220 A-3
Section 23-2-220 A-4
Section 23-2-220 A-7
Let the record reflect that Attorney Bruce Barker has taken the place of Attorney Lee Morrison
CASE NUMBER: USR-1460
APPLICANT: Western Equipment&Truck Inc
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3284; part of the N2 NW4 of Section 24,T5N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review
in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts,(vehicle maintenance,repair,
parts supply and sales, paint booth, retail, truck stop facilities and vehicle
sales) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 34; east of and adjacent to CR 47.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1460, 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 along with
additional conditions from staff.
James Rohn asked Ms. Katyryniuk if there was ever any referral received from the Division of Wildlife or any
other referral agencies that have not commented. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated they none have been received.
Mr. Rohn asked about mineral notification and how it could be proven this requirement was actually
accomplished. Mr. Barker stated that the certified mailing is done once the card is received back. Mr. Rohn
concern is not getting a copy of that return card. Mr. Barker stated it would be nice to have this come back
and actually be able to show this but in terms of the notification it is a requirement that the must be sent but
there is no requirement that they actually show them.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Katyryniuk about the reference of the applicant dividing the property into 3 lots and
how this is not done on in the USR process, but how does this affect his application. Ms. Katyryniuk stated
that according to the plat map there are 6 lots that are defined. Those lots need to be referred to as areas.
This is not creating separate lots. Mr. Miller clarified that 6 lots are not being created,just one USR is being
designated with areas. Ms. Katyryniuk stated lots will be stricken from plat.
Kenneth Alles,representative of applicant,provided clarification on the project. There are several issues with
the conditions that will be addressed later. Mr. Miller asked for details on the site. Mr. Alles stated that the
eastern portion of the site will be for Peterbuilt for a wash and maintenance facility. This is not a typical truck
stop,it is truck sales and a maintenance facility. The second facility will be north with similar uses. The areas
will be leased not sold. There will two warehouses in the south west portion of the property. The applicant
understands that the USR will need to be amended when additional areas become leased. Mr. Miller asked
if Western will continue to operate the store in Greeley or are they planning on moving to this site. Bob
Condon, project manager for Western Equipment, indicated it is not their intention to move from the existing
facility to this area. The intent is for it to be leased to Peterbuilt. This area is a good site for transportation
related services.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lillian Mekelburg,mineral owner,indicated their concern for the property. As a mineral owners she would like
to make sure that the right of way is established and the ability to drill more wells on the site is addressed.
Mr.Miller stated there are provision in the Development Standards and Conditions that address this and must
be done prior to recording them or the plat. Ms. Mekelburg would like copies of the agreement.
Gary Alles, adjacent land owner,would rather have homes than a commercial business. This new business
will increase traffic. This first change of use sets the tone for future uses. The property values will be
affected. Commercial business in this area is not consistent with the way things should be planned. This
business is not in support of the farmers it is a commercial business. Is there going to be limits placed on the
hours of operation and the number of trips per day? What are the plans from CDOT and the County on CR
47? Are there any guidelines that will ensure that this proposal will not affect the surrounding neighbors and
their property values? Western has been storing trucks at this site for six months. What is the status of the
lawsuit the County has with Western Equipment? " Is i t better to ask for forgiveness rather than get
permission."
Bruce Barker commented that the complaint has been prepared by the County Attorneys office to serve but
given the fact the applicant had been told by the Department of Planning Service that if they submitted the
USR a pplication f or t his t here would be no action brought forth b y t he County. T he Board o f C ounty
Commissioners has instructed the County Attorneys office to wait until the case goes through the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Miller indicated that there was nothing addressing the
storage of used trucks so how does this application change the violation. Mr. Barker stated if it is not included
in the application the County Attorney's office will proceed with case. He will ask the Board of County
Commissioners about this.
Michael Miller stated that the hours of operation are described in the Development Standards as daylight with
exception of the administrative offices. Mr. Carroll addressed the 3/4 access question and the right in right
out. The Hwy 34 Access Corridor Plan was reviewed and all intersections and access points are addressed
in this. This location is a T intersection. According to the access corridor plan this access is a full movement
un-signalized intersection. Mr. Miller asked about the access onto CR 47 and anyone leaving the site must
turn east. Mr. Carroll stated when it is modified by the state it will become a 3/4 movement intersection, it is
now a full movement. The access identified in on CR 47 then to Hwy 34. Ms. Katyryniuk added that a memo
from CDOT wants all accesses on Hwy 34 to be closed except for the oil and gas access. The only access
to this site will be off CR 47.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Mr. Miller asked if Public Works has anything to add. Mr.Carroll stated that any questions the applicant may
have can be addressed separately.
Ken Ales indicated the applicants concerns with Condition C3 which is the screening. The leases want to
display their trucks for sale and therefor screening would discourage this. Mr. Miller asked about the intent.
Ms. Katyryniuk stated the screening is for off street parking. Staff can work with the applicant on the type and
different ways of screening that can be used. Mr.Alles continued with concerns on the access being closed
off Hwy 34. The plan was to exit the site onto Hwy 34. A cul-de-sac can be put in but the applicant would
prefer not to. The condition states the CR 47'/:access cannot be used. Mr. Miller stated this was a direction
from CDOT and it would need to be dealt with according to them. Mr.Alles added that the applicant is working
with the mineral owners on developing the other oil well location. The lots can be can be referred to as areas
on any future maps. Another concern is with 2K-which is parking. The number of spaces seems extreme.
Ms. Katyryniuk stated the number is based on a calculation from the code. The numbers used were are from
square footage numbers in the application. Mr. Miller asked if the different proposed uses determine the
number of spaces. Ms.Katyryniuk stated that the uses are warehouse,office and retail. The square footage
numbers from the application is what the calculation is based on. Mr. Miller asked what the suggestion of the
applicant was. Mr.Alles proposed using the classification for the calculation. The classification for the large
warehouse is one space per 1000 feet. The numbers can be clarified. Mr. Barker asked Ms. Katyryniuk if
this was based on square footage. Ms. Katyryniuk stated it was it is also in the landscape referral from Mr.
Ogle.
James Rohn asked what kind of employee amount is expected. Mr.Alles stated there will be 40 employees
in two shifts. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Katyryniuk if each of the uses will have to go back through administrative
review or is this the final. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that in area 3, if any development occurs they will amend the
USR to include the use. There are also Development Standards for areas 5&6 which are warehouses, if that
use is to be something else they will need to amend. Mr. Barker added that the number of parking spaces
that is determined is based on the square footage. This is something that may not be flexible. Ms. Katyryniuk
stated that the truck sales area must also be taken into consideration for retail. Ms. Lockman added that the
numbers come from a chart in the code. It is not just based on normal square footage. Mr. Miller thinks the
number of parking spaces is extreme. Mr.Barker stated the nature of the USR process constitutes the reason
for the number. There must be criteria to go by. Mr. Miller asked if a condition could be made to where the
applicant will need to build a certain number of spaces and then when the amendments arise they would be
required to add additional spaces calculated to the use. Mr. Barker stated that these are conditions that will
need to be met prior to the recording of the plat. Once the plat is recorded the burden is shifted to the County
to prove it is not happening.
Bryant Gimlin recommend that this be identified by the Planning Commission and let the Board of County
Commissioners deal with the specifics. Mr. Miller agreed this is an issue that the Board of County
Commissioners will need to address. Mr. Carroll added that the truck sales was reviewed as parking areas
for selling pickups and tractor trailer rigs. A tractor will take a larger space,there might need to be input from
the applicant as to what type and percentage of vehicles will be there to evaluate the parking needed better.
Bryant Gimlin added there could be a number of possible alternatives but the Board of County Commissioners
needs to address the parking spaces due to the calculation being in the code.
Ken Alles addressed a landscape referral included in the packet. Mr. Miller stated that the Development
Standards and Condition were built upon the received referrals. Mr. Alles indicated that the square footage
of a building was incorrect therefor the calculation for the parking spaces would be incorrect.
Michael Miller indicated that the screening should not be an issue due to the fact staff has already indicated
they will work with the applicant to address those concerns. Parking is the only other issue.
James Rohn moved to approve staffs recommendations for a new L stating " The applicant shall submit
additional information to the Department of Planning Services clarifying the number of employees for the site
which will be included in the number of parking spaces for the site."and re-letter. Change Condition 1 to read
April instead of March. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Ken Alles asked for clarification with regard daylight hours. If they are interpreting them correctly they do
agree. Mr. Miller stated that the hours are daylight with the exception of the administrative offices and
maintenance of the equipment. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Barker about the language concerning the maintenance
since maintenance of equipment is done beyond daylight hours. Mr.Barker indicated the daylight hours would
be applicable even with the exception for maintenance and administrative offices.
Doug Ochsner stated that this is a similar area that was just denied because it was not compatible. Under
this type of thinking this needs to be done here, however, it may need to be re-reviewed for future
compatibility.
Bryant Gimlin commented that this is urban scale in an agricultural area. The USR is inappropriate and the
applicant should be doing a PUD because there will be different uses and owners. There will be lots of traffic
and a significant impact. The Planning Commission is limited in determining the impact because all of the
uses are not yet identified. The use is very intense in an agricultural area and the USR is not appropriate for
the type of development.
James Rohn commented his disappointment is this case being first in violation and then expanding.
Stephen Mokray commented that there is little difference between this and the previous case. There are no
neighbors that will be bothered by this use. This is a piecemeal application,if Planning Commission approves
the first proposal they will be locked into approving the amendments. This is not a complete package due to
not knowing the future uses.
John Folsom stated there is a problem in the conversion of agricultural land because this is prime farm land.
Hwy 34 will eventually be developed commercial.
Michael Miller commented that this application is incomplete. They are asking Planning Commission to
approve something without a conceptual idea. There is also an issue to having one access onto Hwy 34 and
everything exiting onto CR 47. There is no question that this area will become commercial. The concept is
good,a truck dealership would be adequate for the area. This application is not complete or detailed enough
or in right format.
Mr.Gimlin added that the IGAwants to push this type of development to the urban areas not out. The corridor
will be developed but it should be done from the City outwards not the country inwards.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1460, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Bryant Gimlin 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; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn indicated the reason for the denial was based on the following sections:
Section 23-2-220 A-1
Section 23-2-220 A-2
Section 23-2-220 A-3
Section 23-2-220 A-6
John Folsom commented that the USR is not the correct format, it should be a PUD.
Stephen Mokray commented that it is incomplete and he would like to see them come back with a whole
complete application.
Bryant Gimlin commented that this use would be better applied for with a PUD application. There are
inadequate ingree/egress on Hwy 34 and the full usage of the USR was unidentifiable.
Michael Miller commented that if the Board of County Commissioners does consider this for approval the
number of parking spaces will need to be addressed.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello