HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031046.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, 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 , at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn Absent
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
John Hutson
Bernard Ruesgen Absent J
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present:Kim Ogle,Sheri Lockman,Pam Smith,PeterSchei,Don Carroll,Wendi Inloes,Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 1, 2003,
was approved as read.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: MF-609
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Steve Klen & Lori Guttenstein
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2912; being part of the W2 Section 2, T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Rat for a Six (6) Lot Minor Subdivision (Moorea Manor)
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 21 1/2 and North and adjacent to WCR 24 %.
For a more precise location, see legal.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1421
APPLICANT: Corrine Lewis &Troy & Kristi Miller
PLANNER: Wendi Inloes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 NW4 Section 20, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a single
family dwelling unit(other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20A) in
the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 3; %mile south of WCR 32.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1034
APPLICANT: Margaret&George Reynolds
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4SE4, E2NE4 and part NW4NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Request to rezone a parcel from R-5 (Mobile H ome Residential) to A
(Agricultural).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; approximately 3/4 mile East of
WCR 13.
John Folsom asked Mr.Gathman about the zoning issues. Mr.Gathman indicated a special use application
is pending. A portion of the property was zoned from Agricultural to R-5 back in 1981. The pending special
use permit will correct the situation. The use is agricultural in nature.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Consent agenda
6caca "'i3`"a`"_ Page -1-
y- cag- 3 2003-1046
approved.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-582
APPLICANT: Joel E. &Angela L. Ritchey
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 NE4 and part W2 Section 23, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for five (5)residential lots and
one (1) non-buildable agricultural outlot.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 47 section line; South of and adjacent to
WCR 32 section line.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-582,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. Ms. Lockman indicated that
the Andarco and Kerr McGee were not notified according to state requirements. Both have agreed to waive
the requirement if the applicant is willing to enter into an agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners hearing. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to do so. Staff is requesting an
amendment to condition 1 A deleting"or show evidence of an adequate attempt has been made to mitigating
the concerns." This will limit the applicant to entering into an agreement.
Joel Ritchey,applicant,stated his concerns with a few of the items in the conditions of approval. There are
four items of concern. The first being item 2D asking for a alternative renewable water resource. The
applicant has worked with the State Water Engineer and a 100 year water aquifer was established. The
county requested a 300 year. The applicant was able to meet this by adding the 80 acres of open space.
The closest water is 3 miles away at a dairy. Mr Miller asked Ms. Lockman for clarification. Ms. Lockman
stated it was a requirement for any subdivision that has water from a Denver basin water aquifer. They are
not tributary, they do not replenish. The requirement is from the code. There is water in the area and staff
is not asking for anything more than evidence of what it would take to bring water from Central Water which
is in Beebe Draw. A letter stating this would be sufficient. Mr. Morrison added that it is also an option to
include in the covenant language ensuring that the homeowners have an understanding that there is a
possibility that they could be assessed to bring water in. This would need to be set up and addressed in the
covenants. The second issue is #2 M concerning the surrounding ditches. Mr. Ritchey indicated that
Farmers Reservoir has abandoned the West Nerez ditch and there is a quit claim that will be sent out stating
that. Mr. Morrison indicated that this is located in prior to recording the plat so the issue will be addressed
by then. Mr. Ritchey added that the Sheriff Department recommends a shelter for bus loading and
unloading and a sidewalk. There is no place for sidewalk. The homes will be off the road and a shelter
would be another maintenance hassle. Additionally, the school district has indicated they like the children
to come from each house adverse to a shelter for the group of them. There is less problems. The
postmaster from Gilcrest has indicated that they would rather have the mailboxes at each home not in a
cluster. The Sheriff would like to see a cluster. With regard to the picking up of the children, the school
district has required a cul de sac for turn around purposes. The decision for final pick up, rather at each
home or cluster,is up to the individual bus drivers. The landscape in the area will be better without a shelter.
Mr. Miller indicated that a number of subdivisions were required to place a shelter where the kids are being
picked up. Mr. Ritchey addressed the final item of concern. The county has had issues with CR 47 and the
neighbor that abuts the section line. In the original conversations it was required to build north from the
entrance into the subdivision. Mr.Ritchey is providing the 60 foot easement,that is being purchased by him,
to the county. This will alleviate the current issue between the neighbors. The issue is the additional 600
feet of roadway that is being asked to be built on the south end of the property. This roadway does not
access anything, nor does it go anywhere.
Peter Schei indicated that developers are asked to build along the frontage of the properties. One of the
concerns is to think long term and the possibility that CR 47 will eventually go through. The Department of
Public Works asks that the road be built at this time. Mr. Miller asked if it accesses the property. Mr.Schei
stated it does not, it is just along the frontage. Mr. Ritchey provided clarification with regard to the road and
the area he is building along with the area that is being requested by Public Works. The entrance into the
subdivision is from the north side. Mr. Ritchey stated he is willing to dedicate his 30 of Right-of-way along
his property to the south of the entrance. Mr. Miller asked if the easements for the road were owned by Weld
County. Mr.Schei stated that it was an issue in the courts regarding a section line dispute. Mr. Miller stated
that what is being asked is that the road be brought up to county standard and then there is no use. Mr.
Page -2-
Schei indicated that it would leave an open area if things were developed from the south and this section
was not done. Mr. Miller asked if it would be sufficient if a condition were to be placed that stated if CR 47
were ever to be built to that point Mr.Ritchey would have to improve his frontage to standards. Mr. Morrison
stated he agreed to Mr. Ritchey that there is no use for the road then there is no demand for the use for the
road by the subdivision. It is not really appropriate to construct with there being no intention of using the
road. There can be a dedication of the right of way. This would allow the building from the south and
connectivity to the north. The ones that generate the traffic are the ones that need to be assessed.
Peter Schei indicated the issue of concern is located in 5 R. Mr. Miller indicated that it could be 1500 feet
not 2100 feet that is to be built to standards. Mr. Gimlin stated that language would need to be added to
address the dedication of the right of way on that portion of ground. Mr. Schei indicated that the change
would be acceptable. Mr. Miller suggested adding language to 5 Q to clarify that the full length of the
property will be dedicated. Mr. Ritchey has provided and easement dedication for right of way to the east
for CR 47. Mr. Ritchey indicated he is willing to dedicate his 30 feet along his entire property boundary.
Michael Miller indicated concern for the bus shelter. Ms. Lockman stated that nothing has been received
from the school with regard to having a shelter or not. It is in writing from Weld County Sheriff Office. Staff
would be happy with the shelter unless evidence from the school district is presented indicating an individual
lot pick up.
Sheri Lockman indicated that staff would be happy to amend the language on 5 O to state"A shelter shall
be included in the bus pickup area unless evidence is submitted from the school district indicating individual
lot pick up is preferred."
Stephen Mokray moved to adopt the language as stated by Ms. Lockman for 5 O. John Hutson seconded.
Motion carried.
Mr. Miller questioned the status of the mailboxes and if there was anything in writing. Ms. Lockman stated
that staff will accept something in writing from the postmaster indicating that individual mailboxes are
requested. This is how it is basically stated in the conditions. The next item of concern is the 600 feet of
CR 47 completion by the applicant. Mr. Miller believes this is more than necessary due to the fact the road
will not be utilized. Mr. Gimlin asked for clarification with regard to the right of way. Mr. Ritchey has the
capability of only dedicating 30 foot of right of way. Mr. Schei stated that if they are not using that portion
of the right of way they will not require it from the adjacent land owner. It will not be used for access into the
subdivision. Mr. Miller asked if the 30 feet dedication to the south needs to be addressed. Mr. Schei
indicated there needs to be new language added addressing the dedication.
John Folsom moved to add language to 5 R to state"The applicant will dedicate 30 feet of right of way from
the access point south to the end of property." Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend 5 R to state "....the distance to 1500 feet, (to the entrance of the
development)" Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Hutson moved to remove the language in 1 A "..or show evidence..." Stephen Mokray seconded.
Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-582, along with the amendments, 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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; John
Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1036
APPLICANT: JMF Cattle Company/Grant Brothers do Doug Grant
Page -3-
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2NW4,SW4NE4,NW4SE4 of Section 20,T1N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural) to 1-3 (Industrial).
LOCATION: 0.5 miles North of WCR 6 and East of and adjacent to WCR 27.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-1036, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The City of Fort Lupton's
referral requested denial for this application.
John Folsom asked if the applicant has petitioned for annexation to Fort Lupton. Mr.Ogle indicated that they
have approached the city on two separate occasions.
Tom Haren,representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the project. An attempt is being made
for the sale of the property as a feed yard but there are obstacles. There has been a history of dust
complaints. This property is land locked on all sides with the only entrance being over a railroad track. This
is not a viable location for a residential project with one access. There are new federal regulations for feed
lots in which this site would need to be upgraded considerably. Lauren Light, Land Professionals, provided
information with requirements with the County Code. There are five requirements according to the code that
must be met. The first requirement is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan encourages the
location of industrial district where adequate services are currently available. The conversion of agriculture
to industrial is encouraged where services are available. The expansion and diversion of the industrial
economic base. A well divided industrial sector is encouraged. There is a transportation system in place
with CR 27 and Hwy 85. CR 6 and Hwy 85 is a signaled intersection. The property has well permits that
allow for commercial uses and fire protection. A commercial septic permit will be required at the time of site
plan review. Services are currently available or are obtainable. The second requirement is that the use is
compatible. The area is zoned Agriculture and Industrial. This area is in transition. A site plan review will
be required before any industrial use can be located on the property. The review will address performance
standards that are defined in the code.Referral agencies will have the opportunity for review. The third issue
is adequate water shall be made available. This property has approved well permits. The fourth issue is the
street and highway. Some items are addressed in conditions of approval. Additional items will be addressed
at the time of the site plan. The final item is the overlay districts. Commercial/Mineral deposits and soil
conditions are not an issue. There is direct connectivity to a railroad track as well as the state highway
system. Mr. Haren added the property is practical for the industrial type zoning. This property is not
adequately designed for a residential project due to the limitations for transportation. Mr. Haren indicated
that Fort Lupton was spoken with by the client. The client offered to absorb the cost for utilities and then
annex. Fort Lupton was not interested. A formal petition process was not offered from Fort Lupton. This
site is well suited for commercial septic system according to a geotechnical study already done. The only
negative referral received was from Fort Lupton. This is the only use for this property. The referral requests
denial to the"extent legally possible." The applicant went back to Fort Lupton in an effort to gain support
and provide information with regard to the proposed project. The planner indicated that they do not support
any urban development.
Michael Miller asked about the railroad crossing and what types of businesses could build there. Mr. Haren
indicated there is no plan for this site. It will be marketed as Industrial and any proposal has to go through
a site plan before passing. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ogle if a site plan review is administrative. Mr. Ogle
indicated that was correct.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the process with Fort Lupton. Mr. Haren indicated that there was no formal
petition for annexation because the client did not proceed that far. There were two meetings with planners
and the town brought the issue up at a Planning Commission hearing. The location of the property is too far
away.
Mr. Haren indicated some issues with condition of approval 2E. The property is not adjacent therefore it
should be deleted. 2H -labeling the change of zone plat with all the existing structures is something that is
Page -4-
with the site plan review. They are rezoning the property nothing more at this time. 2K-there is a duplicate
with a Department of Public Health and Environment and their requirement to delineate on the plat. 2L-the
applicant has met with the Department of Public Works and all their issues are dealt with in item 2. 2M-Fort
Lupton has indicated it does not want to annex the property. There is a very limited way that the applicant
can address the issues.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Schei why Hwy 85 right of way is being addressed when the property is on CR 27.
Mr. Schei indicated that they have very little specifics on the development. There needs to be some
coordination for future planning with regard to the transportation. There needs to be more clarification. Mr.
Miller indicated it would be more appropriate at the site plan review due to the lack of information as to what
industrial business will reside there. Mr. Schei stated that the change of zone might contribute to the traffic
in the surrounding area including the highway. The applicant will have to contribute to the transportation
improvements. Mr. Miller stated that the change of zone plat will not even show Highway 85. It is more
appropriate at the site plan review stage. Mr.Schei agreed that 2E should be deleted. Mr. Miller questioned
the need to label all the existing structures. Mr. Schei stated that this is a normal requirement. There is
nothing showing what is on the property now. It is good to know what was there as far as infrastructure. Mr.
Schei stated that 2L is a general statement. This statement can be deleted.
Kim Ogle addressed 2M indicating that the applicant is asked to address the concerns from Fort Lupton.
Written acknowledgment of what was said will be sufficient. The applicant can then move on. Mr. Ogle
stated that the Fort Lupton referral addressed other issues with regard to inner streets and drainage. These
would need to be addressed.
Michael Miller addressed each of the concerns from Mr. Haren with the Planning Commission and their
inclination as to how to address them. Mr. Miller stated that maintaining a plat that included labeling of the
structures would not harm anyone and would be good to have on the record. It would help determine a
relative impact for any new proposal.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete 2 E & L. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller stated his biggest concern is that the land is land locked across the railroad tracks. Everything
has to access as at the railroad.
John Folsom indicated there is no issue with compatibility. The issue is with the IGA. The applicant has not
submitted an annexation package to Fort Lupton. The applicant has not fulfilled the requirements with the
IGA with Fort Lupton. Mr Miller indicated that it is pretty black and white with the overide of the IGA
agreement. The agreement is nonfunctional. Mr. Morrison added that the provision Mr. Haren was alluding
to were"to the extent legally possible." The argument is that there is no economic use except for what is
being applied for. The county cannot commit a taking to satisfy the agreement. Mr. Folsom asked Mr.
Morrison where the language was located in the code that identified with Mr. Haren's argument. Mr. Ogle
clarified that the property is in the three mile referral area, not in the IGA boundary. It is outside the IGA
boundary. The language Mr. Folsom was citing is if the property falls within the IGA area. The annexation
requirement is not applicable. Fort Lupton is asking for denial based on the terms of the IGA. Mr. Folsom
asked Mr. Ogle if that was the basis for denial in the review. Mr. Ogle indicated that was correct, the
applicant is within the three mile area but not the required annexation area. Based on the language in the
IGA,the city of Fort Lupton has the option of recommending denial of any application within the area. Staff
is basing the recommendation on this. Mr. Gimlin stated that the city of Fort Lupton was not here to testify,
which did not assist in the proceedings.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case CZ-1036, along with the amended conditions of approval, be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. John Hutson 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; John
Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1419
APPLICANT: Melvin and Jacklyn Shubert
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
Page -5-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and Lot B of RE-3461, being part of the NE4 of Section 17, T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for any
use permitted as a use by right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special
Review in the commercial or industrial zone districts, provided that the
property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts
of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling
subdivisions (Parking and Maintenance of Carnival Equipment) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 5; 500 feet south of WCR 34.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1419, 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 Mr. Ogle if this was in response to a violation. Mr. Ogle stated at the time there is an
open violation. The USR has been applied for and the violation will go away if the USR is approved.
Mel Shubert, applicant, provided information with regard to the project. The equipment is located on the
property from November to approximately April. The equipment is not on site during the summer months.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller asked about fencing around entire property. Mr. Ogle stated the requirement for fencing is
where the outdoor storage is located.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1419, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; John
Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1405
APPLICANT: Aurora Dairy Corporation
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4SE4, E2NE4 and part of the NE4NW4 of Section 30, T3N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Livestock
Confinement Operation (2,500 milking cow dairy) in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; approximately 3/4 mile east of
WCR 13.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1405,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.
Michael Miller asked about the number of head allowed for the feedlot that was formerly on this property.
Mr. Gathman stated that the feedlot was allowed to expand under Special Use Permit 53. Mr. Gathman
stated he was unable to find the number of head in the resolution.
Tom Haren, representative for the applicant, provided some clarification with regard to the number of head.
The original application was approved for 8000 head. The feedlot utilized farms in the area for silage and
Page -6-
hay. The adjacent dairy has 5000 head. The new dairy will be for milk cows only for 2500 head. Mr. Miller
questioned the number of head when the feedlot closed. Mr. Haren indicated it was approximately 1500
head. There will be improvements to the site with regard to drainage and sewer amendments. The ponds
will move and be upgraded to standards. The ponds will be moved to the bottom of the site. An original
concern was the growth and odor issues. The applicant is proposing putting the milk barn on public sewer.
A sewer system will be put in and anyone that connects to it will have that benefit. The applicant will also
get reimbursed from the Sanitation District for attaching to the sewer line. The bottom line is that sewer
makes sense. There will be infrastructure in place if this dairy closes in the future. The dairy will utilize more
of the ground than the feedlot operation . The largest benefit for the dairy is the fact that everything will be
located below the lateral on the north end of the property. Nothing will be seen from the north. Stormwater
volume will not change with the new application. The only difference is the new lagoons must adhere to the
new standards. This operation will continue to take into the feed from the surrounding area. This facility will
employ approximately 25. The infrastructure is already there. Grandview Estate Subdivision located to the
northwest was built after the feedlot and dairy were already in existence. There will be very limited odor
issues due to the fact the site is located downhill from the subdivision. There is an lot which is not part of
either the dairy or the feedlot adjacent to the proposal. The Sekich family has historically allowed the
existing dairy to stockpile hay. There have been agreements made with the Sekich family that no manure
will be stored above the lateral. The applicant has agreed not to use the Al Organics. The applicant has
granted the Sekich family a sewer easement through the property. The sewage agreement contains a first
right of refusal for the four acres located to the north and east. Grandview Estate Homeowners Association
has been in contact with the applicant for the proposal. The plan was advertised in the newsletter and there
were no issues. There are two separate sites but there are some internal issues that would be addressed
if the application is approved. More specifically, the access point for both the dairy and Colorado Dairy
would be relocated for safety of both trucks and vehicles on Hwy 66.
John Folsom asked Mr. Haren about the MUD amendment that extends east from CR 13 and south of Hwy
66 and does this extension border the west property line of the applicant. Mr. Haren indicated it was an
original application but it was dropped from the application. The MUD is contiguous to the west property line.
Mr.Folsom asked if the sewer line will go to the existing treatment plant or to another area. Mr.Haren stated
that this will be a gravity flow that does not require a lift station. St. Vrain Sanitiation District would prefer
a continuous flow into the siphon. There is less probability of plugging the siphon. Mr.Folsom asked if there
was any plans in the MUD for a specific type of use. Mr. Gathman indicated that the MUD recommended
uses were High Density (Employment Centers)and Residential.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lewis Rademaker,neighbor,indicated his approval of the site. It has been a useful site for them to sell feed
for the animals.
Herb Akord, neighbor to the south, asked Mr Haren where the sewer lines are located in relation to their
property. Mr Ackord would like to see a right of way so he can mend fences.
Chris Wagner, neighbor,farms the property below the feedlot. There was a concern for the amount of feed
that is not being utilized in the area. The crops can now be used for the dairy cows. Mr Wagner is in favor
of the project.
Lyn Dowsen, neighbor, in favor of the project. Mr. Dowsen sells silage and hay to the area.
Lee Wearman,Grandview Estates,in favor of the proposal if they can make a clean smelling operation. The
smell is the only concern.
Greg Spore, neighbor, indicated that the manure is taken off the area as soon as possible.
The Chair closed the public portion
Mr. Haren addressed issues with conditions of approval. #1A Prior to Scheduling a detailed sign age plan.
This was addressed in change of zone. The applicant would like to see it deleted. #1 B-the applicant would
like this moved to prior to recording the plat. #2E-be deleted due to the fact the items are itemized in the
requirements. #3 -change the dates to 180 from 30 days. Development Standards#4 -delete.
Page -7-
Chris Gathman addressed some of the concerns.The condition for a sign age plan was inserted to address
some issues with some previous special use permits where the sign size was not addressed. The agricultural
district allows for a sixteen square foot sign unless otherwise noted in the condition or plans. The mineral
owners issues can be moved to 1B Prior to Recording the Plat. There are other issues in the referral from
Kim Ogle that deal with irrigation and lighting. They can be itemized with the addition of#2 B 7 and 2 K and
renumber. The issue with the 180 days is viable and can be changed. Mr. Morrison indicated it would have
no affect on the deadlines. The risk is the permit can be vacated. The time line will not cause this to
happen.
Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated that Development Standard#4 can be
deleted.
John Hutson moved to relocate 1 B to#2 and renumber accordingly. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change 3 to read 180 days not 30 days and to delete Development Standard #4.
Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried
Chris Gathman added language to #2 B 7 that states "Corral lighting location and type, (if known). Mr.
Gathman suggested adding language to 2 K that states"The applicant shall submit a plan detailing how the
proposed trees will be irrigated."
Bryant Gimlin moved to add#2B7 to address the corral lighting style and add#2K and renumber and delete
2E and renumber. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion Carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1405,along with the amendments,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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; John
Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm
Respectfully
espectff 1ulllysubmitted OA.DIVoneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -8-
Hello