HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030664.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 1, 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 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL l
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn : '
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Char Davis, Wendi Inloes, Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Kim Ogle, Don Carroll,
CASE: PZ-1004
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: LifeBridge Christian Church
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to PUD with (E) Estate; (R-1)
Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density
Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood
Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial
LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of& adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of& adjacent to Hwy
119; west of and adjacent to Fairview Street
Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services,read a letter in the record requesting a continuance to a specific
date of April 22 at 9:00am at the Southwest Weld Office. The applicant has asked for a pre advertisement
with the Board of County Commissioners hearing to be May 7, 2003
John Folsom questioned the ability of the Planning Commission to render a decision by 8:00 pm. Mr.
Morrison indicated that was the goal and it would cause a problem if the decision is not made. If a decision
could not be made then the Board hearing would be continued to a different date due to notification
procedures. Mr. Morrison added it would be beneficial if a decision was made and a schedule was set in
an attempt to adhere to. If a decision cannot be reached adequately at that time then it is the Planning
Commission decision rather to continue. A decision must be reached based on the evidence presented if
this is adequate.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1418
APPLICANT: Hall Irwin
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 Section 12, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities, including open pit mining and materials
processing, a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant and a concrete recycling
plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to East 18`h Street
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance indefinitely to amend
the land use application to include more land.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1007
APPLICANT: Lance and Julee Meiners
}zy Page -1-
4 / )
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3092; being part of the NE4NW4 Section 33, T9N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 6 lots with Estate Zone
Uses and one (1) Non-residential lot with Agricultural Zone Uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 100 and East of and adjacent to WCR 17
section line.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to May 6, 2003.
The Following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1420
APPLICANT: Angela Conner/ RaeAnn Smith
PLANNER: Wendi Inloes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 25, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
single family dwelling(other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A)
in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 30; approximately 1/4 mile west of WCR
49.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1417
APPLICANT: Peter Jackson
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of Corrected RE-3245; being part SW4 Section 16, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
allowed by right in the C-3, Business Commercial Zone District,
(Excavation Equipment Repair Shop and Contractor's Shop) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 29; North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to send the consent agenda to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission recommendation of approval. Bernie Ruesgen seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; S tephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MF-589
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Ric Hansen
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3212; being part SW4 Section 31, T8N, R66W
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plan for four(4) residential lots
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 86; 3/4 mile west of WCR 29. For a more
precise location, see legal.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MF-589, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the debt owed to the Town of Ault and does it have any effect on this project.
Mr. Morrison indicated that a connection does not spring to mind nor how it is applied to the criteria. The
county requires proof of current property taxes. There is no reason why it is relevant.
Michael Miller asked if these were services rendered in this change of zone that enabled it to move to this
stage. Ms. Lockman indicted it was a total separate situation.
Page -2-
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the accesses and if they will be off Rachel Drive with Rachel Drive addresses.
Ms. Lockman stated that they will be off Rachel Drive and the applicant does have agreements with all the
needed offices, postal service and sheriff office.
Stephen Mokray questioned the condition of approval indicating the applicant "will make attempts to work
with the Town of Ault and what is the guarantee." Ms. Lockman indicated that was the standard language
when there is no legal basis. Something would need to be submitted in writing that an attempt has been
made.
James Rohn stated, "that if the developer wishes to do work with another government entity and try and do
some kind of development and he cannot pay his bills from that development. What would make us think
that he would get all of the bills and any of the fees we would have paid." Mr. Miller stated he did not believe
it was the counties authority to place that kind of standard. The county has no authority to enforce collection
standard. We are not here to devaluate someone's financial condition on rather they pay their bills or not.
If there is an agreement and they do not meet the terms then the services are not provided. Mr. Morrison
indicated that the case would not be heard unless the application had not been paid for.
James Rohn stated his concern is for the water issue. If North Weld Water District can provide adequate
water. Ms. Lockman stated they have an approved agreement. The county has heard nothing about them
not being able to supply. Ms. Lockman indicated the Commissioner Rohn came up with that specific
information. The Planning Commission has a copy of the letter.
John Folsom asked about the referral with the county attorney and what the motivation was for that. Ms.
Lockman stated that it would have been for the covenants and any improvements agreements. Mr. Folsom
asked Mr. Morrison if it was standard for the county to get involved in covenants. Mr. Morrison stated that
there is no standard response, no recommendation for or against. The review is for the purpose of adequacy
and for the consistency with the change of zone. There is also review if there is adequate maintenance if
there is a road. Also that there is adequate provisions to collect those fees for the maintenance of the road.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman what prompted the letter that was given to them at the meeting. Ms.
Lockman indicated that the letter was dropped off on her desk 30 minutes prior to the hearing by
Commissioner Rohn. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Rohn for clarification. Mr. Rohn indicated that he was told to
review the letter. North Weld Water has told the Town of Eaton that they will only get 30% of the normal
allotment for the year. Mr. Rohn stated,"the point being made was if they cannot turn,fund or service their
current customers then in what way can they add on new customers and that is more of a showing of what
I have had concerns with."
Fred Walker stated that the applicant has a letter from North Weld Water District indicating that they can
service the property. They are the better judge if there is an adequate water supply. The letter is an
informational letter to the users as to what situation of the drought is. It does not speak to the adequacy of
water towards this application. Mr.Walker added that he agrees with the Chair in regards to the county not
being in the collection business.
Mikal Torgerson, representative for the applicant, indicted it might be mute point but he needs to clear the
clients name. The money that Ault is talking about is for a project three years ago that was billed incorrectly
by the staff at Ault. The applicant is in the process of determining what it is for and is willing to take care of
the situation immediately.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Torgerson if he would like to see the condition pertaining to Ault removed or not.
Mr. Torgerson indicated it was a mute point because the applicant is addressing that issue now. Ms.
Lockman indicated that Mayor Cass from Ault was scheduled to be present but was unable to attend. It will
be discussed at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. The condition really has no bearing.
Fred Walker moved to delete Condition of Approval 1F. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried with
John Folsom abstaining.
John Folsom commented that it has been the attitude of the Planning Commission that when there is a
Page -3-
difference of opinion that the standard county language indicates that they make an attempt to come to an
agreement of provide proof that an attempt has been made. The condition is not harmful if left in the
comments.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case MF-589, 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 M okray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; B ryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-991
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 SE4 Section 28,T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Processing
Facility in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 55 and West of and adjacent to WCR 40
Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-991,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked Char Davis, Weld County Department of Health and Environment, about a letter from
a Phil Brewer. It is unclear who he is and what his knowledge base is. Ms. Davis stated that Phil Brewer
is an employee and is the Air Quality Specialist. Mr. Brewer has been involved with this because of the
amount of previous complaint calls. Mr. Brewer has visited the site but did not take a sound meter with him
at the time.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle for clarification on the compressors at the site now. Mr. Ogle indicated that
there were three compressors originally there. The amendment is for three additional compressors fora total
of six. Mr. Folsom asked if this application included adding mufflers to the present compressors to reduce
the noise level. Mr. Ogle indicted that the drawings do not delineate, on the building plans, any type of
structure to muffle the noise. Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant and his representatives are here and can
address those issues.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the installation of the new compressors. Mr. Ogle indicated that the
new compressors are installed and on site but not within a structure for noise reduction. Mr. Miller asked if
they are already installed why is the process necessary. Mr.Ogle indicted that the original was for only three
compressors therefore, the need to modify the USR to increase the number to six. Ms. Mika granted an
early release for building permits so Duke Energy could get online to get running. They have been able to
make the operation run with higher efficiency with the added compressors operating and the upgraded
equipment. Duke Energy did not have site originally they acquired it in 1995.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the number of operating compressors on site. Mr. Ogle stated three
compressors that are operational at this time that were part of original USR. There were three added for
a total of six on site and they are all being used presently.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Morrison if the Planning Commission has the ability to request noise mitigation on
the site as a whole orjust the new area. There have been amended projects that the whole site was required
to adhere to the recommended standards. Mr. Morrison indicated that the ability to deal with the existing
ones is limited and if the project is denied the first three compressors will still exist. The other problem is
that if sound cannot be measured at the site and the new ones cannot be differentiated from the old ones
it creates an issue with mitigation. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the entire site falling under
the new standards. Mr. Morrison stated that if the permit is denied the old compressors do not have to
adhere to the new standards. If the permit is approved then they all have to adhere to the new standards.
Page -4-
Mr. Morrison indicated that there may be more testimony that will address some of the issues.
John Folsom indicated that a situation might arise that approval of the USR could be conditional upon certain
parameters including the noise levels. The parameters could only be met by making modifications to the
original three compressors. Mr. Morrison stated that the applicant will have a say with regards to the
amendments. Mr. Folsom asked Ms. Davis about the recommendation for a septic system on site. Ms.
Davis indicated that there will not be full time employees but there will be five mechanics on site. It is a large
facility and very remote.
Tim Clancy, representative for the applicant, provided further clarification with regard to the project. The
applicant is attempting to address the sound issues with the surrounding neighbors. A consultant was hired
to attempt to address the neighbor concerns. The consultant reported that it was in compliance with the code
but there are some possible fixes. Mitigating sound is complicated and technical. There is no one size fits
all to the facility. The best thing is to know the standard and adhere to it. The applicant would ask that any
sort of limitation will allow them to work with the consultant and come up with something that will work. The
solution will not create more problems than it fixes. The applicant would prefer not to have the septic system
requirement rather have something that would comply with the standard but not limited to the septic. The
number of employees is very limited and they will not be there on a permanent basis. The system would be
expensive and really not used. The new compressors have mufflers on them. The compressors are state
of the art and farther along in technology. Buildings will be proposed in the offering for mitigation once the
consultant has the standards and limitations required. The site has been upgraded and is monitored twenty
four hours a day from a remote location. This location can isolate and shut off gas supply to the site. A
vapor recovery unit has been installed. This eliminates air pollution emission.
John Folsom asked if the compressors are operated by fuel. James Wakely, Asset Supervisor for Duke
Energy,indicated the compressors burn natural gas which is pulled from the facility. Mr.Folsom asked about
mitigating noise and if different structures with insulation or anything has been proposed or evaluated. Mr.
Wakely stated that vibration is not the source of noise. The company will use the consultant to obtain better
information with regard to the noise, mitigation and location.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if a study was done with the three original compressors. Mr.Clancy stated that it had
not been done on the three original compressors. This study was done with all compressors running. The
consultant is a third party and is independent from the company. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the new three are
quieter. Russ True, Duke Energy, stated that the engine noise is different at different areas of the facility.
The east has more noise because of the size,the cooler sections to the south are quieter. They are a three
section cooler. The old compressors are a little noisier due to some fan noise. Mr. Ruesgen asked if the
compressors run continuously. Mr.True indicated that the run continuously and are not on a particular cycle.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the decibel noise levels and if the standards are less than 75 decibels
25 feet from the property line. Ms. Davis indicated that was correct. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Clancy why the
report indicates all the tests were done at the residences. Mr.Clancy indicated that there are two standards.
There is a statutory standard and the Colorado Oil &Conservation Commission Standard. The consultant
ran from the Oil & Conservation standard. That standard indicates that if there are no occupied building
impacted use the 25 foot standard. Sound levels at occupied building units shall be measured at the nearest
practical to the edge of the occupied building. Since there were occupied building impacted, residences,
they measured from the residences. Mr. Miller indicated that the code required it to be measured from 25
feet from the property line and there is no report for that. Mr. Clancy stated that Ms. Davis suggested the
Light Industrial level and they are willing to tell the consultant to bring the site into that standard. It will be
retested to make sure it applies to the standard. This way the applicant can do what is most efficient
dependent on the equipment that is on site. The applicant is willing to live within the limits that are proposed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Michael Hanshaw,neighbor,provided information with regard to the noise. Most of the noise is coming from
the compressors. The new compressors are two to three times the size of the old ones. There was a small
amount of background noise when the homes were built but nothing was heard from inside the house. The
State of Colorado indicated that it was upwards of 50 decibels at his house and 90 decibels at the facility.
The State and the County regulations indicated that it should not be over 70 decibels at 7:00pm and they
are over 90 decibels. These noise levels have been running since December. Duke Energy have been
cooperative in the last month but this has gone on for quite a few months. The site has many different
Page -5-
sources of sound and a metal building will not address the issues. A barrier around the facility would be
preferred by the surrounding neighbors. Another concern is the road conditions are deteriorating rapidly.
The Chair closed the public portion
Mr. Clancy stated that the applicant wants to be a good neighbor and do something about the sound. Mr.
Miller asked about the venting of pressure and if any of the measurements were taken at this time. Mr.
Clancy stated that there was a time in which the study was done while the venting was occurring. The
regulations allow the exceedence of 10 decibels for a short period of time. Mr. Miller indicated that the
venting are not short periods of time. Mr. Clancy stated that the Oil & Gas Commission rules gives 15
minutes to go 10 decibels over in one hour. It is not an unlimited spike it can only be 10 decibels. Mr.
Morrison stated that this is a statutory standard that is incorporated in the code. There is a 15 minute per
hour exceedence of the 10 decibels. It is 10 decibels over what is applicable at the time. This would apply
if it was during the day or night. Mr. Walker asked about the three new compressors and what difference
in then. The new ones are 1600 horsepower and the old ones are 1476 horsepower. Mr. Miller asked if the
size is comparative to the running of it. Mr. Wakely indicated that the cooler units are larger on the new
compressors. The older units do not have the cooler units they are fan driven coolers. The fans have more
noise on the old units. The newer fans are quieter than the old technology.
John Folsom asked about methods of noise abatement. Mr. Folsom would like the applicant to state for the
record specifically what measures are going to be taken as far as enclosures, insulation or mounting pads.
Mr. Clancy stated they would like to avoid stating specifics due to the limitations on the information of what
will work for the site specifically. The consultant will be the best source of information. If at any time a
change of equipment needs to be done this may cause more harm then good with the mitigation of the noise
involved. The applicant would like the standard and make accommodation according to that. They want
to comply with the regulations.
James Rohn asked about the road conditions. Mr. Carroll stated that during construction there will be more
traffic but once this is complete the traffic will return to normal. The county has been grading the area. They
are on the very edge of the road system with a lot of sugar sand and the area is tough to maintain all the
time. Once all the construction is complete the road conditions will improve and go back to normal. This
site does not create traffic.
Mr. Clancy indicated that the applicant does not want a septic system. There is no independent source of
water to the site. What is brought in is taken off. A Port of pot arrangement would be preferred.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Davis that if something new is being imposed on an existing facility. Ms. Davis
stated that the facility has two offices so this would require a sanitary toilet. Portable toilets are viewed as
temporary and no longer than six months. There will be three to four people including mechanics and an
oil field operator according to a conversation made. Mr. Miller added that he believes they will come and
go as needed for repairs. Ms. Davis indicated that a vault system can be done without water. Its like a
permanent port o pot. Mr. Gimlin added that a port o pot will get serviced. This could even give them a
source of hand washing water.
Bryant Gimlin moved to modify 1G to state, "...a portable adequate sewage disposal and hand washing
system shall be provided for sanitary purposes." James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to modify 1H to state, "A adequate water supply, such as bottled water shall be
provided for drinking purposes." Mr. Gimlin included the deletion of Development Standard #11. James
Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Fred Walker indicted he was concerned about the noise issues. The consistency is the question with regard
to providing a plan similar to a previous project. This plan should indicate what is going to be done to adhere
to the standards. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the applicant is more than willing to comply with the standard.
They are not prepared to state how they will but are willing to do so. Mr. Miller indicated that a condition
could be added to Prior to Scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing they come in with a plan
for review. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that the graph showing the decibels are above the requirement of the
code. Mr. Miller indicated that a standard will be set and if they do not meet it then they will have to make
accommodations to meet the standards. Mr.Mokray indicated that nothing has been addressed with regard
to safety on this site. Mr. Miller indicated that this is a remote site and the neighbors have not indicated a
Page -6-
concern with regard to safety. They have addressed the noise issue.
Bryant Gimlin asked what decibel level is considered loud. Ms. Davis stated that the Health Department will
be willing to do a comparison with the consultant information and the County. This can be done from the
25 feet from the property line.
Fred Walker indicated that there will be time between now and the hearing to present more testimony and
do the testing to determine the best way to mitigate the noise. Ms. Davis indicated that Mr. Brewer has not
been back to the site. The sound meter has been repaired. Mr. Miller would lean towards having the study
done and a plan in place before the scheduling of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add 1A and renumber accordingly to state: Prior to the scheduling Board of
County Commissioners hearing the applicant will conduct a sound study including a test within 25 feet from
the property line and present a plan to the Department of Public Health and Environment for review to abate
the sound and insure they will come into compliance with County Standards.". Mr.Miller indicated that would
not give much time to review the plan. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the time frame. Mr.
Ogle indicated it was 30-45 days interim from scheduling to the meeting time. Mr. Ogle indicated that it
would take the applicant two months to get the study done. This will then be placed in a new#1 Condition
and renumbered. Stephen Mokray seconded.
Lee Morrison indicated that nuisance conditions could violate background noise. The study will need to
address statutory requirement and other acoustic nuisance conditions.
Michael Miller provided clarification with regard to the motion. Mr. Ogle indicated that staff will commit to
a one week review turn around time. The case will then be scheduled for the BOCC
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; Fred Walker, no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle indicated that Development Standard #12 is not longer applicable to the case.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Development Standard #12. Stephen Mokray Seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated that the issue of nuisance noise had been brought up and there being a possible
need to mitigate it for consistency reasons. The mitigation was required in a previous case.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated that there has been no public input therefor,it is a mute point. Mr.Miller indicated
that they receive input from Mr. Hanshaw stating there were times it woke him up in the evenings. This was
and issue in the other care specifically addressing the quality of life. Mr. Rohn asked Ms. Davis what 40
decibel is comparable with. Ms. Davis indicated a bird call or noise levels associated with the living room
or bedroom. At 50 decibels is light auto traffic at 100 feet. Mr. Folsom asked how to establish nuisance
noise. It seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Miller added that it comes to a judgement call whether
it effects the health, safety and welfare of the county residents. Mr. Gimlin indicated that this could be
development standard. The nuisance could be indicated by neighborhood complaints. Mr.Miller asked how
it could be enforced. Mr. Ruesgen added that the concern is if the Planning Commission tried to define this
at this point and put it in the development standards the applicant will be trying to guess what irritates
residences within an approximate area. It is to subjective. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if this was passed
based on the noise standard and over the period of the next year every neighbor complained about the noise
do they have any recourse if the operation falls with in the guidelines. Mr.Morrison stated that the possibility
is there if they can show substantial interference from use and enjoyment of there property as a result of the
operation. The neighbors may have a cause for action. The concern would be that if a study was done and
the acoustics were fine but there is a certain rumble that might be perceived as noise, the opportunity has
not been denied specifically at the board level. The neighbors have a cause for action it would be an uphill
battle but if there is something not measured by this statute. The concept of nuisance predates statutory
provisions.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle with regard to these compressors already being in production and does the
Planning Commission have an option to deny or are "we being strong armed into having to approve this."
Mr.Morrison indicted that if there are reasons they have not met standards then a recommendation for denial
Page -7-
can be made. Staff presents in a way to address issues not force one way or another.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-991,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. Bernie Ruesgen seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; S tephan M okray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented that he has a friend that lives next to one of these installations and they can be
very disturbing. They can be psychological disturbing to the neighbors. It varies from person to person but
the hope is the applicant will make an effort to mitigate this nuisance over and beyond the statutory
requirements.
Other business:
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the submission of a letter from the Town of Eaton by Commissioner
Rohn and whether or not it is appropriate for a Planning Commission member to submit evidence in a case?
Mr. Morrison replied that the letter was first presented to Mr. Rohn and then made available to everyone,
which is the appropriate action for information provided to a Planning Commission member.
Mr. Miller indicated that was not his understanding and that he felt it was inappropriate for a Planning
Commission member to provide evidence against a case.
Mr. Morrison stated that if someone obtains information they think is relevant, it is prudent to enter it into the
record for debate and possible rebuttal.Keeping information to themselves could create the appearance that
they based their vote on information not in the record. Mr. Morrison said that Planning Commission
members are not encouraged to gather evidence, but if it does come to them, it should be entered into the
record, thereby making it available to the public.
Mr. Rohn indicated that the letter was given to Ms.Lockman 1 1/2 hours before the meeting,allowing her time
to research the information. Mr. Rohn brought this up because Ms. Lockman knew about the letter and the
question pertaining to the water. Mr. Rohn said he did not formulate a decision, but thought the letter might
raise relevant questions. Mr. Rohn said he did not intend to cause a major issue.
Mr. Miller reiterated his concern that the appearance to the public was questionable.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Intel-I-4) la at.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -8-
Hello