HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160838.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County
Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 0 Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to
order by Chair, Jordan Jemiola, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes.
Absent: Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Wayne Howard,
Department of Planning Services — Engineering Division; Lauren Light and Ben Frissell, Department of
Health; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
II" Motion: Approve the February 16,2016 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce
Johnson, Seconded by Gene Stille. Motion passed unanimously.
ItI'' CASE NUMBER: COZ15-0004
APPLICANT: RONALD BIRGENHEIER AND LEE BIRGENHEIER
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE PUD(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)ZONE
DISTRICT TO THE(A)AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART NW4 AND PART NE4 SECTION 10,T7N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 84 AND APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST
OF CR 19.
Is" Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case COZ15-0004, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Mr. Gathman stated that the applicant is unable to attend today's hearing; however the applicant has stated
that they are in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval and development standards. He
added that staff has not received any correspondence from surrounding property owners in regard to this
case.
Commissioner Smock asked for clarification on why the applicants wish to rezone it back to agricultural.
Mr. Gathman said that according to the applicant it would be very expensive to provide water service to this
site. Therefore, they felt it was cost prohibitive to proceed with the PUD (Planned Unit Development)
process.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the road right-of-way and access requirements on site.
ID" Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Forward Case COZ15-0004 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes=7).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes.
Ca-h(f 2016-0838
CASE NUMBER: COZ15-0003
APPLICANT: WES MOSER INC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
1-3(INDUSTRIAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 SECTION 25,T3N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 49 AND SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
30.
* Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case COZ15-0003, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Johnson asked why the applicants are interested in pursuing a Change of Zone rather than
a USR(Use by Special Review). Mr. Gathman said he will defer to the applicant; however he believes that
there is no user yet.
Commissioner Hansford asked if this property is currently being farmed. Mr. Gathman believed that it was
farmed recently.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic,access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site. Mr. Howard stated that he has suggested changes to the staff lit* Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, and
on-site dust control.
D" Tim Naylor,AGPROfessionals, 3050 67th Avenue, stated that the applicants are requesting a change
of zone for this property. He added that with development of the County Road 49 corridor, properties along
that area are being developed into industrial properties through the USR process. Mr. Naylor said that they
are taking advantage of the opportunities of industrial uses in an area along a corridor where those industrial
uses should be.
Mr. Naylor stated that they believe this site is compatible with existing and future uses. He added that they
are proposing commercial wells and on-site wastewater treatment systems. Additionally, United Power is
in the process of installing a substation on this property for adequate availability of electricity.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if this property was recently farmed. Additionally, he asked if the applicant is
proposing multiple users or one individual user. Mr. Naylor stated that this site is currently in agricultural
production and will continue to be farmed until a user has been established. He added that there is no
specific user at this time. He further added that they have had some interest from solar facilities and oil
and gas companies.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if there are any changes to the conditions of approval or development standards in
the staff report.
Mr. Howard suggested deleting Condition of Approval 1.6 as the requirement for the traffic study has been
fulfilled. Additionally, Condition of Approval 2.E may be removed as it is addressed in another condition of
approval.
Motion: Delete Conditions of Approval 1.B and 2.E, as recommended by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson,
Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion carried unanimously.
2
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
D' Motion: Forward Case COZ15-0003 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Gene Stille.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 7).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes.
CASE NUMBER: USR15-0073
APPLICANT: MILLER HFI LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES INCLUDING
AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE FACILITY (STORAGE OF FRAC
TANKS)IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SECTION 11,T6N, R62W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 83 AND NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
70.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0073, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that two (2) letters of correspondence and one (1) phone
call was received in opposition to this case. The concerns outlined the proximity of the tanks, run-off,traffic,
noise and hours of operation. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Tim Naylor,AGPROfessionals, 3050 671h Avenue, stated that with the decrease in oil and gas activity
the applicant needed a place to store frac tanks; therefore they are requesting to store approximately 85
empty frac tanks on a three (3) to four(4) acre area. He added that they hope that when the oil and gas
activity increases again these tanks will be back in circulation and relocated. Mr. Naylor noted that the
remaining portion of the site will remain in agricultural production.
Mr. Naylor stated that Miller HFI and Noble Energy did have a Colorado Oil and Gas Commission Permit
to mud farm that area; however that is no longer taking place. He added that they have done a soil test
and it is recommended that it be closed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Brad Olson, 4370 CR 70, stated that he lives directly across the road from this site. He is concerned that
the storage of these tanks will create a rodent and rattlesnake problem. He added that frac water is very
dangerous and any leaking from these tanks can cause a very bad environmental situation.
Mr. Olson said that the reason the mud farm was shut down is because out of 15 ground samples all of
them exceeded the Colorado Oil and Gas Chart for safe levels. He added that in his conversations with
Noble Energy they do agree that there is some remediation that needs to be done. He feels that locating
these tanks where remediation needs to take place is irresponsible.
3
Mr. Olson said that the road infrastructure cannot handle the existing road traffic, let alone the wait time for
traffic. He added that equipment is rattling apart due to the lack of road maintenance.
Mr. Olson said that he tolerates the noise and traffic and doesn't feel he needs to wonder whether any of
these tanks still contain any frac water creating a toxic, poisoning type of situation that can possibly leak
into the aquifer.
In response to Commissioner Jemiola's inquiry, Mr. Naylor said that when the frac tanks are placed
on the property they are empty. He added that they are not storing any liquid in those tanks. Commissioner
Hansford asked if these tanks were washed and cleaned out. Mr. Naylor replied that he couldn't say if they
were cleaned out.
Commissioner Smock asked if there are any regulations regarding the storage of tanks and the residual
fluid that is in them. Mr. Frissell said that he is not aware of any regulations; however he knows that there
are companies that will do wash outs of those frac tanks. Mrs. Smock asked if anyone inspects these tanks
to ensure that there is no frac liquid in them. Mr.Frissell replied that to his knowledge they are not inspected.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he is concerned with soil erosion, especially susceptible to wind. He
added that when you have that type of equipment there will be soil disturbance and erosion and he would
like to see this addressed.
Commissioner Johnson said the access is from County Road 83 and asked where east/west traffic would
enter onto County Road 83. Mr. Naylor said that the traffic would come from County Road 68 to County
Road 83. He added that there will not be any traffic on County Road 70 in front of Mr. Olson's residence.
Commissioner Johnson said that he understands frac tanks store water in the use of mixing with various
chemicals for fracing. He added that the tanks themselves do not contain solutions that are other than
water. Mr. Naylor agreed with Mr. Johnson and added that they are not proposing to store any chemicals
on site and the tanks will be empty.
Commissioner Hansford said that should there be any contamination from these tanks he would hope that
the applicant mitigates any contamination. Mr. Hansford asked if there is any mitigation for the existing
contamination. Mr. Naylor said that Mr. Olson submitted the soil tests from the property. According to this
study, it was recommended that Noble Energy request closure status of this property. Mr. Naylor added
that Miller HFI and Noble Energy are working through the closure plan and remediation of that process.
Commissioner Stille noted the concern of rodents and rattlesnakes and asked how they propose to address
that. Mr. Naylor said that they understand it can be a problem but this is a half-mile away from the nearest
residence. He added that there is nothing in the tanks that will attract rodents.
Mr. Naylor said that if this case isn't approved these frac tanks will need to go through another USR process
and be placed on another site. He added that they would be happy to mitigate the Olson's concerns. Mr.
Naylor said that they would have liked to have met with the Olson's; however the first email they received
said that if they went through with this process there would be a legal process involved. Therefore they
were unable to reach out to the Olson's.
The Chair asked if there are any proposed changes to the conditions of approval or the development
standards. Mr. Howard recommended amending Condition of Approval 1.C.7 to label the Access Permit
Number AP16-00035, rather than AP15-00035.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.C.7, as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by
Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
4
I"' Motion: Forward Case USR15-0073 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Johnson said that he would like the applicant to address some type of road base to keep
ground from eroding.
Commissioner Smock encouraged the applicants to reach out to the neighbors to see if these concerns
can be mitigated.
Commissioner Jemiola echoed Ms. Smock's comments and said it is good to be neighborly and reach out
to them so these issues can be worked out.
The Chair called a recess at 1:48 pm and reconvened the hearing at 1:59 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR15-0075
APPLICANT: WELD LV LLC, C/O GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT,AN ACCESSORY USE,
OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WITH AN OFFICE,
MAINTENANCE SHOP, WAREHOUSE, OUTDOOR WASH BAY, FUELING
STATION AND OUTDOOR STORAGE) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4033; PART SW4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W OF THE
6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13 AND NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
56.
D. Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0075, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that two (2) letters of concern were received. One of these
letters outlined concerns regarding pollution onto their property and another letter stated that they would
prefer a buffer between his property and this site. The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Wailes stated that while he doesn't have adjacent property to this site he said that they are
connected along the railroad track. He believes that he can be fair and impartial to this request.
D" Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Commissioner Smock asked where the current access is located. Mr. Howard said the current access is
an oil and gas access. He added that the proposed access is on the very northwest corner which is just
south of the residence.
• Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, the Waste Handling Plan and provided an explanation on the noise restrictions.
• Patrick Groom, 822 7th Street, Suite 760, Greeley, Colorado, stated that he represents the applicant.
Mr. Groom stated that Gerrard Investments currently operates 0.25 miles north of this proposed site.
Because of the Martin Marietta project, Mr. Gerrard needs to relocate his current operation. He added that
Mr. Gerrard does not intend to expand his current operation but simply relocate it to this proposed site.
5
Mr. Groom said that when they planned the development for this site they chose to locate the facilities in
the northwest portion of the site so that they could maintain 28 acres of farmland buffer between the
proposed surface improvements and County Road 56 and the property owners to the south of that location.
The other option would have been to locate the facilities to the southern portion of the property but they feel
that would have a greater overall impact on surrounding property owners. Therefore, they feel that the
proposed design preserves as much farmland as possible.
Mr. Groom said that there will be a landscape buffer along County Road 13. Additionally, the proposed
parking garage should provide a buffer from the site to the property owner to the west of the site. He added
that it would be difficult to place any landscaping between that building and the property as well as maintain
it. Mr. Groom stated that KP Kauffman also has an existing well in the center of the property and added
that they plan to continue drilling on the eastern portion of the property.
Mr. Groom said that the opaque screening is something they would like to discuss. They would like to use
the black clad fencing and utilize the remaining agricultural land as a buffer. He added that they would like
to request the deletion of the requirement of opaque screening because it is not cost effective and doesn't
believe it will serve any practical purpose in this case.
D' The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
Randy Worthley stated that he is the property owner in the northwest corner. He said that he has reviewed
the plans and understands that the Gerrard's existing location is pretty clean. However he is concerned
with the parking structure since it runs the full length of his property. He added that when you would look
at it from the back of his property it will be an eyesore without some form of landscaping. He believes this
would provide a benefit for enjoyment of his property as well as for Gerrard's property.
Mr. Worthley said that there is a lot of development along County Road 13 and in the interest of public
safety he would like to see the speed limit brought down acceptable for truck traffic and the public traveling
that road.
Commissioner Smock asked what speed limit he would recommend. Mr. Worthley said he would
recommend 40-45 mph.
Commissioner Johnson said that any type of trees or shrubs will accumulate a lot of blowing debris which
would harbor improper wildlife. Mr. Worthley said that a couple rows of windbreak trees would look nice
and work well. Commissioner Jemiola reminded Mr. Worthley that the applicant is requesting deletion of
the opaque screening requirement and asked how he felt about that. Mr. Worthley said he would prefer
trees to fencing.
Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road, Johnstown, Colorado, stated that he represents the CLR 34 group.
He said that this facility is not anticipated to be a big problem. He said that they met with the Gerrard folks
and as long as they don't anticipate huge expansions of their operation it should be satisfactory. He said
that screening of the facility is a concern.
Mr. Kisker added that it appears that there are a lot of accesses created on County Road 13 which is a
large concern and raises the question of the speed limit.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kisker his opinion to the advantage of a black clad fence over the opaque
screening. Mr. Kisker said that the southern property owner would like to see some windbreak trees or
landscaping. He could see living with the vinyl coated chain link with rows of trees.
Mr. Groom said that Mr. Gerrard conducted a neighborhood meeting and one of the issues was
screening. He said that they are taking that issue seriously and are looking for the best practical solution.
He said that with the height of the building and vehicles on site, it would be impossible to screen them
entirely. He added that it was important to them to create as much of a buffer on the south side that they
could.
6
Mr. Groom said that they located the parking structure along Mr. Worthley's property to act as an opaque
screen. He added that it would be difficult to maintain trees along that border. However, he said that they
are not opposed to planting trees on Mr. Worthley's property. Mr. Groom said that they are willing to work
with Mr.Worthley on an agreed landscape/screening plan.
Mr. Groom requested the removal of Condition of Approval 1.C.5. The Planning Commission was not in
favor of deleting this condition.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case to USR15-0075 the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes=7).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Smock said she would like to see the applicant work with the property owner to the west to
make sure that the landscaping and screening is agreeable to him.
Commissioner Jemiola echoed Ms. Smock's comments and added that it is important that the property
owner to the west has adequate screening that meets his concerns.
CASE NUMBER: USR15-0074
APPLICANT: EDIE&STEVEN MESSICK
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A KENNEL (DOG AND CAT RESCUE FACILITY WITH A
MAXIMUM OF 50 CATS/DOGS)IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-3384;PART W2SE4 SECTION 29,T9N,R67W OF THE
6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 100 AND APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET
WEST OF CR 17.
II" Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0074, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that 11 letters and emails were received. Seven of those
letters received were from surrounding property owners and outlined concerns regarding noise from barking
dogs, decrease in property values and the adoption process. Two (2) surrounding property owners
provided follow-up letters indicating that they were not in opposition as long as it is operated in compliance
with County and State requirements and standards. Staff is requiring that dogs be kept indoors from 7 pm
to 7 am and added that there is a noise standard attached requiring the site to adhere to the residential
noise limits. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the distance is from the nearest residence. Mr. Gathman said it is
approximately 650 feet from the site.
irl' Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
D' Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, the Waste Handling Plan and the noise restrictions on site.
Edie Messick, 7731 CR 100, provided binders to the Planning Commission to provide a layout of the
property and the development plan. She said that the property was an existing cattle ranch with existing
buildings. She said that this project is for a dog rescue. She was not aware of the zoning permit required
7
and never blatantly ignored these laws; however she added that she was just ignorant. She stated that she
has complied with all of the application requirements and requested approval of this request.
Ms. Messick said that the dogs are kept inside at night. She added that the dogs are excited at feeding time
and will bark for about 15-20 minutes but after feeding they stop barking. She said that she has tried to
reach out to her neighbors and added that she extended invitations for a meeting to 11 neighbors.
Additionally, she spoke to Anadarko last week and assured them that they do not plan to build additional
structures. She said that Anadarko indicated they had no problems with this request.
Commissioner Wailes asked about what they are proposing to do on site. Ms. Messick said that they rescue
dogs from high-kill shelters, owner surrenders, and offer hospice and a senior program. She added that all
the dogs are vaccinated, spayed/neutered, micro-chipped, et cetera and then they find them homes. Ms.
Messick stated that they plan to put up some type of sound walls on the side of the property.
Commissioner Sparrow asked when feeding time is. Ms. Messick said that the dogs are fed inside at 6:30-
7:30 am. Mr. Sparrow asked if the feeding time could be adjusted if there are complaints about barking at
feeding time. Ms. Messick replied yes.
• The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Teri Hondo, 4138 Ebony Court, Loveland, stated that she recently adopted a dog from Ms. Messick. She
understands that one of the concerns was of the adoption process. She said that the adoption process
requires inspection of the home prior to adopting a dog. She added that she has visited the site several
times during the day and hasn't heard any dogs barking.
• Dawn Peterson, 2114 42nd Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, stated that she is a landscape architect and
she is working with the applicants in designing the property. She provided a description of the proposed
landscaping design, including soil erosion.
W►* Jerry Ewing, 7406 CR 100, stated he is not in opposition to this request; however he would like to
have some concerns addressed. He asked that there be some methods of noise reduction included in the
noise standards. Additionally, he would like assurance from staff that if a violation occurs that it would meet
a degree of significance to investigate. Mr. Ewing stated that he has no ill-will toward the applicant. He
just wants to maintain the peaceful character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Light explained that any noise complaints can be directed to the Environmental Health Department,
Planning Department and/or Zoning Compliance Department. The Environmental Health Department has
noise monitoring equipment that can be used when a complaint has been filed.
DI" Dawn Banks, 3714 Henderson Avenue, read a letter into record from Dr. Chad Zadina, who is the
veterinarian for Edie Messick's project. Ms. Banks noted that she has visited the site multiple times and
has not witnessed any barking. She added that the property is very clean and Ms. Messick takes care of
the animals very well.
• The Chair asked if there are any changes to the conditions of approval or development standards.
Mr. Gathman asked the Planning Commission if they would want to consider a noise abatement plan.
Commissioner Jemiola said that it would be good to have a strong mitigation plan for noise for the neighbors
and to ensure that they maintain their USR. Ms. Messick said that as a growing business they are amenable
to making changes to mitigate noise but it will take time. Ms. Light noted that according to the regulations,
barking between 7 am to 7 pm can exceed the decibel level by 10 decibels and not exceed 15 minutes in
any one hour. The Planning Commission doesn't feel that there is a need for a noise plan as the regulations
as stated by Ms. Light appear to cover that.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
8
Motion: Forward Case USR15-0074 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes= 7).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes.
Commissioner Stille is concerned with the compatibility in that area. He appreciates that this is a rescue
for dogs and that it is a well-managed facility.
Commissioner Sparrow echoed Mr. Stille's comments.
Commissioner Smock said that from the pictures it appears very well kept. She added that it is important
to maintain the agricultural part of the country as well as working with the neighbors.
Commissioner Jemiola commended Ms. Messick for her project and added that it appears the facility is
very clean. He added that it is very important to work with the neighbors.
011* The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. Jerry
Ewing said that he is not opposed to the noise but just wants to ensure that it is kept to a minimum.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 4:11 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
, J 44.4L¢4vi. Date:2016.02.25 08:54:18-07'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
9
Hello