Laserfiche WebLink
and go into detail of how he had to speak and what he had to commit to. He trusts the fact that <br />Mr. Barickman would reach out and be a good neighbor without making it a part of the motion. <br />Ms. Woods stated they didn't propose resolutions for the Planning Commission's consideration. <br />There are some suggestions being made that aren't a part of the motion; however, she thinks it <br />would be good for the applicant, as well as the community, to know exactly what's being <br />approved and strongly recommended the case be continued to allow staff and the County <br />Attorney time to draft a resolution that would include language making it very clear what the <br />expectations are, and then ask the Planning Commission to consider it at that point in time. Mr. <br />Raso stated Ms. Woods is asking that conditions be proposed for the special use permit and <br />attached to the motion if he so desired. It's up to the Planning Commission, noting Mr. Clark <br />made the motion that it be limited to the 9.9 acres. He doesn't think there were any other <br />conditions stated. The motion was seconded and is entitled to go to a vote. The decision has <br />to be made within 60 days of tonight. As a practical matter, it would have to be made at next <br />month's Planning Commission meeting because the one in January is beyond the 60 days. It's <br />up to the Planning Commission to continue it so some conditions could be suggested, or they <br />may simply proceed tonight. Mr. Clark asked Ms. Woods if she felt the application, as <br />submitted, wasn't strong enough, noting his intent of the motion was to approve, as submitted, <br />with one amendment regarding the staging area and the size of the project. He didn't see this <br />being a large scale operation with three pages of conditions. He's comfortable with the way the <br />application was submitted, noting it's comprehensive and thorough. It could be tweaked a little <br />bit, but he's comfortable with it with the one change. Ms. Woods stated she heard some issues <br />tonight, noting one item was limiting the signing and working with the people to limit the speed in <br />the area to 15 miles per hour. She thinks that would be a good condition, and to ask the <br />applicant to sign the property so people exiting his gate would know that's something that <br />should happen. Because staff was recommending denial, they didn't have specific language as <br />to the resolution and is why they're asking for more time to think about it from that perspective. <br />Mr. Clark stated he would reduce some concessions the applicant made during the review <br />process tonight to be included with the resolution. He either trusts the applicant would comply <br />with the concessions he made tonight or they need to continue it for 30 days. Mr. Leverington <br />stated a special use permit is reviewed on an annual basis so it would be reviewed by staff and <br />this Commission on a yearly basis. Mr. Clark questioned if that was automatic. Mr. Raso <br />replied it's a directive to staff and they usually ask the initial directive to be on a one -year <br />review. Thereafter, some are on one -year reviews for a long time and others are removed after <br />a while. Mr. Clark stated he would be comfortable with a condition for a one -year review, and <br />based upon public input and complaints, they may need to add more conditions to the permit to <br />satisfy the issues and was comfortable with that. He guessed the applicant would be <br />comfortable as well, noting he would know where he was going tonight. <br />Mr. Clark amended his motion to include a one -year review of the special use permit to assess <br />the operation after one year and go from there. Mr. Leyba seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Raso stated Ms. Woods is concerned about assuming, for example, the hours of operation, <br />noting he typically advises they be made conditions in the permit even though they could work <br />their way back through the application to see if they're complying. It's simply a way of <br />expressing the concerns of staff when they have a permit that doesn't have any more <br />conditions. If they're assuming they would do the hours of operation and limit the speed limit <br />and the number of days per week, it's part of their motion and is better practice to have those <br />conditions set forth. He's not saying that Mr. Barickman wouldn't comply, he's just saying that's <br />the advice he usually gives to the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. If <br />they're going to place conditions on it they should be stated rather than presumed. <br />SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPEAL NO. 2011 -002 <br />STAFF REVIEW 11 -30 -2011 <br />-DRAFT MINUTES- <br />14 <br />PCPC <br />EXHIBIT NO. <br />3 cont' <br />11 -15 -2011 <br />