Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes January 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning
Caleb Davis (Chairman), Wade Purdom (Co-Chair),
Tim Heenan, Rob Woywod, Counselor Tevis Hull
At 5:30 pm Chairman Caleb Davis opened the meeting and presented the evening agenda. After identifying the presence of a quorum Davis asked the members of the Commission to introduce themselves.
[Planning & Zoning minutes are transcribed from the conversation that takes place during the meeting. Topics are condensed, eliminating verbatim comment in order to condense the material. Key points are included in this extraction and all votes taken are recorded.]
Following the introductions the Chairman opened a Conditional Use Hearing regarding application 18-016 by Carolyn Hill. This application is for parcel #RP60N01W243010A, a 31.75 acre parcel in the Agriculture/Forestry zone.
[Note: In the future, when the Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing zone designations, the applicant wishes this parcel to be rezoned Rural Community/Commercial because the applicant is establishing a commercial enterprise on this parcel - "Bee-Safe Security".]
The applicant was represented by Kevin Thompson. Application 18-016 is a request for a Conditional Use related to placing a 4-1/2' by 10' sign on their Agriculture/Forestry Zone parcel. Because ITD approval is required for the approach to the applicant's property, the Planning and Zoning Commission had tabled the hearing in order for the applicant to receive ITD approval for the approach.
Reopening the hearing on application 18-016, Chairman Davis read the script explaining hearing procedures and determined there was no one on the Planning Commission having ex parte contact. Davis then asked the applicant to make an opening statement. Kevin Thompson responded by saying that ITD approval for the driveway had been given and that the sign in question was similar in appearance to the sign placed on the building itself, advertising Bee-Safe Security.
Chairman Davis then asked the Commission if there were any questions for the applicant.
Ron Self asked about the nature of the sign. Kevin Thompson described the sign as being similar in appearance to the sign on the face of the building. Replying to further questions Thompson said the sign would be placed off the highway right-of-way, in concrete, in such a location as not to be a distraction to motorists. Asked if ITD had approved the location, Staff interjected that he could respond to that question as part of a prepared analysis.
Davis then asked the applicant to describe the sign construction, asking if it was illuminated. Thompson responded by saying it was aluminum but not illuminated, that it was intended to inform but definitely not distract or cause a motorist to lose focus while driving by the property. He further clarified the placement as being on the property below the crest of the south facing hill, not on Dusty Lane. Thompson also said that the driveway approach had been moved north as far as ITD would allow, there being a regulated distance from Dusty Lane. In moving the approach, a two second response time had been gained regarding north bound traffic being able to react to traffic conditions upon cresting that hill heading north.
Isaac asked if this application met zoning requirements. Davis said that the applicant has requested a zone change be considered, changing from Agriculture/Forestry to Rural Community Commercial and that the business does comply with Agriculture/Forestry requirements. However, the applicant has applied for a Commercial/Industrial Placement permit.
Davis asked if there was a Staff Report. Staff responded by acknowledging the report and sharing the analysis involving the application. Staff said there were two applications involving the Bee-Safe property, the second being 18-031, and a request for a Commercial/Industrial Placement permit for the parcel. This second application, being a request for a commercial permit, introduced the ITD requirement for a Commercial Approach permit. Since the two applications relate to the same parcel at the same time, the approval of 18-031 is dependent upon the approval of 18-016 - a Conditional Use permit which would allow the placement of a commercial sign on the premises.
When first applied for, ITD approved a 20' residential approach. At that time, when the approach was first graded and the result of migrating the approach location northward as far as ITD allowed, in anticipation of a commercial approach the driveway was widened to 34'. Although the additional width was greater than the ITD approved width of 20', the applicant anticipated an increase in width required by ITD for a commercial approach.
However, Staff went on to say that the ITD approval was conditional upon reforming the driveway from 34' to 20', the size of the approved commercial approach. This work is required by ITD to be completed within 1 year from the date of approval. However, staff said, the clarification given by ITD is that the approval HAS been granted; that it is up to the applicant to comply with the 1 year time frame for completing the narrowing of the approach to 20'.
Concerning Scott Fuller's question regarding the ITD approval of sign placement, staff said that ITD does not require a separate permit as long as the sign is on the premises, meaning it advertises business on the same parcel as the sign and that no intervening roadway separates the sign from the business, as is the case here. Isaac asked if granting a Commercial/Industrial Placement permit could be approved for residential property or as in this case property zoned Agriculture/Forestry. Staff replied that the circumstances surrounding the application would dictate the approval and that in this case the commercial nature of the use depended upon ITD approval of a commercial approach, hence the relationship of approval of the sign (Conditional Use) and the approval of the Commercial/Industrial Placement permit; both are approved or denied depending upon approval of the Conditional Use permit.
Davis asked if the mapper grants a commercial address for the business and staff replied that if the application is approved the mapper would request a GPS from ITD for the driveway and from the GPS assign a commercial business address; this procedure takes from 5 to 10 business days before an address is assigned.
Davis asked the applicant if he wished to make a closing statement, since there were no members of the public present to contribute opposing, neutral of supportive comment. Thompson thanked the Commission for their time and consideration, saying that the information presented was complete and that he would be happy to add more if there were any more questions. Davis closed the hearing to public testimony.
Chairman Davis then asked for discussion among Commission members. Self said that he would like to see written ITD approval. Staff shared the email received from Stacy Simpson from ITD, granting approval for the approach.
In response to Purdom's question regarding ITD approval not mentioning the sign, staff explained that the sign approval is not required of ITD but that without the approach approval the commercial nature of the business cannot be approved, hence the importance of approval for a commercial approach.
Staff described an exchange he had with Stacy Simpson of ITD. There were 4 questions:
- Is it possible to place a sign "Congested Area Ahead" such as is seen in the Elmira corridor, just a few miles south?
- Are speed limit signs a practical means of protection?
- How feasible is a turn-out lane?
- Would a 34' approach be safer for a commercial approach, considering a big rig turning radius?
All of these questions garnered a response saying a traffic study was necessary to determine appropriate answers, but that the applicant had not specifically requested an approach wider than 20'. Cranor stated that any consideration regarding the applicant's request to place a sign does not mitigate safety concerns. Isaac said that these are serious concerns and should be answered before he could approve the application. He said he is concerned about north-bound truckers not expecting anything and that the situation is dangerous. Staff said that although the Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes commercial growth in the county, it is also responsible for considering public safety. Davis said that ITD has approved the present approach, and suggested to the applicant that he contact ITD to enquire about the 34' width since the Planning and Zoning Commission is not involved in these questions. Thompson said yes, he would see how to take care of this.
Davis then reviewed the conditions necessary to grant approval (9B18LOV1, Section 7.7 Considerations and 7.8. Terms and Conditions).The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed there were no undue Considerations and no need to establish Terms and Conditions.
Wade Purdom made a motion to approve the Conditional Use application 18-016 allowing the placement of a 4-1/2 by 10' sign on the Bee-Safe premises, acknowledging this also allowed the Commercial/Industrial Placement permit to be issued for the same parcel. Wade Purdom so moved, seconded by John Cranor, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows: John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Nay, Rob Woywod - Absent, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - (tie-breaker); The motion to approve the Conditional Use application 18-016 allowing the placement of a 4-1/2 by 10' sign on the Bee-Safe premises, acknowledging this also allowed the Commercial/Industrial Placement permit to be issued for the same parcel, was approved.
Tally: Nay (1), Recused (0), Aye (5), Absent (2)
Staff noted the Agenda item for approving the minutes for December 21, 2017 was skipped. Davis apologized and asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the December 21 2017 meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the December 21 Minutes. Wade Purdom so moved, seconded by Ron Self, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
Wade Purdom made a motion to approve the Conditional Use application 18-016 allowing the placement of a 4-1/2 by 10' sign on the Bee-Safe premises, acknowledging this also allowed the Commercial/Industrial Placement permit to be issued for the same parcel. Wade Purdom so moved, seconded by John Cranor, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Nay, Rob Woywod - Absent, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - (tie-breaker);
The motion to approve the Conditional Use application 18-016 allowing the placement of a 4-1/2 by 10' sign on the Bee-Safe premises, acknowledging this also allowed the Commercial/Industrial Placement permit to be issued for the same parcel, was approved.
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Absent, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - (tie-breaker);
Tally: Nay (0), Recused (0), Aye (6), Absent (2)
The motion to approve the December 21 2017 minutes was unanimous.
Chairman Davis then asked staff what needed to be considered regarding amending the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map. Staff responded by saying that approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map to be retained for the 2018 version resulted in the approved renaming of these documents to 9B18CPV1 (Comprehensive Plan) and the Map to 9B18CMV1. However, staff also recalled there were some changes being considered that were minor in nature at the time of the recommendation to retain the Plan but suitable for considering as an amendment to the Plan. Because any changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map require a public hearing, staff suggested a review of the Plan and a subsequent public hearing to discuss any proposed changes. Wade suggested this effort be placed on the agenda but staff said that a formal application must exist in order to introduce said possible amendments for public scrutiny. Davis said there is a need to create the application and directed staff to do so. This being agreed to, the February Agenda will reflect this topic and subsequent Planning and Zoning meetings will contain such agenda items as the Planning and Zoning Commission deems appropriate.
Purdom said that although not on the Agenda, this was the time to elect new officers. Self nominated Isaac for Chairman. Cranor nominated the existing members for their existing positions. Davis called for a vote and the results were:
Chairman, Davis 5, Isaac 1; Co-Chairman, Purdom 6.
The current positions remained filled by the current members.
John Cranor moved to adjourn, Ron Self seconded, approved unanimously at 7:30 pm.
Transcribed by: John B. Moss