HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092391.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley- Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll, Department of
Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem,
Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the August 4, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1703
APPLICANT: Douglas & Deborah Duggan do Petro Canada Resources
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Support and
Services (compressor station) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 4, T10N, R61W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 122 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 89.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicant wishes to keep this item on the consent agenda.
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 the Planning Commissioners if they wish to hear this case. No one wished to speak.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1232
APPLICANT: Anderson South Farm LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility, with uses similar to those seen at guest farms and
fairgrounds, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE -281 in Section 32, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5 and North of State Highway 52.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that the applicant and their representative, Todd Hodges, wish
for this case to remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
L`cZwr , ly-L`y
1
c_;),2O(79— 2,37/ 1'/
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish to hear this case. No one wished to speak.
Roy Spitzer moved that the Consent Agenda including USR-1703 and AmUSR-1232, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1706
APPLICANT: Xcel Energy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of Public Utility or Public Agency (16 -inch natural gas pipeline) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Preferred Route Crosses Section 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, T4N, R68W and
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Pipeline runs from CR 1 east to the CR 25 section line.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that Public Service Company of Colorado, an XCEL Energy
Company has applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of
a Public Utility (16 -inch natural gas pipeline) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
The applicant published a public notice including a map of the proposed pipeline in the Windsor Beacon
as required by the Weld County Code.
The Department of Planning Services also posted notice signs approximately where the pipeline would
cross county roads within Weld County (no sign was posted on County Road 7 due to a road closure).
The applicant indicated that they had held two public workshops on April 8th and May 131h of this year
regarding the proposed pipeline project. The applicant also indicated that they had notified surrounding
property owners adjacent to the preferred pipeline route of these workshops for the April 8 hearing.
Property owners within 500 -feet of all three proposed routes were notified of the May 13th hearing.
The proposed pipeline will be located in both Larimer and Weld Counties. The pipeline is proposed to run
from County Road 1 on the west -end to the County Road 25 section line on the east end (a distance of
approximately 12 miles). Substantial portions of the pipeline will be located within the incorporated limits of
the Towns of Johnstown and Milliken. The applicant has stated that there will be a regulator station site off
of County Road 17. The site will be a fenced 50 by 50 -foot area and will contain a small pre -fabricated
building on -site. If necessary, electricity may be supplied by the existing infrastructure. Other
aboveground facilities in the county include two valve sites and a control valve site. The proposed control
station and proposed odorization facility will be located within Larimer County and the Town of Milliken
respectively.
The applicant reviewed three potential pipeline location alternatives and ranked the alternatives based on
engineering (length of pipeline, adjacency to existing utility corridors), natural environment (slope,
water/floodplain/wetland crossings, length and/or proximity to Bald Eagle Habitat) and Human
Environment (number of parcels crossed by pipeline, length of pipeline crossing agricultural lands, number
of road/highway crossings). The applicant chose the preferred route "A" because it had the shortest
length, least number of surface water crossings, shortest length of the route within the 100 -year floodplain,
fewest number of individual parcels impacted, and crossed the least amount of agricultural land,
minimizing crop damages and lost crop production.
The Towns of Johnstown and Milliken responded and stated that they had no conflict with their interests.
Nineteen referral agencies reviewed this case; five referral agencies (Public Works, Environmental Health,
Building Inspection, Town of Milliken, Town of Johnstown) responded favorably or included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. Fourteen referral
agencies did not respond.
2
Two phone calls from adjacent property owners were received regarding this case. One property owner
expressed concern with impacts on his property as he has cropland in the preferred route location. He
also expressed concern of whether or not he received notification of the public workshops in April and May
of 2009. The application indicates that the pipeline will be located to the greatest extent possible to
minimize impacts on the operation of irrigation equipment. All soils removed for installation will be returned
to their original location and will not be moved offsite. The applicant indicates that they will repair and/or
replace any facilities damaged or removed during the placement of the pipeline.
The applicant is waiting to get approval of the pipeline route before finalizing agreements with property
owners. The Department of Planning Services is requiring finalized agreements with property owners and
ditch companies (where ditch crossings are to occur), prior to recording the plat.
The Department of Planning Services believes the application is in compliance with the Major Facility of
Public Utility criteria of the Weld County Code and recommends its approval.
Mr. Gathman handed out a list of proposed revisions to the staff comments. Originally Condition 2.6 had
referred to construction and post -construction lease agreements and staff is requesting that the "construction
and post -construction" be removed.
Staff is also requesting that Condition 2.C be added to read "The finalized gas pipeline easement document(s)
for phase I of the project shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services".
In addition, staff is requesting to amend Condition 2.D.4 to read "The final location of the gas pipeline
easement".
Mr. Gathman commented that the applicant is proposing that this pipeline be constructed in two phases. The
applicant is proposing to start at the east end going through Johnstown and Milliken and ending around
County Road 15. The second phase would then continue on to the west into Larimer County. Because of this,
the applicants are proposing to start on Phase I shortly. According to their application, Phase II is scheduled
to begin in January of 2010; however the requirement is to get the plat recorded before Phase II would begin.
Therefore staff is requesting to add a new Development Standard #3 and renumber accordingly. The new
Development Standard states "Prior to constructing Phase II of the project, signed and recorded lease
agreements (or other acceptable authorization from property owners) along with the finalized Phase II
easement documents shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. Any amendment from the
approved pipeline route shall be reviewed by the Department of Planning Services and may require an
amendment of this USR."
Mr. Gathman said that in visiting with the applicant there is not any amendment planned to the pipeline route
as indicated in their application, however due to the fact that Phase II will not begin until the plat is recorded
staff wanted to put that development standard in.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 2.6 and 2.D.4 as well as add a new Condition of
Approval 2.C and Development Standard #3 as requested by staff, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grand clarified that the preferred route is the one that we are asked to approve today. Mr.
Gathman said yes.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that they are asking the applicant to supply them with a security bond
for all the crossings, boring, open cuts, etc. He added that the applicant needs to get permits with Weld
County and the State Department of Transportation for any overweight and overwidth transports. No Drainage
Report is required for this project but there are some areas which will need a Flood Hazard Development
Permit, such as wetland crossings and river crossings. Mr. Carroll commented that they would like to have a
traffic control plan in place for the crossings and all locations. He added that County Road 7 is currently under
construction to be paved.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that permanent water and sewer are not required because this is a
construction project. She added that they will have portable toilets, handwashing units and bottled water along
the construction route. Water will be trucked in for dust control as necessary. There will also be trash
dumpsters in various locations along the route. Ms. Light indicated that staff has no concerns with this
application.
3
Michael Diehl, Public Service Company of Colorado, 550 151h St, Ste 700, Denver CO. Mr. Diehl stated Mr.
Gathman did a good job with the presentation; therefore he has nothing to add but is available for any
questions.
Commissioner Berryman asked what the width of the easement is. Mr. Diehl stated that there is a 50 foot
permanent easement and 75 foot temporary easement during construction.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Greg Holloway, 22302 Schultz Lane, commented that he has had communications with Mr. Diehl. He believes
that notice has been insufficient, particularly in his case although perhaps not by fault of Xcel Energy. Mr.
Holloway found out about the pipeline through a flyer that was provided to him by his builder.
According to the research and the contact that he has had subsequently with the Department of Regulatory
Agencies and the Department of Energy the typical interstate natural gas pipeline ranges in between 12 and
24 inches. He added that a 16 inch natural gas pipeline raises some questions. It is an extraordinarily large
gas pipeline, especially for a lateral. He immediately contacted Xcel Energy and initially spoke with Greg Saia
and eventually received written communication from Mr. Diehl. He added that there were insurances from Mr.
Diehl on how this will not touch his property.
Mr. Holloway stated that he has serious concerns with regard to compliance of various safety regulations as
promulgated under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the subsequent State Commission. He
indicated that he spoke with an individual who is in charge of inspection at the Department of Energy in this
region, and was quite surprised that he didn't know about a 16 inch natural gas pipeline. Mr. Holloway urged
the Planning Commission to request a study of the size of this pipeline as well as the safety impacts of the size
of this pipeline.
The regulations promulgated by the Department of Energy, specifically Title 49 CFR Part 192, provide for a
rather stringent safety mechanism in terms of construction of this pipeline. In Mr. Holloway's communications
with Xcel Energy he understands that the only assurance that they have that they will follow those
requirements is voluntary. He added that because this is labeled as a lateral pipeline there does not appear to
be any federal regulatory agency that is going to oversee this project, which then leaves it to the State. Mr.
Holloway spoke with Mr. Steve Pott who indicated that the State can voluntary observe and monitor
construction of the process, although it is not compulsory. Mr. Holloway requested to make sure that the
environmental impact has been fully assessed and that safety regulations are completely complied with,
especially given the size of the proposed pipeline. He added that those regulations and safety mechanisms
exist for a reason and he respectfully urged the Planning Commission to make sure that there is some sort of
review process in place to make sure that a pipeline of this size carrying this kind of pressure has the
appropriate safety oversight.
Mr. Holloway's house was just built about 50 yards away and requested that an evaluation be done to include
any new construction of residences. He is concerned about having such a large pipeline next to his family's
home and when it is 4'/: feet deep.
Mr. Holloway said that it is incumbent upon this process and Xcel Energy to answer these questions fully and
effectively and make sure that every safety mechanism available is followed.
Ivar Larson, CR 1, stated that he is a registered engineer in the State of Colorado. The high pressure natural
gas pipeline is proposed to go through his property as part of a major project going through Weld County. He
is in a lawsuit over the condemnation of the right-of-way. In his efforts to negotiate the matter before litigation
commenced he was denied information necessary to make judgments on the safety of the intended route;
therefore he made his own investigation.
The intended route crosses two high pressure finished petroleum product lines for Sinclair Transportation
Company. These carry approximately 67 thousand barrels of jet fuel from Sinclair Wyoming to Henderson
Colorado. The point of intersection is adjacent to the existing residential development in the Town of
Johnstown called Rolling Hills Subdivision. While the high pressure natural gas line has its own dangers, the
crossing of the Sinclair line so close to an existing developed subdivision magnifies the risk.
4
HUD has established Assumed Safe Distances (ASD) from industrial uses for all projects it might help finance
or construct. HUD standards are influential in insurance ratings and residential financing. The Xcel line has
so much BTU capacity that it violates the ASD near Rolling Hills. The crossing of the Sinclair line makes the
intersection so dangerous that existing houses should be moved away. In his opinion as an engineer, the
ASD for just the Sinclair lines with the jet fuel going through is approximately 500 feet on each side of the line.
Mr. Larson has come to believe that Xcel does not care about community safety in making routing decisions.
He indicated that they were unwilling to negotiate a change of route. He added that a safer route exists which
runs across his property and removes the intersection of the Sinclair line and routes most of the line away
from existing development. Mr. Larson stated that the safer route does impact a greater portion of his
property.
Mr. Larson commented that a public information website suggests that FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) regulates gas. This agency is a part of the Department of Energy. A separate agency may
regulate construction and management of pipelines. The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is part of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) which is part of the Department of
Transportation. He cannot tell whether OPS govern the pipelines that deliver the product that FERC regulates.
The International Fire Code and International Building Code have sections related to fire hazards and safety.
The codes have been adopted in various forms by all three jurisdictions that might have some influence on the
location of the natural gas pipeline. Exemptions to code application are provided for pipelines administered by
the Department of Transportation.
He has had the codes analyzed for the applicable provisions that give regulatory power. He quoted certain
sections regarding the codes and stated that it is the fluid that is regulated and not the structure; however the
structure must have safety features. Movement of the fluid is termed "handling" by the International Fire Code.
The regulation becomes very complex and is based upon the type of substance. The International Fire Code
cross references and adopts the International Building Code. Land development and land use must comply
with both codes. Installation of a pipeline is land development and land use.
In conclusion, Mr. Larson commented that the governmental bodies of the affected political areas owe a duty
to protect citizens. He asked for the Planning Commission's help on behalf of the community they are to
protect.
Fred Wies, 22444 CR 5. Mr. Weis stated that he met with a representative from Xcel energy and had a list of
40 questions. During this meeting he had 12 of those questions answered. Many of those questions related
to safety.
He commented that he has talked to Mr. Gathman regarding setbacks and what County Code regulates and
felt that those questions were answered unsatisfactorily. He stated that he would hope that the Planning
Commission would look out for their best interests and safety as citizens of Weld County. He added that
safety has been ignored and questions have not been answered. He thinks it is incumbent upon this board to
insist that some type of independent engineering analysis be conducted before we move one step further.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting and asked the applicant to address these concerns.
Mr. Diehl referred to Mr. Holloway's concern of not receiving adequate notice. He stated that the notices sent
out had a different landowner at the time. There were notices in the newspapers and flyers available. He
added that Xcel Energy held two public meetings; one meeting for the preferred route and another meeting for
all the routes considered. He further added that this hearing itself is a due process. Mr. Diehl commented that
he has spent a lot of time with Mr. Holloway through phone conversation and email correspondence. He
assumed that since he had not heard back from Mr. Holloway that his questions were answered.
The Department of Transportation does regulate this pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
does not govern this pipeline as they govern interstate pipelines. The OPS and DOT do govern this pipeline
and he has a copy of the federal regulations available that Mr. Holloway referenced.
Mr. Diehl stated that they have been providing natural gas service in the State of Colorado since 1926;
therefore they are aware of what regulations need to be met. They have safety flyers that are available to the
general public regarding pipeline safety.
5
Mr. Diehl referred to Mr. Weis's questions regarding safety. He stated that he believed the person Mr. Weis
was talking to was there to negotiate land rights and that person does not know the answers to a lot the safety
questions that Mr. Weis might have had. Mr. Diehl commented that along with himself, his staff is available to
address any questions the landowner might have regarding safety.
HUD safety requirements are a voluntary thing and there are no setback regulations. There is currently a 4
inch high pressure gas pipeline that is going through Rolling Hills subdivision. It is also at 700 psi and there
are pipelines all over the place that have that kind of pressure and are perfectly safe.
Mr. Diehl referred to Mr. Larson's comments regarding community safety. He added that in the negotiations
for the land rights this is the first time he has heard of Mr. Larson's interest in community safety. Therefore
they will try to alter their negotiations with Mr. Larson to see if they can't address some of the community
safety issues that he now has with this pipeline.
Mr. Diehl stated that they have nothing to hide and feel that they are doing it properly. He added that the
Environmental Assessment was thorough and the route chosen was the best route of those that were
reviewed.
Commissioner Spitzer said that Mr. Larson referred to HUD ASD and wished to clarify if those apply to a
facility such as this. Mr. Diehl said that those setbacks have to do with how the pipeline is rated and not
necessary how the pipeline is constructed or where it is constructed.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Diehl to explain what type of construction this 16 inch gas pipeline is. Mr.
Diehl replied that it is welded steel construction and asked for Sarah Robinson to give further explanation.
Sarah Robinson, 1123 W 3'° Ave, Denver, CO. Ms. Robinson stated that she is the Project Manager Engineer
for this project. She commented that the pipeline is a 16 inch steel pipeline 312 wall thickness and a grade of
X60 which is 60,000 psi. With regard to the class locations when it comes to the DOT code, it is based on
population density. Therefore, the more population the higher safety factor they have to put into the
construction of the pipeline.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what sort of quality control during construction there is. Ms. Robinson said it is
based on code and class location. In the Rolling Hills area it is considered a Class III which is the second to
highest safety factor. Not only do they increase the wall thickness and the grade of the pipe for this location
they also are required to do the 100% x-ray and a strength test. Before they can put this pipeline in service it
has to be tested 1 % times the maximum allowable operating pressure that they want to do.
Mr. Spitzer asked if an independent lab oversees this testing. Ms. Robinson said that it is a third party
inspection. Mr. Spitzer asked if this is reviewed internally. Ms. Robinson replied that it is reviewed internally
by the x-ray company.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the 16 inch size was determined by the distance or capacity driven. Ms.
Robinson said that this is the first phase of this pipeline and it will continue on from Berthoud in the next five
years to extend into Estes Park. She added that it is capacity and demand driven. It allows them to service
the number of customers who are requesting service; therefore based upon the need this size is what is
required.
Commissioner Grand asked if the preferred route was determined in terms of economics of construction
efficiency or balanced off on safety issues. Ms. Robinson said that they look not only at the location of the
pipeline but the environment surrounding it. To move the pipeline further to the north they would be crossing 5
waterways in a one mile stretch. Mr. Diehl added that the balance referred to was between existing and
planned land uses. There are a lot of things in the master plans for Weld County as well as for the Towns of
Milliken and Johnstown that you don't necessarily see on the route map because they are not there yet.
Therefore it was determined between the planned land uses, existing land uses, the environment, engineering,
etc.
Commissioner Hall referred to the x-ray company and asked if they are independent from Xcel Energy. Ms.
Robinson replied that they are independent company.
6
Commissioner Spitzer asked how well attended the public meetings were and what the feedback was. Mr.
Diehl said that there were approximately 100 people at each of those meetings and the feedback was specific
in nature. Public safety was an issue at these meetings.
Commissioner Ehrlich said that the public had questions about the studies and asked if there is something that
can be put on Xcel's website or something communicated to the public of all of the regulatory agencies that
you had to go through or studies that had to be performed. Mr. Diehl encouraged the public to contact him or
Greg Saia at Xcel Energy. Mr. Diehl's phone number is 303-571-7260 or cell 303-810-9707. He added that
there is a department in charge of pipeline safety who can give from stem to stern all the pipeline safety
regulations.
Commissioner Holton asked if there are any regulations on how close a pipeline can be located. Mr. Diehl
said that there are no regulations and added that there is a 50 foot right-of-way for the purpose of getting in
and maintaining the pipeline. There is no setback required for gas pipelines.
Commissioner Lawley clarified that this has to be recorded with the county. Mr. Gathman stated that was
correct. Mr. Lawley commented that if that any applicable setbacks from any construction would be required
from the Building Code in the Building Department. Mr. Gathman replied that was correct and added that you
cannot build in any easement unless they are granted permission from Xcel.
Commissioner Berryman asked what the buried depth is for this pipeline. Ms. Robinson said that the
minimum buried pipe is 4 feet to top of pipe.
Commissioner Hall asked how frequently the pipeline is marked. Ms. Robinson said typically it is line of sight,
any crossings, and at any point that it turns.
The Chair asked the applicant if they 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.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1706 be approved along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, yes with comment; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, yes
with comment; Mark Lawley, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he feels it is important that the public utility provides customer
input and stressed to do as much as they can in every project.
Commissioner Grand commented in any organizational effort you don't always satisfy 100% of the people
and he offered for Xcel to do everything they can to address the needs and concerns of the applicable
residents to the best of their ability.
Commissioner Hall commented that he knows that there are certain dangers in our environment but we
have to assume a certain amount of risk with providing utilities that we have.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Section 23-2-400.E and 23-2-400.G in reference to public safety of Weld
County.
Commissioner Lawley concurred with Mr. Ehrlich's comments.
Commissioner Holton commented that he has issues with the use of eminent domain and recommended
to use it very sparingly.
The Chair called a recess at 2:44 p.m. and reconvened at 2:52 p.m.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
7
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Grand asked where we are at in reviewing the fee structure for USRs. Commissioner Holton
commented that we are talking about a three (3) tier level where it starts with the $2500 fee and then gradually
decreases the fee structure.
Mr. Grand commented that he would be happy to provide his study to the Planning Commissioners regarding
enforcement. He added that he researched 7 months of data and it indicated that if you were in southeast
Weld County or Greeley or Evans you got the disproportionate share of attention. He would like someone to
address the violation review process of how they are generated. On the business side, it was overwhelmingly
generated by staff and felt that there should be some discussion about this. Commissioner Holton asked if
this study was sent to the County Commissioners. Mr. Grand replied that he sent it to the County Attorney
who suggested that it be sent to the Planning Commission. He added that he is prepared to email it to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Lawley asked if this is something that the County Commissioners should be addressing rather
than the Planning Commission. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that if there are concerns about
the way we enforce the code you could pass those onto the Board of County. Mr. Lawley commented that he
is comfortable giving a recommendation but was just unsure about what their role was.
Mr. Barker said that Mr. Grand can give his findings to the Planning Commission to review and discuss this at
the next meeting. Mr. Grand commented that he would email the data to everyone. He added that we should
have a process that is equitably distributed throughout the County.
Commissioner Berryman wished to clarify if the concern is that these violations are staff generated. Mr. Grand
said that he is questioning the means of equity in terms of investigating as it appears to be a disproportionate
amount of activity in selected areas which happen to be disadvantaged and ethnically slanted in terms of
demographics of the area. He believes that we should have a policy that says fair and equal across the board
you need to comply with the law. Commissioner Hall commented that it should be complaint based and not
staff based. Mr. Grand commented that in the business violations it was predominately staff generated. Mr.
Barker commented that when the Planning Commission is reviewing this they may have questions for staff
and suggested that at the meeting you may want to have staff available to answer questions generated by this
information. Then after that if you feel you want to forward something to the board you may do so.
Commissioner Holton recommended that at the next meeting to have staff available to answer any questions.
The Chair wished to introduce and welcome the new Planning Commission members, Jason Maxey and
Alexander Zauder.
Meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
Hello