HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062680 HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2006-66
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#1103, FROM THE A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO
THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR 131 LOTS WITH
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, A 23-ACRE LOT WITH
C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) USES,
AND APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES COMMON OPEN SPACE-LIBERTY PROPERTIES,
LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE WILLIAMSON
A public hearing was conducted on October 18, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Chair
Commissioner David E. Long, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Robert D. Masden - EXCUSED
Commissioner Glenn Vaad - RECUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Cyndy Giauque
Planning Department representative, Jacqueline Hatch
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated September 22, 2006, and duly published
September 27, 2006, in the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the
request of Liberty Properties,LLLP/Kenneth and Connie Williamson fora Change of Zone from the
A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District for 131 lots with
R-1 (Low Density Residential uses, a 23-acre lot with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and
C-2(General Commercial)uses, and approximately 30 acres common open space. Chair Geile
read a letter from Commissioner Vaad for the record, marked Exhibit F, recusing himself from the
hearing. Cyndy Giauque,Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record,and advised the
applicant's representative, Ken Merritt, that he has the option of continuing this matter to a date
when four of the five members of the Board will be present. However, if he decides to proceed
today, it will require three affirmative votes. Mr. Merritt indicated he would like to proceed today.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal,
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written,and
gave a brief description of the location of the site. She read Section 22-2-100.B of the Weld County
Code for the record, and stated the site is not located within an Urban Growth Boundary,
Intergovernmental Agreement or Mixed Use Development area;however,it is in close proximity to
the municipal boundaries of the Town of Mead, the Little Thompson Water District, and the Saint
Vrain Sanitation District. Ms. Hatch stated the application does comply with the Bulk Standards,and
she reviewed the exceptions for the record. She stated the minimum lot size will be 14,394 square
feet,the average lot will be 25,339 square feet,and the overall density will be 1.08 dwelling units per
2006-2680
PL1856
00 '. PL , .1% //-O.74-ate
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ #1103)
PAGE 2
acre. She further stated the area designated for Commercial zoning is 23 acres, and future
development would require a Site Plan Review. Ms. Hatch stated 21 referral agencies reviewed the
proposal, four offered no comments, 13 submitted comments that have been addressed in the
Conditions of Approval,and staff received no correspondence from the Towns of Mead or Firestone,
or Boulder or Larimer Counties. She stated the site does lie within the three-mile referral area for
the Towns of Mead and Firestone,City of Longmont,and Boulder/La rimer Counties. She reviewed
the comments provided by the City of Longmont,as noted in criteria paragraph#2.c.,for the record,
and stated the Town of Mead has verbally indicated it would like the chance to plan the proposal
according to its Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hatch stated the Edens Reserve Planned Unit
Development(PUD)is located to the east, and residents have expressed concern with the use of
Outlot F, which is slated for Commercial zoning, and have requested it be zoned R-2 (Duplex
Residential). She stated the Weld County 1-25 Arterial Roadway Corridor is located east of the
residential lots. Ms. Hatch stated the Department of Public Works is asking for the creation of a
Metropolitan District to address the maintenance of internal roadways; however, the applicant is
requesting the internal roads be accepted by Weld County for maintenance. She stated there is a
Condition of Approval which requires the submittal of a Service Plan for a Metropolitan District as
part of the Final Plan application. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Hatch stated the
applicant is not currently proposing a Metropolitan District,since they requested the County to take
the interior roads for maintenance;however,staff supports the Condition of Approval which requires
a Metropolitan District,and Condition of Approval#4.P also requires participation in the Southwest
Weld County Law Enforcement Authority. Responding to Chair Geile,Ms.Hatch concurred that the
proposed setbacks will exceed County requirements; however, the requested building height will
exceed what is allowed by the County. She reviewed the site layout, and further stated the Town
of Mead does have the ability to complete a flagpole annexation along Weld County Road 32. Ms.
Giauque stated annexation requires one-third contiguity,which does not exist in this case;however,
the Town of Mead has different standards and feels it does have the authority to annex the site.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the site is bordered by Weld
County Road 32 on the north and Weld County Road 5 on the west. She stated the property will be
serviced by the Little Thompson Water District and the Saint Vrain Sanitation District. She further
stated there are existing improvements located on the northwest corner of the site, including a
septic system, which will need to be abandoned. Ms. Smith stated there is trail around the
perimeter of the residential properties, as well as a pool facility, recreational area, tennis courts,
tot-lot, etcetera. She stated the private pool may be used by the residents and their guests,
therefore,it is not subject to State regulations. She stated the large grassy area in the center of the
development will be 15 acres of open space proposed for unorganized ball fields. She further stated
her concerns are addressed through the Conditions of Approval. Responding to Commissioner
Long, Ms. Smith stated if a pool is open to the public on a pay-per-use basis, then it is subject to
State regulations and the water quality must be tested and monitored; however, there is no
difference in water quality for a private pool.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works,stated Weld County Road 32 is a local gravel road with
60 feet of right-of-way, and Weld County Road 5 is a collector status road,which requires 80 feet
of right-of-way. He stated the Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridor runs through the east half
of the site,and the cross section of the interior roads will consist of two 12-foot paved lanes,paved
parking,and curb,gutter,and sidewalks,which need to be within the right-of-way. Mr.Schei stated
2006-2680
PL1856
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ#1103)
PAGE 3
the Stormwater and Drainage Reports have been reviewed and approved by staff,and they are also
asking for a Metropolitan District for the maintenance of the interior roadways. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Schei stated Weld County Road 5 is paved, and Weld County Road 32
is gravel. He further stated the applicant will be required to pave Weld County Road 32 and
coordinate with the Town of Mead as it connects to the east. He reiterated the interior streets will
have two 12-foot paved lanes,eight-foot wide side-street parking,and two-foot wide curb and gutter,
for a total of 44 feet flow line-to-flow line,which meets local status roadway criteria. Mr.Schei stated
the sidewalk is presently outside of the landscape buffer and right-of-way, so staff is requesting it
be relocated within the right-of-way or a waiver be granted by the Board. He further stated the
sidewalks are proposed to be five feet wide, which is the County standard.
Chair Geile commented the Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridor splits the property and the
resulting uses do not appear to be in agreement with the surrounding uses. Mr. Schei stated the
major access points will be from Weld County Roads 5 and 32, and there will be no direct access
from the I-25 Arterial,with the exception of an emergency access. He stated there is no agreement
regarding the construction of the I-25 Parallel Arterial,and the applicant is seeking direction on the
issue. Mr. Schei further stated the Department of Public Works typically asks that the applicant
adjacent to a roadway construct the improvements adjacent to their property or put up the
necessary collateral. He stated the applicant will be required to pave Weld County Road 32
adjacent to the site,and although Weld County Road 5 is already paved and appears to be in good
condition, the Final Traffic Study may indicate that additional improvements are necessary.
Responding to Chair Geile, Mr.Schei stated the Town of Mead Traffic Study shows the 1-25 Parallel
Arterial on Weld County Road 5, whereas Weld County's plan depicts the Arterial along Weld
County Road 5.5. Chair Geile stated Weld County's Traffic Study was completed four or five years
ago,and many land use applications have been reviewed and completed based on that information.
In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Schei stated following approval of the LifeBridge Church PUD, he
is not aware of any recent major developments for which Weld County has accepted the internal
streets for maintenance.
Ken Merritt, Landmark Engineering,Ltd.,represented the applicant and stated they did not initially
propose a Metropolitan District; however, they have subsequently agreed to the Condition of
Approval, and they will submit the Service Plan with the Final Plan application. He stated the
applicant is not legally, or statutorily, eligible for annexation to the Town of Mead, and when the
application was submitted to Weld County, the current point of contiguity was not a part of Mead.
He further stated the Town does have the option of a flagpole annexation;however,he reiterated the
site is not one-sixth contiguous to the municipal boundary. Mr. Merritt stated the Planning
Commission did unanimously recommend approval of the application, and the applicant has
reviewed the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and criteria as it relates to urban scale
development. He displayed a PowerPoint presentation,marked Exhibit P,showing the Weld County
1-25 Parallel Arterial alignment,which has not been adopted as part of Weld County's transportation
classification system, and stated the Town of Mead approved its own 1-25 Transportation Plan,
which was adopted subsequent to the submittal of the subject application. He stated the applicant
has been asked to dedicate 8.4 acres for right-of-way along the Arterial which bisects the property,
therefore, they chose to propose C-2(General Commercial)zoning on the eastern portion, since
there is limited access along the Arterial. Mr. Merritt noted the Mead alignment would allow for
R-1 (Low-Density Residential)and R-2(Duplex Residential)zoning of the entire parcel. He stated
2006-2680
PL1856
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ#1103)
PAGE 4
the applicant has provided the Little Thompson Water District with an analysis of the funding and
the District will provide 186 taps;and they have also annexed into the Saint Vrain Sanitation District,
which has committed to serve the property. He further stated the proposal meets Weld County's
criteria for urban development,and he displayed a slide depicting the properties which will likely be
forced to annex to the Town of Mead due to legal contiguity. Mr.Merritt proposed the Board consider
relocating the 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridor to coincide with Weld County Road 5,which would allow
for redesign of the site to consist entirely of R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and R-2 (Duplex
Residential) zoning. He stated the reason for the change at this point in the process is that the
Town of Mead recently adopted its own 1-25 Parallel Arterial Plan, which may provide a better
alternative site design. Mr.Merritt displayed a diagram of the alternative development layout,which
would increase the number of residential lots to 175,with an increase in the overall lot size density
from 1.08 to 1.1 acres. He stated considering the alternative does not suggest any significant
changes, and may potentially result in less infrastructure costs.
Responding to CommissionerJerke, Mr. Merritt stated the Conditions of Approval do require a mill
levy for law enforcement services; however, he is unsure of what the level of funding would be at
this time. He further stated the Metropolitan District would address the maintenance and operations
of internal roadways, curb/gutter, sidewalks, etcetera,while the construction costs would be paid
by the developer. Mr. Merritt further stated the applicant is proposing a 15-foot pedestrian/utility
easement for the sidewalks, since the tree lawn area places the sidewalks out of the public
right-of-way. Responding further to Com m issioner Jerke,Mr. Merritt stated the site drains from east
to west to the Liberty Gulch, and the applicant is proposing a series of swales and pipes to sheet
flow water across the site to the detention ponds in the open space. He stated the open space
areas will be irrigated with ditch water,and clarified sheet flow assists with improving water quality
as it flows across grassy areas and swales, versus along streets, gutters, and pipes. He further
stated the detention water will be released at the historic rate.
Responding to Chair Geile,Mr. Merritt stated the roads will be maintained through the Metropolitan
District, as agreed to at the Planning Commission hearing, and there is a Condition of Approval
which requires submittal of a Service Plan at the time of Final Plan. He reiterated the Metropolitan
District would cover maintenance and operations of the roads, curb and gutter, snow removal,
patching,future overlay pavement, etcetera. He stated once the bonds are satisfied and mature,
the mill levy will not be removed; however, it may be reduced. He further stated water and sewer
will be located within the public right-of-way, while the sidewalk, gas, and electric utilities will be
placed inside a combination pedestrian/utility easement,and there will be sufficient room to satisfy
the needs of the Public Service Company. Responding further to Chair Geile, Mr. Merritt stated if
approved, this property will not be annexed and will remain under Weld County's jurisdiction.
Chair Geile recessed the hearing for lunch until 1:30 p.m. Upon reconvening,Mr. Merritt responded
to Chair Geile by stating the application was submitted in April 2006, and at that time the adjacent
property was not annexed to the Town of Mead. He stated it has since been annexed;however,the
issue of contiguity still has not been met. Responding to Commissioner Long,Mr.Merritt stated they
did consider annexation;however,the applicant and future residents will not benefit from annexing
to the Town of Mead. He stated they would be required to paya 12.0 mill levy to the Town of Mead,
yet water and sewer service will be from the Little Thompson Water District and the St. Vrain
Sanitation District. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Merritt stated the homes will range in
2006-2680
PL1856
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ#1103)
PAGE 5
price from $500,000 to $1 million, and 12.0 mills could equate to $7,000.00 per year in property
taxes.
Mark Eberl, surrounding property owner, thanked the developer for addressing the neighbors'
concerns. He stated the Town of Mead is not developer friendly,the permit fees are too high, and
the Town does not provide many services in return. Responding to Comm issioner Jerke, Mr.Eberl
stated he would prefer the entire site be developed as Residential; however, if the 1-25 Parallel
Arterial is not relocated, he would prefer the 23 acres of C-2(General Commercial)be changed to
R-1 (Low-Density Residential) or remain agricultural.
Brad Fedorczyk, surrounding property owner east of the railroad tracks, stated he purchased his
property for the prime view, and he is opposed to the proposed commercial zoning, which would
not be visually pleasing.
Chris Conway,surrounding property owner,stated he is opposed to the commercial use,and would
like to see Estate lot sizing,which is more consistent with the existing uses in the area. He stated
he is pleased to see the changes made by the applicant to address concerns of the neighbors,as
well as a green belt along the railroad right-of-way. He further stated the commercial uses will
eliminate the prime mountain view.
Michael Friesen,Town of Mead Administrator,stated Weld County hired Felsburg,Holt,and Ullevig
(FHU)to conduct a corridor study, not an alignment study. He stated, coincidentally, the Town of
Mead has also been discussing the 1-25 Parallel Arterial for the past three years, and contracted
with FHU to decide upon a specific location to allow certain developments to move forward. In
response to Chair Geile, Mr. Friesen stated the Town of Mead adopted its Transportation Study in
August 2006. Chair Geile commented there was supposed to be a meeting between the Town of
Mead and Weld County to discuss the matter; however, that has never happened. Mr. Friesen
submitted a copy of Mead's Transportation Plan, marked Exhibit L,and stated it does not address
the alignment beyond the Town's boundary. He stated Weld County's study indicates a crossing
at the railroad; however, that would be too expensive, and the Town of Mead requests the Board
consider relocating its corridor and then consider the subject proposal accordingly. He further
stated the Town of Mead does not support C-2 (General Commercial) zoning between two
residential developments. Mr. Friesen stated if the property is annexed, the developer/future
residents would be required to pay 11.0 mills,and the Town would provide street maintenance and
police enforcement through a contract with the Weld County Sheriff's Office. He further stated
although the project is not legally contiguous,flagpole annexations are allowed,and the site could
be annexed. In response to Commissioner Long,Mr. Friesen stated Mead's Comprehensive Plan
was approved in 2004,and the Town was not aware of the land transaction or the subject proposal
until the referral was received. He stated the Town of Mead did send notice of the public hearings
regarding for adoption of its Comprehensive Plan. CommissionerJerke commented the concerns
of the neighbors will be mitigated if the C-2(General Commercial)zoning is eliminated,therefore,
he proposed considering the use of Weld County Road 5 for the 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridor.
Mr. Friesen reiterated the Town of Mead would also prefer altering the plan to eliminate the C-2
(General Commercial)zoning.
2006-2680
PL1856
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ#1103)
PAGE 6
Chair Geile commented regarding the unique features in the Mead Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Friesen stated he wrote approximately 99 percent of the content,and noted it is unique because
he was allowed to write it the way he feels a Comprehensive Plan should be compiled. Chair Geile
commented it consists of nine planning areas, and it becomes very confusing as to how they work
together. He further stated it includes some hypothetical analysis which conflicts with certain
aspects of the plan. Chair Geile stated the Town of Mead has approached the County several times
to review its Comprehensive Plan; however,an Intergovernmental Agreement cannot be reached
because the Town is unable to provide water and sewer to over 1,000 lots within the municipal
boundary. He further stated there is approximately 111,000 acres which have been annexed by
towns in the County,and the Mead Comprehensive Plan identifies over30,000 acres,which equals
one-third of all the area claimed by municipalities throughout Weld County. Chair Geile questioned
the development of an Intergovernmental Agreement based on those principals. Additionally, he
stated the Town of Mead requires development fees totaling$7,000.00 for services such as storm
drainage, transportation, open space, police, municipal facilities, parks, a recreation center,
downtown revitalization, and equipment. In response to Chair Geile, Mr. Friesen stated it is not
appropriate protocol fora municipality to approach developers regarding annexation;the land owner
must petition to the town. Chair Geile commented the County is often told that the Town of Mead
is unfriendly to businesses and developers,and that staff is difficult to contact. Mr. Friesen stated
he represents the Mead Town Board, and in his five years with Mead, things have improved. He
stated funds are now available,and he personally speaks with members of the public as his limited
time allows. He stated the Town of Mead approved several subdivisions in the 1980's under a
different philosophy, there are only 300 lots which are serviced by septic systems, and current
developments are required to connect to public sewer. He further stated the area has experienced
tremendous growth,water services are available,and although they cannot provide sewer to all of
the planning area, he requested the application be denied and referred to the Town of Mead for
annexation. Chair Geile requested the referral response from the Town of Mead be submitted for
the record. There being no further comments, Chair Geile closed public testimony.
Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, stated Weld County approved the 1-25 Parallel
Arterial Corridor in 2003, and staff required the applicant to show the Arterial on the Sketch Plan
drawings for review. He stated during the planning review process,the Town of Mead approved its
own version of the 1-25 Arterial location. Mr. Scheltinga stated the applicant has done the work
requested by the Department of Public Works;however,it now appears they agree with the location
depicted in Mead's study and can provide the necessary right-of-way at that location. He stated staff
met with the applicant met several weeks ago to discuss the issue, and it was agreed to move
forward with the original design for the Change of Zone hearing, and to finalize the details prior to
the Final Plan hearing. He stated it was not staff's intent to present two alternatives to choose from;
however,the applicant has made some good arguments regarding the Mead study and the timing
issues for the applicant. Commissioner Jerke stated it is difficult for three members of the Board
to make a determination on the 1-25 Arterial Road Study, without the appropriate members in
attendance,and he suggested a continuance until the road issue is resolved with all five members
of the Board. Commissioner Long concurred, recognizing that the land use case should be
considered separately. (Changed to Tape #2006-38.) Mr. Scheltinga stated the applicant has
worked well with staff, there are no problems with the initial proposal,and the applicant has done
nothing wrong. Commissioner Long stated changing the design would require additional comments
from referral agencies.
2006-2680
PL1856
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ#1103)
PAGE 7
Mr.Merritt stated the Planning Commission's biggest concern was incompatibility with C-2(General
Commercial) zoning, and the neighborhood also took issue with the impacts. He stated the
applicant saw an opportunity to potentially resolve the issues of the neighborhood by presenting the
optional design. He stated they are sensitive to the height issue,and noted the extra five feet helps
with walk-out lots; however,the applicant is willing to lower the building height on the eastern lots.
He stated the site design was not a consideration until after Mead adopted its Transportation Study,
and an indefinite continuance would be very costly to the applicant. Commissioner Jerke
commented discussion at a future hearing could be limited to resolving the location of the Arterial.
At the request of the applicant, Chair Geile recessed the hearing to allow the applicant time to
consider their options and the suggestion of a continuance. Upon reconvening, Mr. Merritt stated
the applicant met with the Department of Public Works and discussed the alternate design;
however,he agreed that they did not discuss that it would be presented to the Board at the Change
of Zone hearing. He stated it became apparent that staff was charged with implementing the
approved study; however, the applicant felt it was a study, not an implementation plan. He stated
they chose to present the alternative today because it would not be in staffs authority to make a
determination as to which study should be recognized. Mr. Merritt requested the Board approve the
R-1 (Low-Density Residential) zoning portion of the application and remove the C-2 (General
Commercial)zoning and right-of-way issues. He stated this decision would allow them to move
forward on the housing development,while the appropriate parties meet to resolve the 1-25 Arterial
issue. He stated once a determination has been made,the applicant could return with a subsequent
Change of Zone application for the remainder of the site. He requested a timely resolution to the
road plan to allow the applicant to proceed with development on their property. Responding to
Commissioner Long, Mr. Merritt reiterated the portion to be removed from the application would
remain zoned Agricultural until a future Change of Zone application is considered.
Ken Williamson, applicant, stated because the study was approved in 2003, staff was not in a
position of doing anything but implementing it at the direction of the Board. He stated the corridor
is in the wrong place and is too costly for landowners to construct,with his share totaling$2 million.
Mr. Williamson stated the road issue must be resolved,since denial would still result in the same
conflict in the future.
Ms. Hatch stated the applicant did discuss the option of removing the C-2(General Commercial)
zoning at the Planning Commission hearing;however,the motion failed. She stated the same issue
was also discussed further at the staff meeting on October 6,2006. Ms.Giauque stated the notice
for this hearing did include the C-2 zoning. Commissioner Long questioned whether the requested
change would set a precedence of approving a Substantial Change beyond what was considered
by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jerke commented he does not consider the request
a substantial change, since the questionable portion will remain unchanged until later.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board, stated the next
available hearing date is December 13,2006. CommissionerJerke moved to continue the request
of Liberty Properties, LLLP/Kenneth and Connie Williamson, for a Change of Zone from the
A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District for 131 lots with
R-1 (Low Density Residential uses, a 23-acre lot with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and
C-2(General Commercial)uses,and approximately 30 acres common open space, based on the
2006-2680
PL1856
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIBERTY PROPERTIES, LLLP/KENNETH AND CONNIE
WILLIAMSON (PZ#1103)
PAGE 8
understanding that the remaining issue to be resolved and discussed at the future hearing is the
placement of the 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridor,and zoning of the eastern 23 acres. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Long. Commissioner Jerke stated the work session will include a full
quorum of the Board, representatives from the Town of Mead, County staff, surrounding property
owners,and FHU, regarding the road corridor study only. Any additional comments from the Town
of Mead specific to the land use case will need to be restricted to the hearing on December 13,
2006. (Clerk's Note:Re-notification of the future hearing date will be dependent upon the outcome
of the work session scheduled for November 8, 2006, and whether the requested C-2 (General
Commercial)zoning classification is removed from the 23-acre parcel.) There being no further
discussion, the motion carried unanimously, and the hearing was completed at 3:10 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 23rd day of October 2006.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF C UNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COU , COLORADO
ATTEST: �•
M. eile, Chair
Weld County Clerk to e
BY: David E. Long, Pro-Tern
' ' 2L ,. c��'"' ���i
Dep$� Clerk . the �,4 � � !� �-
William H. Jerke
TAPE #2006-37 and #38 EXCUSED
Robert D. Masden
DOCKET#2006-66 RECUSED
Glenn Vaad
2006-2680
PL1856
Hello