HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023168.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller T F1
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn Absent I G
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Wendi Inloes, Lauren Light, Monica Mika, Don Warden, Sheri
Lockman, Kim Ogle, Robert Anderson
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, October 15
2002, was approved as read.
Weld County Fees,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION hearing date
Monica Mika
Transportation Impact Fees
Don Warden, Finance Director
Monica Mika, Director of Planning, introduced documentation for the new Weld County Fees and 2003
Planning Commission hearing dates. A goal was to utilize the Southwest Weld Building for Planning
Commission hearings. The proposal is for once a month at the Southwest Weld Building. There are issues
with regard to transportation for staff and commissioners. It will be easier for the population located in that
area to be involved in the process. There is a map separating the county into two areas. The intent is for
the dividing line to determine where the cases will be heard. The line is based on the amount of building
permits that have been tracked. Mr. Miller asked if the areas were equal. Ms. Mika stated it was
approximately equal. It is very consistent with the southern boundaries being smaller but having the same
amount of permits issued. Something needs to be established so modifications can be made throughout the
year.
Michael Miller asked if it was necessary to establish the south hearing dates a year in advance or is it
something that can be done on a month to month basis. Ms. Mika indicated that the proposal is in this form
due to the fact that notice must be given in advance and that is has been the policy of the department to
publish hearing dates in advance. This aids the public and staff. The submittal dates are critical with regard
to the dates. Mr. Miller asked if the dates are flexible. Ms. Mika stated that there is flexibility in the
schedule. Mr. Morrison indicated that the bylaws state that the cases must be scheduled so notice can be
given properly. Locations do not need to be scheduled a year in advance. There is a default with the first
and third Tuesday.
John Folsom stated that the demand for the cases will not fit into the schedule. Property notice must be
given and that would be sufficient. The hearing location will be based on need. Mr. Miller stated that the
hearing dates can be adopted and let the hearing location be scheduled at the time and demand of the
cases.
GYUbutt Arend r Page -1-
, -Jr_ �C O a. 2002-3168
John Folsom moved to accept the dates as written and let the location be determined by need. Steve
Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Ms. Mika continued with the Weld County Fees. The policy direction was to come up with a way to recap
some of staff time that Environmental Health contributes in providing case summaries of the various land
use cases. The intent of the proposed changes is to try to come to a more amicable means of cost recovery
for the review time required on the cases. That is the rationale for looking at the change in subdivisions for
more or less than nine lots. The more lots,the more complicated the cases become and therefor the more
time required for review. For example, Substantial Change hearing fee is different, additionally there will
be changes to fees including an administrative handling fee. This is a fee that is collected by the Planning
Department but is differed to the Clerk to the Board on cases when they require pre advertisement. Another
change is to confined animal feedlot operations. These cases require an extreme amount of staff time from
the Health Department. A flat fee is proposed with the additional fee of$500 based on per head thereafter.
When proposing these fees other counties were taken into consideration and reviewed with regard to their
individual fee structures. Larimer and Adams Counties were utilized. A modification to the amendment to
the MUD area is also being requested. The intent was for the fee to cover per parcel not the complete
project.
Michael Miller asked about mining permit increase and the rational behind it. Ms. Mika stated that cost
recovery was a major factor. The time that goes into processing these cases does not keep up with the
present fees. Several communities have several different ways of assessing the fee. It was determined that
the fee should be based on what was historically done tying it to the land use not the outcome. Alternative
recommendations can be made. Mr.Miller indicated that it would be wiser to have a larger up front fee. The
initial review is going to be the same regardless if the operation is ten or 100 acres in size. Mr. Miller
indicated that there are also significant increases in change of zone. Ms. Mika stated that modifications to
the fee structure can be made. The PUD, major and minor subdivisions changes were based on cost and
time recovery issues. The change of zone is where most of the work is being done and the review time is
spent. The changes are an attempted to keep the fees closely related. The difference with the Major
Subdivision is the fact that those are done less frequently. A Major Subdivision also includes and additional
step in the process. The Planning Commission is seeing more cases that include intricate information
causing the cases to be continued on a more frequent basis. The analysis that is being requested requires
more time to review.
Fred Walker asked about how often administrative or pre application fees are assessed and what a typical
charge. Ms. Mika indicated that services are provided for people when they come to staff and it depends
on who is met with. This fee is based on the hourly time of the individual they meet with. Typically meetings
are held several times before a fee is assessed. Ms. Mika indicated that out of 100 cases processed two of
the cases will go to a pre conference hearing,and that is based on the applicants choice. Once the case is
accepted there is no pre conference. An example of when a fee will be assessed would be before someone
submits a case and they are in a conceptual stage. If the applicant requests, before submittal, to have a
specific planner and specific staff members to provide direction, the fee would be assessed.
Michael Miller asked about the amount that could be assessed. Ms. Mika indicated that a Planner Ill would
be approximately $ 75 per hour. Mr. Folsom asked if there had been time studies on specific cases to
provide input on the analysis. Ms. Mika stated that some cases are tracked,but specific logs have not been
maintained for each individual case. Ms. Mika indicated that some cases require more time than others.
The intent is for more complex cases to pay for the additional review. Ms. Mika indicated that the 1041
cases time is maintained and the solid waste disposal cases. Ms. Mika indicated that different departments
have had input into this fee change. Mr. Folsom asked what the justification was for increasing this amount
dramatically. Ms. Mika indicated that for the case of Hazardous Waste the anticipated time was reviewed
to determine the appropriate fees. The fees have not been increased for sometime and need to be
consistent with cost recovery. They must now include staff review for other departments specifically
Environmental Health.
Cathy Clamp asked about the amount of paper work generated by the different cases is not that different.
Ms. Mika indicated that the basic information is what is sent to the Planning Commission. More staff time
is required for the larger cases, while some cases that are reviewed are not reviewed by the Planning
Page -2-
Commission.Another approach reviewed was to assess fees based on a geographical area, such as in or
out of a UGB. The division of nine lots to eighteen lots was an option. Larimer County looks at being in an
urban growth area or not then a fee is assessed on that.
Fred Walker asked about the administrative fee and if it was assessed for activities prior to the submittal of
an application. Ms. Mika indicated that if there is an application pending the fee covers the staff time. An
example of this would be if a sketch plan had been approved,the applicant hires a new consultant and wants
staff to again go over the approved sketch plan with the new consultant.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the confined animal feedlot not having a pre existing fee. Ms.Mika stated that
the existing fee was the USR fee. It is now broken out. Mr. Ruesgen questioned that there be a legitimate
assessment of cost recovery hours and staff time relative to the fees and they are not established simply
based on other communities. Mr. Ruesgen indicated that it has not been shown that the numbers are based
on an actual analysis that can be shown and there was no magical number picked. Ms. Mika indicated that
in the future these analysis will accompany the fee structure. Mr. Folsom stated that it was based on staff
experience in addition to information from other counties. Ms. Mika stated that these proposed fees are
based on the time it takes for the various departments to review the case. Mr. Folsom stated that if the
information is needed than the process will be delayed. Ms. Mika indicated she is comfortable with what the
fees are suggesting. Mr. Miller asked if a time record was kept for specific case. Ms. Mika stated that none
of the county departments do this and it is not the direction given by the board.
Bernie Ruesgen indicated that labor cost is there but there is no absolute. What is requested is an informed
consensus that indicates this is the typical model and this takes a certain amount of hours. Then there is
a labor cost associated with this. This will enable the county to be able to justify the cost.
Bryant Gimlin asked to what extent would the total revenues be changes with the increase in fees. Ms.Mika
indicated that the increase in fee would increase revenue be fifty thousand($50,000). The Hazardous Waste
fee is not something that will be seen by the county. Mr. Gimlin indicated he has a hard time with the
hazardous waste increase because we have never had one and an argument can be made that we don't want
one that is the basis for the large increase in fees. Mr. Morrison indicated that there has never been an
application in the county. The statute was set up so that if no county approved a hazardous waste site then
the state could approve one. It is unlikely that the county will have to deal with that issue. If the comparison
can be made to a solid waste facility the ratio is comparable.
Michael Miller stated that the object is to break even. Ms. Mika indicated that the value that Health puts on
reviewing is something that is above and beyond the way the original fees were intended. Mr. Morrison
indicated that this is the law to break even and utilize the money for things related to planning process. Mr.
Morrison indicated that various departments are involved in the review of the cases and the time has not
been historically recorded in the analysis for fees.
Fred Walker indicated that it seems as though asking for more revenue based on staff needs places a
burden on a few individuals. There are cost associated with some of the issues there needs to be funding
to enforce the laws. The burden should not all be placed on the applicant. Mr. Miller asked if the health
department is being figured into the equation and is it fair to say that the referrals will be received on time
since some of this increase is due to cover additional staff cost. Ms. Mika stated that all agencies work hard
in getting the referral responses returned. There are delays sometimes. A large factor is the utilization of
the southwest Weld office. The continuance can be a four week delay. Ms. Clamp asked if the additional
fees would enable the Health Department to hire additional staff. Ms. Mika indicated that there may not be
an association between the fees and the exact number of employees. This revenue will help them maintain
their efficiency overall. There has been state cuts that had an impact on the local health department. When
money can be generated at the local level it will be used to maintain the high quality.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cathy Clamp asked if the Planning Commission had the ability to make recommendations and changes to
the proposed fees. Mr.Morrison indicated that recommendations for changes could be made but the budget
Page -3-
process is into the process. Mr. Warden can answer some of the questions as to what effect that would
have.
Don Warden, Director of Finance, indicated that the changes would have to be assessed and analyze what
effect it would have on the individual cases. If a fee would need to change, that would impact the amount
of increase and that would need to be factored into. The final budget will not be adopted until December 11th.
The fifty four thousand has been factored into the budget as it stands now. Mr.Warden indicated that staff
was not added to the Health Department. The governors veto in May of this year reduced the Health
Department by a large sum. The Health Department had to prioritize and lay off some staff.The expectation
is for another large budget cut which could effect the Health Department,Social Services,and a number of
County Departments The 2003 budget will go to the deadline before determining what will eventually be
approved.
Michael Miller indicated that only one he has issue with is the mining permit. The initial fee be $5000 and
cut the per acre cost to $20. The initial application is what requires the time, the acreage is not a large
enough impact. Mr. Gimlin added that the fee structure be approved but require planning services to
quantify the cases. Study the time it takes to do the individual cases. Ms. Clamp indicated the concern for
change of zone being more that doubled. Mr. Walker added that there is no administrative fee assessed
once an application is in the county. Mr. Miller indicated that the fee structure can be approved as is with the
recommendation that there be a record of hours spend on a case by case basis.
Monica Mika provided clarification with regard to the administrative fee and the different possible ways for
applying it. Mr. Walker is uncomfortable with there being different times to be able to assess the fee. The
little guy is of great concern for Mr. Walker.
Mr. Miller stated that the mining guys will have money and the money is preferred up front.
John Folsom moved to change the fee for mining permit to $5000 for the first 10 acres plus $20 per acre.
Cathy Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; S tephan M okray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cathy Clamp moved to amend PUD and Major Subdivision be $4000. John Folsom seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,no;Michael Miller,no;Bryant Gimlin,no; Fred Walker,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,
no; Bernie Ruesgen, no; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion failed.
John Folsom moved to approve the amended Land Use Fees. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; S tephan M okray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Transportation Impact Fees
Presented by Don Warden
Monica Mika indicated that the handouts were not received until today and the additional information is in
ordinance form and is not available. The proposal for today is to consider the item and postpone the
decision two weeks. This will enable staff to deliver the additional information for the Planning Commission
to make an informed decision.
Michael Miller indicated that this item is to be considered for review and the final decision will be made at
the November 19, 2002 Planning Commission hearing.
Page -4-
Don Warden, Director of Finance, presented the information with regard to the Transportation Impact Fee.
The handout that was given prior to the hearing was reviewed. History was provided on the project. A
number of counties in the front range have gone to transportation impact fees. These fees are so the growth
will pay for the transportation impacts on the county.
Michael Miller asked about the breakdown into quadrants and varying rates in those quadrants. Mr.Warden
stated the rate would not be varied but the concern that the money will be applied to a different quadrant will
not occur. The money that is collected in a quadrant will be applied to that quadrant.There is objectives to
have some of the county roads be connectors to adjoining counties and municipalities.
Cathy Clamp asked about the net cost of vehicle miles and if the amount is bases on annual or projections.
Mr.Warden indicated that would be the cost and is based on the life of the project. It is also a one time fee.
Fred Walker questioned the request made to the County Council last year for monies and if it was a one time
request. Mr. Warden indicted that once that has been granted by County Council it becomes a part of the
spending limits. Mr. Warden indicated that the Commissioners are planning on asking for an additional
million. Mr.Walker asked about the intent on connecting the cities and those cities do not contribute to the
county roadways. The cities are not building a structure but yet having an impact on the road structure and
not getting assessed any fees. There needs to be a mechanism to review the use and impact as well as the
structure. Mr. Warden indicated that the municipalities and counties are not exempt from the fees.
Residents are contributing through property taxes to the county road and bridge funds. Mr.Walker believes
that the appeals process needs to be reviewed.
Michael Miller indicated that the information will be taken and a vote will be done on the November 191h.
CASE NUMBER: PF-1021
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
APPLICANT: REI, LLC, do Christine Hethcock
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 4,5,8,9,10 & 17,T3N, R65W of the 6t° P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Final Plat for the 2n° Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 406 lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 32; east of and adjacent to WCR 39; and north of and
adjacent to WCR 38. For a more precise location, see legal.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, is requesting a continuance until November 19, 2002, as
the referrals are not back.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-552
APPLICANT: William& Dolores Roberts
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A and B of RE-2342; being part of the SE4 of Section 30,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with E
(Estate)Zone uses for Ten(10)Residential Lots and 51+/-Acres Common Open Space on
80+/-Acres.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 64 1/2 and West of WCR 27.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, is requesting a continuance until November 19,2002,
missing one referral.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-592
APPLICANT: Weld County Land LLC
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 of Section 33,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)..
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 7; north of and adjacent to State Highway 52; south of and
adjacent to WCR 16.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-592, read the recommendation and
Page -5-
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Stephan Mokray asked about the old mining operation. Ms. Light indicated it was an open pit coal mine.
John Folsom asked about the amount of lots and the reason for objection. Ms. Light indicated that this is
outside the IGA area for Frederick. The project would need to meet the standards of the IGA between Weld
County and Frederick and those of non urban development which is nine lots or less. Ms. Clamp asked if
the strip mine area was ever reclaimed by the company that owned it or is the top soil what has blown in over
the years. Ms. Light indicted that the applicant could address that, it might be the overburden. Mr. Miller
asked about the letter from Anadarko indicating they were not happy with the compliance of terms of their
agreement. Ms. Light indicated that the oil company wants to make sure this was brought to the attention
of Planning Commission. Mr. Miller added that one of the three wetlands would be adjudicated. Ms. Light
stated that the Army Corp indicated that they are non jurisdictional. Two of those wetlands will be taken out
when the roads are put in place.
Mike Burns, applicant representative, addressed the comments in two categories. The first is the planning
issues and the second being the technical issues. The intent was to get through the change of zone
application and continue to the next step while addressing all the technical issues that have been brought
forth. Mr. Burns indicted that they have every intention of meeting the open space requirements. There are
soft surface trails proposed adjacent to the roadways. They applicant will take the conservation easement
space and place it in an open space configuration along with the trail and have a HOA maintain this. The
applicant wanted to get county direction on the zoning before they went into depth with regard to the final
direction and addressing the issues. Mr. Miller asked how the Planning Commission is to make a decision
based on statements that they will comply. Mr. Burns indicated that the school district has administered a
voluntary impact fee. The applicant will adhere to this at the final plat. The applicant is willing to work with
all the agencies that have issues. There is a compatible use agreement with the railroad and this will be
adhered to. There are surface use agreements that are being worked on at this time. There have been
agreements made with both of the applicable ditch companies. The zoning issue is the largest issue. This
property is located between municipalities and has certain IGA's to adhere to. Mr. Burns explained the
surrounding area and that this use is compatible with it.
Mike Burns indicated that no more than nine lots would be required or the IGA will materialize between Erie,
Weld County and Frederick for a substantial change to occur for a re application.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr.Morrison if the land owners have a conservation easement that is removed from an
area can be deeded to a third party. Mr. Morrison indicated that the underlying property can be conveyed
but the use is controlled by the easement. Whoever purchases the easement obtains a limited use. Ms.
Clamp asked about the building envelopes according to the conservation easement. Mr. Morrison stated it
would depend on the terms of the conservation easement but it could allow for agricultural structures and
certain uses. There are no particulars,staff would review to determine if what is proposed is consistent with
the intent. Mr. Morrison stated that the concern with requiring the easement and the effect is on the tax
effect or exempt for the development rights. Ms. Clamp asked abut the finalized ditch agreements. Mr.
Burns indicated that both agreements are finalized. Ms. Clamp asked about the left hand ditch agreement,
not having watering outside the individual taps and the watering of the open space. Mr. Burns stated that it
will be left in the native state, but a tap can be applied for. Ms. Clamp asked about the fire hydrants and
the request by the Fire District to have 1000 gallons per minute but Left Hand Water District indicates it will
not guarantee flow. Mr. Burns indicted that the existing lines need to be read and if up sized lines are
needed it will be done. Mr.Burns indicated that they are in the process of extending a 24 inch line. This line
ultimately serves the Idaho Creek project. Ms.Clamp asked about the engineering report indicates an area
of expansive soils and is the applicant going to find out which lots have those soils. Mr. Burns stated that
septic and structure would be the issues with the soils. There are certain spots in which some structures will
need to be engineered specifically. There was some concern from the County for the ability to do septic
based on soils in the area. The applicants engineer would do additional borings and maybe modify lot lines
to gain the setbacks and to satisfy county standards. Ms. Clamp asked who is going to maintain the terms
of the conservation easement. Mr. Burns indicated the applicant would like to put the conservation
easement into open space and have the HOA be responsible for this. Ms. Clamp asked if the 15% would
lessen the size of the lot or the number of lots. Mr. Burns indicated that it would have no bearing because
Page -6-
they are at the 15%. The lots would be smaller.
Michael Miller asked about the septic system issues and if the cost of hooking into a municipality system was
pursued. Mr. Burns indicated this would require two lift stations and St.Vrain does not want them. This is
the only entity that could provide septic serviceto the area. Mr. Miller asked if the surrounding subdivision
were on septic. Pam Smith, Weld County Department of Health and Environment, stated that the lots on
septic are an acre in size. Mr. Miller stated that septic on this property was pretty slim. Ms.Smith indicated
that there are septic systems that can be installed that are not ET systems. Ms. Smith indicated that there
are several alternatives that are available but the majority will be engineered systems. Ms.Smith stated that
with the soils, lot size, and slope the viability will be small. Ms. Smith indicated that she is not comfortable
with septic being placed in this subdivision. Ms. Smith indicated that if this case were to be approved,
Health Department would recommend a management plan for maintenance of the septic systems to prevent
future failures of the systems. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Burns about the subdivision being urban but the
requirement for sewer service also needs to be addressed. A variance is being requested for public sewer
and the non urban status. Mr. Burns stated that the requirement for acre minimum is met for septic in
addition there are only three or four lots that have several issues. There would be more work done on those
to get them to adhere to standards. A management plan through a HOA would be in place to maintain the
septic systems. Mr. Walker indicated that rural subdivisions over nine lots can have septic systems. Mr.
Walker asked Ms. Smith about the second review and how many septic systems were on the slopes. Ms.
Smith indicated that all the septic envelopes were placed on the flatter areas,there were a few lots looked
at that need to be modified. There is an exclusion slope area to where they cannot be built. The homes
would need to be constructed close to the road, the severe slopes will be behind the home and the septic
area will be at the end of the lot. Mr. Walker stated that around 10 of the 37 lots are a concern for septic
issues. Ms. Smith indicated that the criteria are not on every lot but on some of them. The majority of the
subdivision will be engineered septic systems. They have estimated conventional systems on lots and it
cannot be confirmed.
John Folsom asked about the perk rate and the slope. Will a serial system work on a slope. Ms. Smith
indicated that the code does not allow for construction of a serial system. Mr. Folsom asked about the
subdivision to the east and being on septic. Is there any information or problems with the adjoining
subdivision. Ms.Smith indicated that she does not remember anything. Puritan has small lots and they are
on wells also.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Fred Walker indicated that there are a number of technical issues that have not been addressed. Some can
be done now or some later,but there are several issues of concern. Ms.Clamp agrees,the volume of paper
work is not enough detailed documentation. There is not information as to whether the lots will be viable if
they are cut up. There is significant concern with the conservation easement and making that open space.
This would cause the lots to decrease significantly or be eliminated. The intent is to have one lot per five
acres. If the development changes significantly it may not be the same proposal.
Michael Miller stated that the concern is what the end result would be.The application is incomplete due to
the fact that the information provided could change significantly with the end result.
Fred Walker stated his trouble is in the code supporting most of the application but is this what will be seen
in the end. Ms. Clamp stated that this is just a change of zone not a proposal. The major concern is if this
would qualify for any type of use rather than this particular drawing being the end product. Mr.Gimlin stated
that this is just a change of zone but the use and the ultimate design needs to be considered to determine
whether it will fit or not.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-592,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Page -7-
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried.
Fred Walker commented that the applicant has met the conceptual intent of change of zone.
The Planning Commission procedural document was discussed.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10pm.
Respectfully submitted
v X 1_l, Ct_k}
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -8-
Hello