HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052341.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Bryant
Gimlin, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn •
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
,_ r
Doug Ochsner Absent
James Welch Absent
Also Present: Kim Ogle,Chris Gathman,Jacqueline Hatch,Don Carroll, Peter Schei,Char Davis, Pam Smith,
Lee Morrison
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 5,2005,was
approved as read.
Hearing items to be continued:
— CASE NUMBER: 2ndAmUSR-1198
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-3308; Pt N2NW4 of Section 32, T4N, R65 of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support Facility(Class II Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility
and a Solids Recovery System) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 40 and 250 feet more or less east of CR 39.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services. Dale Butcher, on behalf of Conquest Oil, has requested an
indefinite continuance in order to review solid waste issues with the State of Colorado. In my visits with
Mr. Butcher, it appears that this should be resolved soon and Mr. Butcher is requesting this case be
placed on the August 16 agenda and staff is in support of this recommendation.
Moved by James Rohn that 2ndAmUSR-1198 be continued to the August 16, 2005 hearing. Seconded by
John Folsom. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda items:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1518
APPLICANT: John & Kellie Hathaway
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1747; Part of the SE4 of Section 20, Ti N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Sale of wood chips and
agricultural related products) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 6; and west of and adjacent to Interstate 76.
Neither the applicant, the board members, or members of the audience wished to have this item removed
&aznt diem g- 15- 2005 2005-2341
from the consent agenda.
Moved by James Rohn that USR-1518 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
recommendation of approval including the development standards and conditions of approval. Seconded
by John Folsom. Motion carried unanimously.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1513
APPLICANT: Chris &Joe Miller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A& B of RE-2617 pt of W2NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility with uses similar to those seen at Guest farms and
fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (For a complete list of
uses see application)
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 19
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Chris and Joe Miller have applied for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Recreational Facility with uses similar to those seen
at guest farms and fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
Including—spring festival, fall festival, Christmas festival, giant air slide,jumping castle, on-farm market,
picnic area, plat set(slide and swing set), hay maze, corn maze, petting zoo, dirt pile, hay rides, miniature
golf, paint ball course, you-pick produce, train and fire truck ride, haunted corn maze, potential use for
wedding receptions and birthday parties, Christmas tree and wreath sales and teepees.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted June 3, 2005 by Staff.
The site is located South of and adjacent to State Highway 66, East of and adjacent to County Road 19.
A letter dated June 21, 2005 from Chris and Joe Miller state that they wish to amend their application as
follows;
1. Change the hours of operation from 9-6 to 9-10
2. Change the months of operation from April though mid June to May through June and September 10`"
through Thanksgiving to September 10th through Christmas
3. Delete paintball from the application and add haunted hayrides and overnight camping, limited to
small groups.
Staff has amended the Development Standards to reflect these changes as follows.
Development Standard #2
The site is limited a giant air slide,jumping castle, on-site farmers market, picnic area, play set (slide and
swing set), hay maze, corn maze, petting zoo, dirt pile, hay rides, miniature golf, you-pick produce,train and
fire truck ride, haunted corn maze,haunted hayrides,wedding receptions,birthday parties,and Christmas tree
and wreath sales. Temporary Assemblage Permits will be required for overnight camping.
Development Standard #8
The hours of operation are from 9:00 am to 10.00 pm, 7 days a week as indicated in the application material
for the following time periods.
Spring Festival—May though June
Fall/Winter Festival—September 10th through Christmas
Overnight Camping/Special Events—a Temporary Assemblage Permit shall be applied for and approved by
the Board of County Commissioners prior to the use of the site for overnight camping/Special Event
regardless of the number of people. There will be no more than one special event a month consistent with the
Use by Special Review seasons.
The applicants have submitted an additional letter dated July 7, 2005 stating that they will remove the
entertainment hall/structure from the map. If they wish to proceed in the future with an entertainment hall they
will need to apply for an amended USR.
The site is currently in violation (VI-0500127). If this Use by Special Review application is approved, the
property will be in compliance. If denied, all commercial equipment and activities shall be removed from the
property. Otherwise, the violation case will proceed accordingly.
Surrounding properties are agricultural in nature. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will
mitigate negative impacts on surrounding homes. One surrounding property owner has called expressing
concerns regarding the hay rides not being conducted on the site and the lagoon on site.
Development standard #11 states no uses outlined in the application material shall be conducted outside
of this Use by Special Review boundary.
Condition 1.c requires the applicant to submit a landscaping and screening plan. Staff will request that the
applicant supply adequate screening and signage around the lagoon to prevent accidents.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this case. Twelve responded favorably or included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No comments were
received from the Towns of Firestone and Platteville.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services Staff is recommending approval of USR-1513 with the
proposed Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Staff would like to make one correction to the development standards and recommend that number 32,
page 10 be removed as number 26 of the development standards already addresses the issues of septic
systems on site.
Bryant Gimlin inquired about permanent restroom facilities versus temporary facilities and whether the
applicants are still within the number of operating days allowing use of temporary facilities? Char Davis,
Department of Environmental Health replied that they are, due to changes made in the number of days of
operation and that temporary facilities are acceptable.
Joe Miller, applicant, 13912 CR 119, Platteville, CO. He said he has lived his whole life here and this is
his livelihood. He has changed the number of days of operation in order to comply with the six month time
frame allowing temporary restroom facilities. Hours of operation were changed to accommodate night
time loading of trucks.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Roger Smith, 12506 CR 19, Mr. Miller's neighbor, said the Miller's run a good operation, the kids have a
good time, it's a positive experience for parents and kids, and the only noise he has heard are the squeals
of delight from the children.
The chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
James Rohn said he was concerned due to the increased traffic on HWY 66 and the safety and welfare of
the county citizens in accessing this property. John Folsom expressed his support for Mr. Rohn's
concerns. Bryant Gimlin said his biggest concern is for the volume of activity placed on the temporary
restroom facilities and would encourage the applicants to construct permanent facilities as funds allow.
James Rohn questioned whether they needed to address the amendments. Ms. Hatch said they were all
addressed in the staff comments.
James Rohn moved to delete development standard 32. Seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1513,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-631
APPLICANT: Bryon Legg
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B AmRE-616 pt of W2SW4 of Section 22, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a kennel (250 dogs) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18 and east of and adjacent to CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Bryon Legg has applied for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Kennel (250 greyhounds) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on July 6, 2005 by staff. The site is located
north of and adjacent to CR 18 and east of and adjacent to CR 31.
USR-631 was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 24, 1987 to Philip Breedlove for
Adolph and Betty Anderson. Development standard #10 stated that the Use by Special Review permit shall not be
transferable by the applicant and/or owner to any successors; the use by special review permit shall terminate
automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property with others for operation of the facility.
A letter was sent to Bryon Legg on March 3, 2005 giving notice of a probable cause hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners because the site was not in compliance with the original permit. Bryon Legg then submitted
this amendment to USR-631 to continue the use on the property and allow for the permit to be transferable.
The surrounding area consists of kennels to the east and west of the site. Residential uses (Aristocrat Ranchettes)
are located to the south of the site and agricultural uses to the north. One letter has been received from a surrounding
property owner objecting to the addition of kennels closer to their home. Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Eight referral agencies reviewed this case: three referral agencies had no comments; three referral agencies included
conditions that have been addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval; no comments
were
received from the City of Fort Lupton and the United States Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services.
The referral from the Colorado Department of Agriculture-Animal Industry Division (PACFA)states that greyhound
facilities are regulated by the Division of Racing and that they are exempt from PACFA licensure.
Condition 2.a requires the applicant to provide written evidence to both the Department of Planning Services and the
Department of Public Health and Environment that the applicant has contacted the State of Colorado, Division of
Racing. This contact shall determine if a license is required. If required, the applicant shall provide evidence the
license has been applied for or submit evidence that a license is not required.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has determined that the special use permit, conditions of
approval and development standards will make the proposal consistent with the Weld County Code and ensure
that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the county.
James Rohn asked about number of dogs for this USR compared to the original request. Ms. Hatch
replied that both were for 250 dogs, so nothing has changed. John Folsom inquired about the mitigation
of moving the kennels closer to the objecting neighbor's property line. Ms. Hatch responded that these
are existing kennels and that no new kennels are to be added.
Gaylynn Breedlove, sister and representative of the applicant Bryon Legg, 15027 CR 18, Fort Lupton, CO.
We are not required to have a license from the Racing Commission. The Racing Commission signed off
and I provided a letter. Fort Lupton had no concerns at their meeting. We are not asking for any
changes. It has been a family run business for the past 20 years and we want it to continue in the family.
Do we have to ask for a zoning change every time a family member wishes to participate?
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Hatch about the transfer of this kennel and whether they had to come in and
amend the application every time. Ms. Hatch replied that it is transferable since there is no development
standard stating that it is not transferable.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton inquired if the possibility exists to make the kennel transferable to the family only. Bryant
Gimlin consulted with Lee Morrison, County Attorney, and the response was yes. Mr. Gimlin also
suggested to Mr. Holton that he could compose some language regarding this issue and he would
entertain a motion. James Rohn expressed his concern regarding the number of dog kennels the
Planning Commission has approved during his tenure, but as it is a name change only, the operation
seems to be okay.
Bryant Gimlin said that the kennel in existence does presently allow for more dogs but it is also now
operating on a larger parcel of land.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Chad Auer moved that Case AmUSR-631,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes;
Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton,yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1075
APPLICANT: Thomas Bennett
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3914 & Lot B of RE-3915; part of the SE4 of Section 26,
T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A change of zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for a cluster PUD for seven
(7) residential lots for E (Estate) uses along with 96 acres of common
open space.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 23 and % mile south of CR 18.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services. This application is for a change of zone from
Agriculture to PUD for seven (7) residential lots with (Estate) uses along with 96 acres of open space on
140 acres. If approved, the proposed PUD would be served using individual wells, and sewer service
would be provided by individual septic systems. This is a cluster PUD. Under a cluster PUD, the open
space area will be required to remain restricted from residential development for a period of forty years.
The application indicates that this site will be used trail riding and a passing view corridor and also is
capable of being used for ranching operations.
The site is located on Lot B of RE-3914 & Lot B of RE-3915; part of the SE4 of Section 26, T2N, R67W,
Weld County. It is west of and adjacent to CR 23 and 1/2 mile south of CR 18.
Fifteen (15) referral agencies reviewed this case and thirteen (13)offered comments on this application.
This subdivision is defined as a non-urban scale development because it is not located within close
proximity of existing subdivisions and PUDs. It is not located within an urban growth boundary nor
Intergovernmental Agreement area, nor it is adjacent to a town boundary. The nearest subdivision is
located over 1/4 mile south of the site (which is the close proximity standard that staff has used to
determine urban scale).
The applicant has an existing stone sign on the property which has no record of a building permit. A
building permit shall be required. The sign may also need to be relocated because it appears to be
encroaching on the neighboring property line.
This site is located within 3-miles of the towns of Frederick and Firestone the City of Fort Lupton. The
Town of Frederick indicated no concerns. No referral comments were received from the Town of
Firestone and the City of Fort Lupton.
The site is not located within any overlay district. There are no apparent geological or soils conditions that
will prevent development.
The applicant is in the process of negotiating mineral agreements with KP Kaufmann and the applicant
has indicated that this agreement is nearly finalized. It is my understanding that they do have an
agreement in place with Kerr-McGee.
There are also 3 gas pipeline easements that cross the property. One of these passes through the
residential portion of the PUD. This pipeline is used by Duke Energy. Duke Energy indicated in e-mail
correspondence with the applicant that the homeowner of Lot 1 be aware that no structures could be built
within the easement and be aware of the rights of Duke Energy to access the R-O-W easement. Duke
would be willing to relocate this line if necessary provided the costs are paid for by the applicant or
landowner.
In initial correspondence between the applicant and the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District, the fire district
requested a 90-foot turning radius for the cul-de-sac. The applicant has agreed to the 90-foot turning
radius. The Fort Lupton Fire Protection District also recommended that the applicant explore bringing
public water to the site for fire protection services. The applicant indicated that the water service was at
least a mile away and it would be too costly to extend public water to the site for fire protection. No
referral response was received from the City of Fort Lupton at the change of zone application.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that this PUD is in compliance with Section 27-6-
120 of the Weld County Code and recommends that this application be approved.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman about the number of well heads on the site, having counted ten, and if a
PUD has ever been approved that contains that many well heads on it. Mr. Gathman replied that there
are that many well heads on the site and that some of the older PUD's in the county contain that many well
heads. Mr. Rohn expressed concern about approving new developments with that many well heads,
pointing out that older PUD's have been much larger than this one. Mr. Rohn also expressed concern
about the 4 inch gas line that travels through the proposed site. John Folsom inquired whether the well
heads and tank batteries would be fenced. Mr. Gathman replied that they are to be fenced per the
agreement.
Lauren Light, LANDPROfessionals, 4350 State Hwy 66, Longmont, CO 80504. With me today is Mr. Joe
Rutledge, Mr. Tom Bennett's broker. Mr. Bennett is the owner of the property and couldn't be here today
due to a previously scheduled out of town trip.
The sketch plan for Maverick Ranch was administratively approved by the Planning Department on
November 11, 2004. We worked closely with the State Division of Water Resources to ensure adequate
water for this subdivision since it is on wells. We had to re-permit an existing well that is located on a
recorded exemption lot and there is a copy of that permit in your packet. The re-permitting took several
months which is why it took us so long to submit the change of zone.
The subdivision will be serviced by individual wells and septic. The average lot size is approximately five
acres. The PUD will adhere to the requirements of the Estate Zone District. The open space area is
dryland and consists of approximately ninety-six acres which will be utilized for limited grazing as well as
provide an area for lot owners to ride their horses.
There were no adverse comments from referral agencies. The fire district is requiring a 90 foot cul-de-sac
which we will provide. I spoke with the school district and they liked the size of the cul-de-sac as they
could turn their bus around and get off of the main road.
There are several gas lines on this property. I have spoken with representatives from Kerr-McGee, KP
Kauffman and Duke Energy. We do have a surface use agreement with Kerr-McGee and we are still
pursuing signatures from them. KP Kaufmann indicated that as long as no structures are built within
seventy-five feet of their line they are okay with the lots. We are working on a surface use agreement with
them. Duke Energy now owns the Amoco pipeline. There is an existing thirty foot easement along their
lines. Lew Hagenlock, Duke's representative, indicated that no structures can be built over that thirty foot
easement area. I spoke to Mr. Hagenlock about Lot 1. The area to the east of Duke's pipeline and west
of the KP Kauffman line is 1.78 acres, so there is ample room to locate a house in the triangle area. The
remainder of the lot could be utilized for livestock turn-out and a loafing shed or pole barn. Mr. Hagenlock
said that water lines or septic lines can be put under their line or at least one foot above their line. This is
typical for the industry so there is no problem locating a leech field or well on the other side of the Duke
line.
Conditions 1A through 1D require mineral agreements with the lessors before scheduling this case before
the Board of County Commissioners. Based on staff comments to remove the flag pole on lot four, we will
redesign this and lot three will be approximately four acres which still meets the PUD requirements. Pad
of a lake is located in the open space. The water in the lake is owned by Lupton Meadows Ditch and the
lake will not be utilized for recreational use.
We agree with all of staff's conditions and I will answer any questions at this time.
John Folsom said that he hoped that any prospective buyers are made aware of the pipelines and
easements prior to purchase. Ms. Light assured him that this information would be available to them prior
to any purchase. Bryant Gimlin asked if any of the water wells in the area could be rated for fire protection
flow. Ms. Light said that was not possible but that the prospective homes would contain sprinklers.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
James Rohn asked the commission members about their feelings regarding the number of gas lines on
the property. Bryant Gimlin said there are plenty on the site but they have agreements with the oil and gas
companies so he sees no problem. Chad Auer agreed with Mr. Gimlin and added that the process the
applicant has gone through mitigates conditions so both entities can do what they want on property. Mr.
Gimlin added that this is actually better planned than what they usually see. John Folsom said the existing
fences give the prospective purchaser a clue as to land layout. Mr. Rohn likes the idea and thinks it is
serviceable but that all the well and gas line on formation be made available to prospective purchasers.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1075, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1516
APPLICANT: Herbert & Karen Legg
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3195; Pt E2E2SW4 of Section 22, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (200 dogs) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately % mile east of CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Herbert and Karen Legg have applied for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Kennel (200 greyhounds) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on July 6, 2005 by staff. The site is located
north of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 31.
SUP-103 currently overlays five properties consisting of four owners. A letter was sent to Herbert and Karen Legg
and the other three property owners on April 7, 2005 giving notice of a probable cause hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners as the site was not in compliance with the original permit on site SUP-103.
The Leggs then submitted this use by special review to continue the kennel use on their specific property.
The other three property owners are working on their own use by special review application, an amendment
to the original SUP-103, and one request to vacate SUP-103 from their property.
The surrounding area consists of kennels to the west of the site. Residential uses (Aristocrat Ranchettes) are located
to the south of the site, agricultural uses to the east and north. One letter has been received from a surrounding
property owner stating that they are in favor of the application. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
will ensure that the use will be compatible with the surrounding area.
Eight referral agencies reviewed this case: three referral agencies had no comments; three referral agencies included
conditions that have been addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval; no comments
were
received from the City of Fort Lupton and the United States Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services.
The referral from the Colorado Department of Agriculture-Animal Industry Division (PACFA) states that greyhound
facilities are regulated by the Division of Racing and that they are except from PACFA licensure.
Condition 2.a requires the applicant to provide written evidence to both the Department of Planning Services
and the Department of Public Health and Environment that the applicant has contacted the State of Colorado,
Division of Racing. This contact shall determine if a license is required. If required, the applicant shall provide
evidence the license has been applied for or submit evidence that a license is not required.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has determined that the special use permit, conditions of
approval and development standards will make the proposal consistent with the Weld County Code and
ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants
of the county.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch if this case was similar to Case AmUSR-631 where we were changing
names or are we increasing numbers of dogs. Ms. Hatch replied that it is different in that five people are
using the same use by special review, which is not allowed, so each must ask for a new use by special
review or vacate SUP-103. It will not be a name change it will be its own use by special review. Mr. Rohn
asked how many animals were approved for SUP-103. Ms. Hatch replied it was for two hundred dogs.
The Franks will be amending SUP-103. The Hacketts and the Leggs will each need to apply for their own
use by special review. Tom Holton asked where SUP-318 is located for the rabbits and worms? Ms.
Hatch showed on the overhead that it was located northwest of this site.
Herbert Legg, 15027 CR18, Longmont, CO 80504. Two hundred dogs sounds like a lot of dogs but
probably one hundred and twenty five of them are housed twenty three of twenty four hours a day inside of
a building. We turn them out five times a day for one half hour. Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Legg whether he
was boarding or raising greyhounds. Mr. Legg replied that he had been racing greyhounds at the
Loveland track for approximately twenty five years. Tom Holton inquired if the Franks and Hacketts will
have to build own kennels. Mr. Legg responded that the Franks will have to construct kennels as their
father has retired from the business and gave the property to his son. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Legg what
times the dogs were allowed outdoors. Mr. Legg said the dogs are let out at 5:30 A.M., 9:30 A.M., 2:00
P.M., and 8:30 P.M.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant closed the public portion and asked Mr. Legg if he had read and agreed with the conditions of
approval and development standards. Mr. Legg replied that he had read them and did agree. Don
Carroll, Weld County Department of Public Works, said there was a duplication in the conditions and
development standards. Items J.8 and number 22 read the same so one needs to be eliminated. Ms.
Hatch suggested they eliminate number 22. Bryant Gimlin asked for a motion. James Rohn moved to
eliminate development standard number 22. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1516,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commissions'
recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes;
Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: PZ-1074
APPLICANT: Frank Wright
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-3381; Pt S2NW4 of Section 5, T1N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for nine (9)
residential lots with E (Estate) Uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 3 and 1/4 mile south of State Highway 52.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services. This application is for a change of zone from
Agriculture to PUD for seven (7) residential lots with (Estate) uses along with along with ninety-six acres of
open space on one hundred forty acres. If approved, the proposed PUD would be served using individual
wells, and sewer service would be provided by individual septic systems. This is a cluster PUD. Under a
cluster PUD, the open space area will be required to remain restricted from residential development for a
period of forty years. The application indicates that this site will be used for trail riding and a passing view
corridor and is conducive to ranching operations. The applicant is requesting that the requirement of
curbs and gutters be waived. The applicant is also requesting a sign at the entrance of the PUD. As this
is an entrance sign and not a commercial sign, the Planning Department is recommending a total sign
size of thirty-two square feet. The Department of Planning Services is recommending that curbs, gutters
and sidewalks be required for this PUD.
The site is located on Lot B of RE-3914 & Lot B of RE-3915; part of the SE4 of Section 26, T2N, R67W,
Weld County. It is west of and adjacent to CR 23 and 1/2 mile south of CR 18.
Fifteen (15) referral agencies reviewed this case and thirteen (13) offered comments on this application.
Planning staff has determined that the submitted application does comply with the twenty standards
described in Section 2 of the PUD ordinance with the exception of the following:
Section 27-6-90, Signage—Section 27-2-90.C. states: "Signage within a PUD shall adhere to all
requirements in this Chapter and Chapters 23 and 26 of this Code, if applicable."
The Department of Planning Services has consistently required that subdivision signs adhere to
the size standards of signs for public and quasi-public uses,which is 32-square feet,per Section
23-4-80 of the Weld County Code. The applicant is proposing a sign that is larger than 32 square
feet. The Department of Planning Services recommends that the size of the PUD entrance sign
not exceed 32 square feet.
Section 27-2-190, Urban Scale Development — Section 27-2-190 states: "Urban scale
developments are developments exceeding nine (9) lots and/or located in close proximity to
existing PUDs, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors and boundaries."
The subject property borders the Carmacar Estates, Peaks at Mountain View and Summit at
Mountain View Subdivisions to the west and therefore is considered urban scale development.
The Departments of Planning Services and Public Works have consistently required curb gutter
and sidewalk for urban scale developments.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement for this
proposed subdivision. The Department of Planning Services is recommending curb, gutter and
sidewalks for this subdivision.
The applicant is in the process of negotiating mineral agreements with Encana and Anadarko. The
applicant has indicated that these agreements are nearly finalized.
The Division of Water Resources has indicated that the proposed water supply would not cause material
injury to existing water supply and that the water supply is expected to be adequate. However, the
Division said the water amount stated in the water summary information sheet is low.
The applicant has provided updated information regarding landscaping in the common open space area
along with the original agreement with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company.
The applicant has been working with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company regarding an agreement
pertaining to the conveyance of drainage water into the ditch. An agreement has not yet been finalized.
David Yardley, with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company indicated that he would be at today's hearing if the
Planning Commission would like him to speak on this issue.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that this PUD is in compliance with Section 27-6-
120 of the Weld County Code and recommends that this application be approved.
Bryant Gimlin asked about other PUD's and if they have curbs, gutters and sidewalks as part of their
requirements. Mr. Gathman replied that he had looked into three subdivisions: Carmacar; the Summit at
Mountain View; and the Peaks at Mountain View; none of which had requirements for curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
Frank Wright, Boulder, CO. This property consists of seventy-four acres he would like developed into nine
lots and three non-residential outlots. Anadarko has requested the fourth non-residential lot have no
property lines running through their operations area so he made it an agricultural outlot with no fences
placed in the middle of the lot. Mr. Wright said he has been working with David Yardley, Lower Boulder
Ditch Company regarding the retention pond that drains into ditch. The average lot size is six acres; the
right-of-way takes 4.2 acres; the retention pond takes 1.8 acres; and the open space is 13.4 acres. Mr.
Wright requested the requirement for curbs, gutters and sidewalks be waived as other developments in
adjacent areas have none and he wants to preserve the rural feeling. The houses are proposed to be
located at the top of the hill to maximize the best views, and curbs, gutters and sidewalks would have to
run uphill quite a long distance. The ditch company has also requested no curbs, gutters and sidewalks to
better control run-off to the retention pond and the ditch. Tom Holton inquired about paving and
something in-audible to do with the ditches. Mr. Wright replied in the affirmative. Mr. Wright agreed with
the conditions of approval and development standards except for the requirement of curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health, said that due to the relatively good condition of the soil
and the large size of the lots, she was not going to require primary and secondary septic envelopes on the
lots, therefore on page seven, items 3.G and 3.H can be removed. James Rohn moved that items 3.G
and 3.H on page seven be deleted. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman about Section 27-2-190 of the Weld County Code which says urban
scale development requires support services such as central water and sewer systems. Are we
interpreting septic systems to be a sewer system. Mr. Gathman said a septic system is not an urban
scale sewer system. There have been several urban subdivisions with more lots than this one that were
on septic. Ms. Smith said the Commissioners intentionally left this vague so we could deal with these
types of situations on an individual basis. Mr. Folsom asked if this was a broad interpretation. Mr.
Gathman replied that it was.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Yardley, 3838 Florentine Circle, Longmont, CO 80504, Secretary and Director of the new Lower
Boulder Consolidated Ditch Company. Mr. Yardley said he had two major issues with development flows
into the ditch. The quality of the water from agricultural flow is entirely different from pavement and roof
top flow which contains anti-freeze, chemicals, oil etc. The quantity is also an issue due to a structural
integrity standpoint for the ditch. If there are concentrated, unregulated flows, it may compromise the
integrity of the structure. Mr. Yardley also said the ditch company prefers the absence of curbs, gutters
and sidewalks to better control run-off to the retention pond and ditch.
Alison Berry, Woodrow& Sobel, P.C., representing Anadarko Land Corporation, wants their objection
letter, dated June 3, 2005, and submitted by Molly Sommerville, to be a part of the proceedings.
Anadarko and Mr. Wright have reached agreement since filing objections with the county regarding the
hard rock minerals. Anadarko does not object to the oil and gas interests or to the zoning for the property,
but would object to the approval by the county of a final plat for the property in the absence of an
agreement between the Anadarko entities and Mr. Wright. Ms. Berry said they want surface use
agreements with Kerr-McGee and Encana in place prior to final approval and anticipate those will be
executed in the next few weeks. Anadarko's goal is to have a final surface use agreement in place prior
to approval of the final plat for the property.
Chad Auer moved that we amend 1.B, page 5 and delete (with Kerr-McGee and Encana Energy
Resources, Inc.). Second by James Rohn. Motion passed.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Wright, the applicant, to step forward to discuss the curbs, gutters and sidewalks
once again. Mr. Gimlin said as he sees it they have three options: leave it as is; change it; or defer to the
Board of County Commissioners. Tom Holton said the interpretation is so broad it should not require
curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Gimlin agreed they should not burden the applicant as other similar
developments have no curbs, gutters and sidewalks and also because the ditch company is requesting
they be waived. James Rohn said other PUD's do not requires curbs, gutters and sidewalks and that
normally he would be in favor of this requirement but supports waiving the requirement. Chad Auer said
he feels the requirement is beneficial to developments but in this case it makes sense and he reluctantly
agreed to waive the requirement. Tom Holton motioned to waive the curb, gutter and sidewalk
requirement. Mr. Gathman then pointed out that this was not a condition of approval or a development
standard. Mr. Gimlin responded that the commission was adding their recommendation to that of staff.
Mr. Morrison said a motion was not required to get that recommendation to the board as it would be
reflected in the minutes, but if the commission wanted to make a formal motion, they could do so. Mr.
Holton withdrew his motion. Mr. Holton asked if it would be a requirement to vegetate the edges of the
barrow ditches along the side of the road. Mr. Gathman said there is a requirement in place where the
applicant must come to an agreement or provide evidence that they have addressed the concerns of the
ditch company prior to scheduling of the board hearing. If it is not a condition in the agreement, it is
something that we could look at adding. Mr. Gimlin asked Mr. Gathman to look at page 6, items 2. A. 6
and 2. D., as they say the same thing. Mr. Gathman agreed that item 2.D could be removed.
It was moved by James Rohn and seconded by Chad Auer to remove item 2. D. Motion passed.
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman if planning looks at the maps in regard to coal mining. Mr. Gathman
replied that they do look at a geologic hazard map that determines whether the subsidence area is severe,
moderate, slight or not at all.
Mr. Gimlin asked Mr. Wright if he agreed with the amended development standards and conditions of
approval. Mr. Wright said he agrees.
Chad Auer moved that Case PZ-1074, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval as amended. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Case: Metropolitan Service Districts
Planner: Kim Ogle, Chris Fellows
Lee Morrison, County Attorney, said the item up for discussion is a set of policies that will help guide the
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in the consideration of special districts in
the future. In the past, the county has had no specific policies in place that dealt with the long term
ramifications of creating special districts and what might be done in the service plan review process that
would help direct those districts in a way that was consistent with the county's policies and Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Fellows has extensive background in financing and the clean-up of financing gone bad on
special districts. He came to us suggesting that he could be of assistance in creating those policies. If
approved, they would go through a full review process and likely become a part of the code. As written,
they still leave some room for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to make
decisions, but basically they set the bar, which could only be lowered for specific reasons.
Chris Fellows, Fellows Financial, Inc., a third generation Coloradoan with experience in land development
and real estate for twenty-one years. Mr. Fellows said his background was in special districts, most
particularly those with financial problems. Mr. Fellows said he began talking with the county about this
project a year ago and working in earnest on it in December 2004, with the goal of composing a policy for
the county to adopt for special districts. They have held numerous workshops with county staff and the
Board of County Commissioners, and when that policy was drafted, it was sent out for recommendations
from three of the top district law firms in the state. In their comments, the law firms thought the
information presented today was a little too conservative and that the policy needed to be more liberal.
This issue is prompted by Weld County's significant growth in the next twenty-five years, which is
expected to increase by a quarter of a million people. The county will experience tremendous growth from
rural to suburban to urban. Special districts help with methods of financing, increase competition, expand
options available to the county and the applicants when building projects. Special districts started in 1949
and there are currently 2234 special districts. These district services may include fire protection, parks,
and recreation, ambulance services, libraries, water and sanitary sewer, storm drainage, roads,
transportation, mosquito control, security and covenant enforcement. Special districts and district
financing provide lower rate competitive financing, with lower risks and better amenitie, for everyone
involved. District policies provide a uniform approach for applicants that are efficient and equitable. They
provide a reasonable set of expectations and create consistency, thereby leveling the playing field for
everyone involved.
The philosophy of this policy includes making tools available to both the county and applicants to handle
growth; minimizing risk to the county, future residents, bondholders and developers; and encouraging
quality growth and enhancing the quality of life for county residents. Features of the proposed policy
include: permits districts to be formed; districts to take on operation and maintenance functions; limits tiny
districts (two million dollar minimum); requires demonstration of need for each power granted; description
of IGA's; limits on inclusion/exclusions; limits extra-territorial service agreements; limits eminent domain;
hard cap of 50 mil, mill levy cap; 35 mil issuance test; multiple districts structure limitation; limits on length
of time for issuing debt; provision for dissolution; district default controls; and provides a model service
plan.
Mr. Gimlin said a two million dollar minimum for tiny districts seems low, as twenty-five years from now
two million dollars will be one house. Mr. Fellows agreed and he would make adjustments for a living or
inflation index. Mr. Auer asked about policy for municipalities regarding metro districts and whether the
numbers would be higher or lower. Mr. Fellows said that many smaller municipalities don't have a policy
for assessed valuation and of those he had read, a tiny tweak in the marketplace put them in terrible
shape. This might be the only policy he has seen that will have a written standard for assessed valuation.
Mr. Fellows said the policy will also require a demonstration of need for each power granted and no power
will be granted if no need has been demonstrated. In the IGA's, proposed or planned by the district, policy
must be generally described, along with supporting rationale, in the Service Plan.
We have a limitation on inclusion and exclusion. If after the initial Service Plan, they decide to change
who they want to include or exclude they have to come back to the county and get permission. It may be
conservative but it is important.
We limit extra territorial service agreements. If they want to serve outside their district they need to get
permission.
One of the really useful things about districts can be the power of imminent domain where they can
condemn property in order to implement their infrastructure. In order to prevent abuse, the service plan
submitted to the county by the district has to provide a master infrastructure plan. They may not use their
power of imminent domain outside of that plan. If they want to go outside that plan, they must receive
approval from the county.
We have a hard cap on the mill levy. Mr. Fellows said that out of everything he has presented today, the
single most important thing in keeping the district from having problems is a cap on the mill levy at fifty
mils and that includes both debt service and operations of maintenance. We also do not allow for what is
called "burn off' of the cap (as the City of Aurora has done). When your debt to assessed value ratio is
two to one, they allow the mill levy cap to burn off. Mr. Fellows believes that is terrible public policy in that
it allows people to default. We have put a hard cap in place and it includes debt service. Mr. Gimlin
asked Mr. Fellows to explain the concept of"burn off'. Mr. Fellows explained that when you get to the
point where your assessed valuation is two hundred per cent of your debt, you are no longer subject to the
cap. Some investment bankers that were really active in the new policy saw that as an important tool in
helping sell the bonds at a more competitive rate. Mr. Fellows had three additional comments: he does
not care if the bonds are hard to sell because if they are that risky he would prefer they not be sold; in the
past twenty years he has not seen where the burn off provided a real savings in the bond rate; and lastly
the cap on the mill levy puts most of the risk and burden on the developer or the bond holder. We have
been further conservative by promoting a thirty five mill issuance test even though the mill levy is limited to
a hard cap at fifty mils.
We have put language in the policy that multiple district structures will be generally discouraged. It is the
intent of Weld County that citizen/resident control of districts be encouraged to occur as early as possible.
We limit the length of time for issuing debt without coming back and getting permission from the county. A
district can only issue debt for the first fifteen years it has been in existence, after that it must come back
to the county for permission. We have provisions for dissolution for a district once the district's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and once the district has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. We are not just perpetuating government for the sake of government. In
the event a district defaults on its debt or any part of its agreement, we have controls in the policy so that if
they do behave badly they have to come back to the county and get permission to move forward.
Otherwise they are in material breech of their service plan.
Lastly, we have drafted and proposed a model service plan for staff to use as a tool when comparing and
examining these plans as they are presented to them. We have included a draft of the county policy;
another fact sheet that breaks down the type of municipalities between cities, counties and special
districts; and the final sheet is a preliminary population forecast by county, through the year 2030.
Mr. Gimlin asked about the remedy in the event of default. Mr. Fellows replied that they must come back
to the county for permission to move forward, otherwise they are in material breach and the county could
move to have the district dissolved. If a district violates the service plan, the county has severe measures
and recourse in place.
Mr. Rohn asked if this type of plan is becoming popular in other counties or are we the guinea pig. Mr.
Fellows said Aurora was one of the first and most well known. Their plan was initially very conservative
but has become quite liberal. Weld County would not be one of the first, but could be one of the more
conservative.
Mr. Rohn asked Mr. Morrision if this would be part of the code and reviewed only twice a year. Mr.
Morrison had two observations: first it will set policies and allow for adjustment of those policies; and
second, after initial approval, it provides an opportunity for the district to enter into an extra-territorial
service agreement with the consent of the county. While remaining conservative, it is also flexible. It is
not our intention that the model service plan be adopted into code, which would allow staff, in consultation
with Mr. Fellows to make modifications over time without a formal process. It still would have to meet the
intent of the policies.
Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Fellows to address who buys these kinds of bonds. Mr. Fellows said the typical
buyers are large institutions. Probably ninety percent of bonds in Colorado of this type are purchased by
one of about six different entities. Fundamentally they are usually issued in large denominations, half
million dollar coupons or one hundred thousand dollar coupons. They usually require credit and investor
letters. Mr. Gimlin inquired if they are regulated by the state or the FCC. Mr. Fellows replied that they are
regulated by both, depending on the nature of the bonds. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Fellows what these types
of bonds are called. Mr. Fellows replied that because of the caps put in they are called "Limited Tax
General Obligation Bonds". That is the common phrase and you will see it on the bonds and on the
offering statements.
Mr. Holton then inquired about the hard cap if a district was losing money. Mr. Fellows responded that
there is no foreclosure on the hard cap. The only real event of default for the bond holder would be if the
board of directors chose not to issue the mill levy, then the bond holders would have recourse and could
go to court. In most cases, today's bond holders are very large, sophisticated institutions and will bear
more of the risk than the homeowners, and he finds that to be appropriate. Mr. Holton asked about
possible ramifications if the bonds became worthless. Mr. Fellows said they are not necessarily worthless
but they are a cash flow obligation. They definitely don't have the value, but they are still able to be sold at
competitive rates.
Mr.Folsom had several questions for Mr. Fellows which were inaudible. Mr. Fellows respectfully disagreed
with Mr. Folsom's comments and said there are countless examples up and down the front range where if
services are provided, the statute requires for proof in the service plan and before the board and a public
hearing, that the services are not available elsewhere before they are allowed to provide them. Mr.
Morrison said the policy is intended to be used in that way, it is not a substitute for developers. He added
that Mr. Fellows was asked if the existence of the district should substitute for the availability of collateral
for infrastructure that the developers are responsible for roads, sewer, drainage etc. His recommendation
was that it was still the developer's obligation.
There was more inaudible conversation from Mr. Folsom regarding municipalities. Mr. Fellows said it is
becoming common for municipalities to take the best deal. He feels good public policy should be the
deciding factor and funding mechanisms should be in place. He wants development to pay their share.
Mr. Gimlin said they had that discussion a few weeks ago where they argued whether existing tax payers
should be helping to fund new development of roads,jails, infrastructure etc. He said that at least the
metropolitan districts do try to address this need. Mr. Gimlin then asked if the bonds are limited to who
can buy them. Mr. Fellows said there are rules in place and heavy restrictions as to who can buy them.
They either have to be credit enhanced or sold to credit investors.
Mr. Auer asked about the overlapping service area and if a municipal service area is the equivalent of an
existing service district. Mr. Fellows said yes. For instance, if you are living in a fire district, you may not
do fire powers within your new special or metropolitan district. That would be precluded as that is a
service area.
Mr. Auer, referring to item 23 in Mr. Fellows' hand out, asked about the language"otherwise not available
and which otherwise could not reasonably be provided", and whether that is up to the applicant to
demonstrate that it is not reasonably provided. Mr. Fellows said yes, the applicant must prepare a service
plan and submit it for review prior to setting up a service district. This language mirrors the state statute
language. Mr. Fellows said he would check the state statute to make sure the language is right on point
and report back to Mr. Morrison. The reason for this language is to keep the developers and the new
districts from duplicating services where they don't need to be if it is not desirable to the county.
Mr. Auer then asked for help in understanding the procedure and evolution of this proposal becoming
actual policy, and is there more opportunity for public input and comment. Mr. Morrison replied that they
anticipate the policy itself will be a code provision and be adopted by ordinance, which will require three
public hearings with formal publication. Mr. Fellows may also be asked to give this specific presentation to
a broader public audience outside the ordinance process.
Mr. Folsom said he feels this opens the county up to urban sprawl.
Tom Holton voiced a question that was inaudible. Mr. Morrison responded that the Board of County
Commissioners has indicated that they don't think they should be limited to just the MUD as a potential
service area. This is intended to deal with how they handle these proposals, but the bigger picture is how
the Comprehensive Plan is done, implemented and amended. Mr. Fellows said there is nothing in this
plan that will affect the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioner's ability to affect land use
decisions. Mr.Folsom said the county should not be in the urban development business, it should be the
responsibility of the municipalities.
Tom Holton posed several questions and made several comments that were inaudible. Mr. Morrison said
this plan will not give special districts more powers of imminent domain than they already have. It seeks
to limit it to within the district or the essential infrastructure that is identified at the very beginning. Mr.
Holton said he felt the verbage in the plan gives districts the idea that they can expand imminent domain
and wants imminent domain prohibited from affecting open space. Mr. Fellows responded that this does
not limit imminent domain though there are statutes that do. Mr. Auer said it will be incumbent on them
and the Board of County Commissioners to limit imminent domain and its impact. Mr. Holton asked a
question regarding imminent domain and condemnation. Mr. Fellows responded to Mr. Holton that
theoretically they have to pay fair market value for property. Mr. Morrison said he and Mr. Fellows will
work on the possible loopholes in the language so if it is identified as a park, it needs to be a park and not
a code for open space.
Mr. Holton had more to say that was inaudible regarding filling Planning Commission seats. Mr. Morrison
said they could explore with the Board of County Commissioners if they were interested in the Planning
Commission members conducting interviews for new members.
Mr. Gimlin asked if there was potential in the metropolitan districts for a developer to use them as a tax
dodge. For instance, could goods and services be purchased on a tax-exempt basis. Mr. Fellows said he
had never seen that, but that the potential does exist, theoretically. Mr. Gimlin also requested that Mr.
Fellows and Mr. Morrison look into the tax issues discussed previously, as he sees that as an area of
concern if special districts are allowed the tax free purchase of supplies, fuel, parts etc. that could
potentially result in a considerable amount of lost revenue.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Chad Auer moved that the proposed Metropolitan Districts Policy be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the recommendation of approval and with attention to suggested amendments in
the following three areas:the cost of living index inflation clause;the issue of imminent domain with particular
attention to open space;and that language in item 23 is consistent with state statute. James Rohn seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
James Rohn took the opportunity to express his gratitude to the planners, other county department
contributors, past and present commission members, past applicants and their neighbors, and the citizens
of the county for their willingness to take a stand and participate in the process.
Bryant Gimlin said that for his part, it has been an enjoyable and challenging seven and a half years
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello