HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052935.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 20, 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, Bruce
Fitzgerald, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer absent
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,Department of
Public Works; Char Davis and Pam Smith, Environmental Health; Lee Morrison, County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 6,
2005, was approved as read.
Hearing items to be continued:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend c/o Eric Reckentine with LaFarge West Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 Section 13; NE4 NW4 Section 12; W 30 acres W2 SE4
Section 1; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section
12; S2 of E 60 acres SW4 Section 12; W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12;
NW4 SE4 Section 12; E 30 acres NE4 SW4 Section 12; Pt N2
NE4 Section 24; E2 SE4 Section 12 of Ti N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and W2 NW4 Section 18; W2
SW4 Section 18; Lot A and B of RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19;
Lots 1 and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2 SE4 Section 19; Pt NW4
SE4 Section 19; W2 SW4 Section 7 of Ti N, R66W of the 6t°
P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility
including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Concrete Casting
Facility, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials
and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; East of and adjacent to
CR 23; North of and adjacent to CR 6; and West of and adjacent
to State Highway 85.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services,stated the applicant submitted a letter September 2,2005
requesting a continuance to October 18,2005,to allow for additional time to finalize the ditch agreements and
provide for appropriate mineral notification. Planning staff is recommending the November 15,2005 hearing
date due to a full agenda on October 18, 2005.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1259,be continued to November 15,2005. James Welch seconded
4'ute.k. /0 -2O25 2005-2935
the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul Branham,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair announced that case number four on the agenda would be heard next.
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-249
APPLICANT: Asphalt Specialties Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the NE4NW4 and NW4NE4 and S2NW4 SW4NE4 and SE4
of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
Mineral Resource development Facility's including a Concrete
Ashpalt Batch Plant,Asphalt Recycling Plant and Gravel Mining
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52; and east of and
adjacent to County Line Road.
Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services,said the applicant had submitted a facsimile letter into our office
today requesting an indefinite continuance to a date uncertain,as they have several issues yet to be resolved
prior to proceeding with the Planning Commission. Planning staff supports this request and recommends the
Planning Commission grant a continuance. The applicant is present, as is the attorney representing the
surrounding property owners.
Rob Laird,representing Asphalt Specialties, 10100 Dallas Street,Henderson,CO 80640,said they have some
unresolved issues to complete and thought it best to ask for a continuance rather than take up the public's
time.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Judson Hite, attorney for the homeowners, said that rather than an indefinite continuance,they would like to
request the more specific date of November 15, 2005.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle about that date. Mr. Ogle replied that since the applicant had requested an
indefinite continuance they will contact the Planning Department with a specific date they would like the case
to be heard.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney, said the full notification process must again be observed. Mr. Morrison
suggested Mr. Ogle confer with the counsel for the homeowners as soon as the applicants are ready to
proceed to avoid scheduling issues.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2nd AmUSR-249 be continued indefinitely. Tom Holton seconded the
motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul Branham,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent agenda items:
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmPF-431
APPLICANT: DBM Consulting LLC & Lehigh Enterprises Acquisition Corp
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 Block 2 Western Dairymen Cooperative Section
10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amendment to a PUD Final Plat Redesign -consolidating
Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 of Block 2 into one (1)lot in the Western
Dairymen Cooperative PUD.
LOCATION: South of Hwy 119; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 7.5.
Glen McWilliams,representing DBM Consulting,asked for clarification whether this was a consent item rather
than a continuance.
The Chair replied that it was for consent. As neither the applicant, the board members, or members of the
audience wished to have this item removed from the consent agenda, the Chair requested a motion.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2n° AmPF-431 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
recommendation of approval including the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.Tom Holton
seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for
their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1524
APPLICANT: Carmen & Bart Beck
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2740; part SW4 NW4 Section 8, T3N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel, including a doggy day care service for 136 dogs of an
unspecified breed and the breeding of Labradors, in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 34.75; east and adjacent to CR 3.
Carmen Beck,applicant, 1234 CR 34.75, Berthoud,CO 80513,requested this remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application
remaining on the consent agenda.
Ben Russell, 16376 CR 3, Berthoud, CO 80513, opposes the application. He lives next door and believes
there are more dogs than anybody ought to have already. They are too noisy. This facility does not fit
with his future plans for his property.
Geraldine Russel, 16376 CR 3, Berthoud, CO 80513, concurs with her husband that there are dogs
barking all night, more dogs than should be allowed, and that the applicant is doing this backwards. The
application for the facility should have been made prior to establishing the business, rather than the other
way around, as was done in this case.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if this property is presently in violation and how many acres it contains. Mr.
Ogle replied that it is presently in violation, having been discovered by county staff during an inspection. It
is thirteen acres and their use by right allows them four dogs. The Chair asked how many dogs Mr. Ogle
estimated on site presently. Mr. Ogle replied there were maybe twenty five.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is opposition does this case then come off consent. Mr. Morrison said if two
or more commissioners would like to hear the case, it should be heard. Mr. Ochsner and Mr. Spitzer
expressed interest in hearing the case so the Chair opened it for public hearing.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services. Larimer County, the Towns of Berthoud and Mead and the
City of Longmont are within the three mile notification area. All municipalities returned a referral indicating
no conflict with their interests. Larimer County did not respond to the referral request.
Surrounding property uses include farmland and rural residential parcels in each direction. The property is
sited well off CR 3 with access off of CR 34.75. The facility consists of two metal skinned structures with
the facility completely screened and fenced. There are five property owners within 500 feet of this
proposal and seven property's of record.
Thirteen (13) referral agencies reviewed this case. Seven (7) offered comments that have been
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval and or Development Standards
The sign noting the hearing date and location was posted ten days prior to this hearing by department staff
and is evidenced by affidavit and photograph by the Department of Planning Services.
Staff has supporting images of the surrounding area and facility.
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed Case USR-1524 Site Specific Development Plan and
Special Review Permit for a kennel, including a doggy day care service for 136 dogs of an unspecified
breed and the breeding of Labradors, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District, and recommends approval of
the proposed amendment.
There are three people who have expressed opposition and one letter of support in the packet. The
location is in the ag zone. The access road is a gravel drainage road and there are no drainage issues.
The facility is fenced. The application process requires that weeds in the adjacent area be mowed.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if this facility is operating at present and accepting dogs for day care. Mr. Ogle
said it is and they may continue operation even if in violation. There were no more questions for staff.
Carmen Beck, applicant, 1234 CR 34.75, Berthoud, CO 80513,was asked to approach the microphone
again. Ms. Beck said she boards and grooms on fifteen acres. She was raised in this area and she and
her husband looked for property to raise their family and conduct their grooming/boarding business. She
picked this area for its location and feels she provides a good facility. She has made considerable
improvements to the property since purchase; an asphalt drive, cleaned up noxious weeds, and prepared
thirteen acres for planting.
Mr. Ochsner inquired about the current building,whether that was the kennel and would she be adding
any more buildings. He also asked how many dogs that building currently holds. Ms. Beck said it holds 20
animals in its current condition. She plans to add to the building but said she doubted she would ever
have over 70 animals. Because she has two litters of labs a year she asked for a higher number of
animals and specified 136 to protect herself. Mr. Ochsner asked about agencies she is responsible for
reporting to. Ms. Beck replied that she is licensed by PACFA and the State of Colorado. Her kennel is
inspected regularly and up to PACFA codes. She has contacted the Department of Health and
Environment to ensure that septic and waste disposal is appropriate.
Paul Branham inquired how many dogs were currently on site and if there is space to house all of them
inside at night. Ms. Beck replied that there are currently fifteen dogs on site, that she has 20 runs inside
which is adequate for current housing needs, that it is heated and ventilated, and her animals are not
outdoors past 8 p.m. Mr. Branham asked if there were 136 animals on site,would they be accommodated
in the current manner. Ms. Beck said they would be.
The Chair said that Weld County only counts animals over 6 months of age, therefore would she be
agreeable to reducing the overall number of animals requested in the application. Ms. Beck said she
would be more than happy to reduce the number.
Roy Spitzer asked if this application includes future plans, or is it already in existence. Ms. Beck said
these are future plans for the next five years.
Tom Holton asked about the cats, dogs, birds, and horses mentioned in the application. Ms. Beck said
the county asked for clarification on types of animals and so she included her own personal animals. Mr.
Ogle said her animals are a use by right based on her acreage.
The Chair opened the hearing to the public.
Ben Russell, 16376 CR 3, Berthoud, CO 80513, said he expects the whole area will be the Town of Mead
in five years and is concerned with noise and impact to surrounding future custom homes. This is not
what they had in mind when they located there. Not all of the dogs are inside at night as they are
awakened at night.
Geraldine Russell, 16376 CR 3, Berthoud, CO 80513, questioned the number of dogs, as Mr. Ogle said
25 dogs and the applicant said there were 15 on site, so which is it. Mrs. Russell also questioned why if
the applicant purposefully sought this property, didn't they also purposefully go for an application prior to
starting the facility. She said it appears that in Weld County one does what they want and then puts the
Commissioners to work and makes everybody jump through hoops. She is tired of being awakened
through the night by the barking; she never sees the dogs being walked; she is concerned with breeding
as there are not enough inspectors, only 96 nationwide, to prevent puppy mills; and finally she is
concerned with the impact on future growth in the area. The Chair added that a percentage of Planning
Commission hearings are the result of violations. Mrs. Russell responded that she understands, but she
wants citizens to apply first and then open a business, not the reverse.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Carmen Beck, applicant, responded that because she runs a boarding facility in process, there were 15
dogs on site this morning. When Mr. Ogle was on site two weeks ago, there may have been twenty to
twenty-five dogs and numbers change due to the doggy day care. Ms. Beck said she did not submit her
application first because she did not correctly understand the process. She thought she could take over
the previous USR on the property and did not realize she needed to change the USR until the county
brought it to her attention. Responding to Mrs. Russell, Ms. Beck said she has over three acres of fenced
property, including outdoor misters and pools, she plays with them daily, and it is a privacy fenced facility
to cut down on noise and the dogs getting agitated from traffic. Ms. Beck said she has been breeding and
is licensed by PACFA and that she has been inspected yearly by them since 1985 for both grooming and
breeding. The kennel has been inspected twice and if the animals were not being cared for properly they
would cite her. The inside runs are six feet by four feet, double the PACFA standards. The outside runs
are three times the standards of the Department of Agriculture. The animals are not penned up all day.
She has five exercise yards for them that are the size of most back yards.
The Chair asked about the early morning and late night barking. Ms. Beck replied that the dogs are let out
at 7:30 a.m. and brought in by 8:00 p.m. and the barking may be coming from inside the building. The
Chair asked if there is insulation in the building. Ms. Beck said there is, that a few dogs bark but generally
it is quiet.
Mr. Holton asked if the plan included in the packet is already completed and if so, what parts, or is this for
future expansion. Ms. Beck replied that it is partially completed. There are six indoor/outdoor runs along
the east wall and the free standing runs in the middle are complete. The west wall is not complete at this
time but will also include pens at some point.
James Welch asked how many dogs are actually there overnight and how many there just for the day.
Ms. Beck said it varies daily but that over holidays she has had as many as thirty dogs on site. Presently
the majority of the dogs on site are her own as she has eight dogs herself.
The Chair asked Ms. Beck if she would be agreeable to reducing the numbers of dogs on site from 136 to
a maximum of 116. Ms. Beck said she would.
Mr. Welch asked how many dogs she put at a time in each pen and that he had counted forty-two indoor
pens on the plan. Ms. Beck said she can house two dogs per pen per state requirements. She also has a
small dog boarding room houses that houses fifteen dogs.
The Chair asked about her plans to build a custom home and allow the kennel manager to live in the
modular home and if that request was in the original application. Ms. Beck said that was correct. Mr.
Ogle confirmed that this information was in the original application.
Mr. Branham asked if this property was a kennel prior to her ownership and how long she has lived there
and operated the kennel. Ms. Beck responded that the property use was previously a landscaping
business and offices and sold to her with her understanding that a business could be operated there. She
has been in operation for two years.
The Chair asked where she got the idea that it was okay to continue operating a business. Ms. Beck said
the former property owner said he had been granted a USR and that it was okay for a business to operate
on that property. The Chair requested information from Mr. Ogle about the former USR for the property.
Mr. Ogle replied that there were two USR's on the property, the first for a woodworking business and most
recently for a nursery. The Chair then asked if the USR's are vacated when the property is sold. Mr. Ogle
said the applicant must request a vacation through the county. The Chair inquired if there are provisions
in the application for a second home. According to Mr. Ogle this is outlined on page four, items four and
five.
Mr. Spitzer asked Mr. Ogle about his overall impressions of the business and whether it was well run. Mr.
Ogle said yes, it was well run. When he visited the site, the manager invited him to tour the facility and he
found it to be; well ventilated with no flies; the dogs were contained in pens and runs; the eastern fence
area was huge and contained 5 to 6 dogs; he did not see feces; there were misters that activate at certain
temperatures; and overall it was a very nice facility. Mr. Spitzer then asked if the east town limits of Mead
were about two miles away. Mr. Ogle said the town proper was at least two miles from this facility.
Erich Ehrlic asked Mr. Ogle for the correct distance of the facility from the Town of Mead and pointed out
that Mead had sent in a referral citing no problems with this facility. Mr. Ogle verified the Town of Mead is
a mile and a half away.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if there were any changes to the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Ogle said there are none. The Chair wanted to look at page five, number three of the
development standards. The applicant said she would be willing to agree to reduce the number of dogs
from 136 to 116.
James Welch motioned to strike 136 and change it to 116 for the maximum number of adult dogs on page
five,Development Standard number three. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary
to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Erich
Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Ogle said the same modification needs to be made on Development Standard number one.
James Welch motioned to strike 136 dogs and change to 116 for the maximum number of adult dogs on page
five, number one. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of
the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom
Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if she has read and agrees with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and the changes made to them. Ms. Beck said that she had read them and was in
agreement with everything.
Mr. Spitzer said that based on his site visit, this was probably one of the best facility's he has seen, there
is nothing within a half mile, there are no neighbors on the gravel road either way that would be disturbed
by the dust, and this is a pretty good set up for the applicant's business.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1524 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
recommendation of approval including the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Tom Holton seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1522
APPLICANT: Alberto Loya
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 Section 30, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
Commercial Rodeo Arenas and Commercial Roping Arenas, to
include both indoor and outdoor arenas in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 39; approximately 2 miles south of
CR 32.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Alberto Loya c/o Todd Hodges Design, has applied
for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Commercial Rodeo Arenas and
Commercial Roping Arenas, to included both indoor and outdoor arenas and race track, race courses in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
This application was submitted to address a zoning violation (VI-00500198) re: rodeo events without a
USR. Should the application be approved and the plat recorded, this violation would be closed.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted September 8, 2005 by Planning Staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to CR 39 and approximately 2 miles south of CR 32 (North of and
adjacent to CR 28—section line road).
The surrounding properties are primarily agricultural with single family homes.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case. Eleven referral agencies responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. No
comments were received from Ambulance Service or the Colorado Racing Commission
One letter of opposition was received. A surrounding property owner mentioned; traffic concerns (parking
along CR 39), littering (beer bottles), loose horses damaging their property and fences, 4 wheelers
damaging the soils, noise, and overall compatibility with the area. A copy of that letter has been provided
to you. The surrounding property owners also provided a copy of a brochure for the site. The brochure
does not reflect the same hours of operation as the application stated. The applicant wishes to adhere to
the hours outlined in the application not the brochure.
The mayor of Platteville emailed a letter today expressing no concerns with this application. An email
from "Susie"submitted to the county web page expressed her general concerns regarding the
development in Weld County.
Kerr-McGee operates the oil &gas facility's on site and has submitted the letter provided to you today
stating that they are working on an agreement but it has not been finalized at this time. They are
requesting the Planning Commission withhold plat approval until the parties have executed and recorded a
surface use agreement.
Staff is requiring that prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing, the applicant shall
either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil
and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site, or show evidence that an
adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill
envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the state requirements as an attempt to
mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring as Development Standards; that two (2)persons trained
in emergency medical technology for the first three hundred fifty(350)persons; and one (1)for every three
hundred fifty(350)persons after that; together with at least one (1)emergency ambulance, be available
for use at all times. An enclosed structure where treatment may be rendered shall also be provided.
The applicant must provide adequate security to control any disturbances which might occur.As a minimum
requirement,the applicant shall provide security guards at the rate of two(2)for every three hundred fifty(350)
persons attending the event. For security within and among the assembled people, at least five (5)security
guards shall be provided, or in the alternative, an adequate plan of peer group control may be used. All
security guards shall be off-duty peace officers or private guards licensed in Colorado.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has concerns regarding the compatibility of
the proposed use with the area but is recommending approval of this application with the attached
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval feeling that these conditions and
development standards will adequately address concerns.
The Department of Planning Services has proposed the following additional Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval:
The applicants for USR-1522 Alberto Loya c/o Todd Hodges Design have submitted a revised plat illustrating
the proposed landscaping and lighting on site therefore on
The Chair inquired about whether there is access from CR 41 to the site. Ms. Hatch replied that she was
not aware of any but you can come off CR 39 to CR 28. Doug Ochsner asked if the facility was currently
operating. Ms. Hatch said rodeo events have been held at this site, but since it was placed in violation,
activities have ceased at the site.
The Chair wanted to know how long this facility has been in existence and if it is similar to one in Aristocrat
the board had looked at about a year ago. Ms. Hatch replied that it is very similar but she was not sure
how long it had been operating without permits.
Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design, representing the applicant, 1269 N. Cleveland Avenue, Loveland,
CO 80537; accompanied by Tom Findley, geologist; Forrest Leaf, water engineer; and Keith Coleman,
attorney. Mr. Hodges said this application fits within the community and is compatible with land uses in
surrounding area, including a poultry farm, Tire Mountain and dry land pasture with little development.
Industrial areas to the southeast and would constitute a lighter use than existing facility. The property
owner has been diligent in working with referral agencies and contacting surrounding property owners.
Alberto Loya, 481 Soar Lane, Platteville, CO 80651, said that he grew up in Platteville, obtained a
business degree at UNC, owns an insurance agency, a nightclub in Platteville, ran the liquor concession at
Island Grove Regional Park, is a founding member of the Greeley Fiesta, and serves on the board of
directors for United Way and Greeley Rotary. He said he saw a need for a safe, legal, clean facility as
well as a demand, after attending illegal horse racing operations in Yuma and Colorado Springs two years
ago, and felt that he could do a better job than those he had seen. Future plans include a parking lot,
office, concession stand, restrooms, race track, on site caretaker and outdoor arena. After visiting with
surrounding property owners, Mr. Loya felt their biggest concerns were that they did not know who he was
and what he wanted to do and they did not want their space violated. Mr. Loya wants to run a clean, safe
operation and will implement a safety plan. He said he wants to live out there himself eventually and wants
to get along with his future neighbors and come to a mutual agreement. Mr. Loya addressed the current
violation and said it was his full intent to apply for a temporary assembly permit but he had incorrectly
assumed that a gathering under 350 people did not require a permit. It was not his intent to operate
illegally and once he was notified of the violation he ceased activities on the site.
Todd Hodges, the applicant's representative, corrected some information he had given previously. After
conferring with Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, it is not a poultry facility but rather a dairy to the
southeast of the site. Mr. Hodges again stated his case by saying that this is a well planned facility; that
since the issue of the violation there have been no other activities on site; that he feels it meets the
approval criteria for the Planning Commission and requests favorable approval and forward to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Doug Ochsner asked about alcohol on site, the beer garden and whether spectators will watch from
grandstands or view from personal vehicles or both. Mr. Loya replied that a beer garden is proposed
during race events and he feels this is safer in a controlled environment rather than patrons getting
intoxicated prior to attending races. Mr. Loya has security experience himself and plans to hire off duty
police officers to supervise. There will be parking on the north end which will prohibit viewing from
vehicles so patrons will go to grandstands or near the fence during actual races. Mr. Ochsner then asked
how he planned to control alcohol being brought to the site. Mr. Loya plans to have security checking cars
on arrival.
Mr. Branham inquired about hours of operation and does this mean special occasions could be any day of
the week or year. Mr. Loya replied that special events would be limited to specific dates. Racing will be
Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday except for special dates.
Erich Ehrlich questioned the entrance and exit and will there be a turn lane to defer traffic on the county
road. Mr. Hodges said improvements will be made on CR 28 and will be reviewed by Public Works.
There are no improvements planned on CR 39. The entrance to the facility will be at the corner and will
be a surfaced drive of either recycled asphalt or gravel, primary parking will be surfaced, and overflow
parking will be on the natural vegetative cover until such time as necessary to resurface. The emergency
access outlet will be at the northeast corner.
Tom Holton asked Mr. Loya if his plan to live there is part of this USR. Mr. Loya said it was not but he
would like to build there in the next three years.
Mr. Ehrlich asked if on event days would he or a third party use a water truck to maintain dust control on
CR 28 Mr. Hodges replied that the development standards ask for twice a year application of magnesium
chloride and watering of surfaces as needed.
The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing.
Nancy Hilty Brunson, 13471 CR 39, Platteville, CO 8065, said she enjoyed Mr. Hodges' pictures but she
could watch the races from her kitchen window even though Mr. Loya said he could not see her house.
She moved to the area for its quiet. She is not against rodeos/races but feels they should be held in
facilities specifically for them. Ms. Brunson does not feel this is the place for this activity and has over fifty
signatures in support. Ms. Brunson feels the land will be forever changed from ag and will not be farmable
again without major renovation. She feels the zoning should remain ag and not be re-zoned to
commercial. Ms. Brunson feels the USR is inadequate for proposed property changes as plans are for
multiple arenas, race tracks, barns, livestock pens, and parking lots. She said this will not be reasonable
farm land any longer and will not be compatible with the surrounding area which is agriculture based with
single family homes. This shows no regard for quality of life or compatible uses for the area. The hours of
operation will disrupt their tranquil way of life, destroy chances of new community development and lower
property values. She wants to maintain the quality of rural communities. Ms. Brunson also expressed
concern for the surrounding property owners regarding: secondary impacts of the volume of people, an
increase of 4000 people per week on a two lane county road with a blind corner; where the extra
personnel will come from to police this facility; provisions for the fragile eco-system in the area to prevent
erosion and decay of the natural landscape; high winds common in the area that have shut down DIA;
and patrons exiting the facility after a full day of alcohol consumption. This facility disregards the ripple
effect on the community. Mr. Loya did not apply for proper permits and is still in violation. She expressed
concern for animal cares issues and cited the loose horse on her property and the questionable humane
treatment it received. Mr. Loya did not offer to make amends to them for property damages until a lawsuit
was threatened. Ms. Brunson cited other permits similar in nature that were denied and is afraid the
Planning Commission won't see the incompatibility issues until it is too late.
The Chair asked Ms. Brunson to identify for them again exactly where her property is located. She replied
that her property line is the facility's north fence.
Nancy Frase, Frase Consulting Group, Inc., Evans Colorado, gave the Planning Commission members a
hand out that was entered by Mr.Morrison as an exhibit and she questioned the following items: how
many neighbors were contacted; two phases of facility development; indoor vs. outdoor arenas; noise
report and abatement requirements; lighting; times and days of events; traffic loads on limited access rural
roads; and trash abatement. Ms. Frase closed by saying that this plan needs far more development
before approval. This facility is not appropriate for this area. It would be more appropriate for areas such
as fairgrounds.
Roy Wardell, 16512 Essex Road North, Platteville, CO 80651, said his ranch borders the east side of the
project and he is the third generation on this property. He expressed serious concerns about events
occurring three times a week and possible attendance of one thousand people. In general he is
concerned that this will be a short term facility with minimal management and improvement of the
property. He did not feel that the race track and its attendant problems were adequately addressed. The
present development has already shown disregard for vegetation by blading off the ground which will only
increase erosion and dust. Mr. Wardell said he had met with Mr. Loya to discuss his concerns regarding
soil erosion and how the sand on the race track can be controlled. He is also concerned about ownership
and lease agreements as the applicant does not own the property, he just has an agreement to buy the
land contingent upon county approval of application, therefore it seems reasonable to him to ask for long
term plans for the property. Can the county make approval conditional upon the purchase, and who is
responsible for this long term. Mr. Wardell also asked about what type of liquor license would be
approved, who approves it, and is there an automatic liquor license to serve beer. He closed by saying
that peer group security was suggested in the applicant's plan and he feels it should be deleted as it is not
a viable way to maintain security in an operation of this size. Traffic counts do not seem to have been
done. Restroom facilities are needed as portable toilets do not seem adequate. Mr. Wardell wants
assurance that everything is spelled out and a commitment made to developing this facility prior to
approval.
Kevin Brunson, 13471 CR 39, Platteville, CO, 80651, cited the Weld County land use application and the
mission statement in the applicant's brochure. Since the facility is already in violation prior to application,
should we reward those who are in violation by approving their applications? Additionally, he is one
hundred percent in opposition to change from ag to commercial as he feels commercial property's should
not be in this area because they are not compatible with surrounding land uses and he has over fifty
signatures in support. Mr. Brunson gave several examples of compatibility before closing and said that
the effects on the community would be devastating. Peace of mind is gone. Quality of life will diminish.
Mr. Branham asked Mr. Brunson about the opposition signatures and said he would like to see the
material. Mr. Brunson provided a copy to Mr. Morrison for Planning Commission members to review.
Angie Booco, 11870 CR 39, Platteville, CO 80651, said her property sits on a hill and there is range land
between their property and site which she can see from her property. Traffic is an issue; access roads will
be affected by large numbers of people; one deputy serves the area; emergency services notification is of
concern as response times in the area are lengthy; property values and quality of life are at risk; noise is a
problem; dust is a problem and cannot be controlled. She closed by saying she is not against Mr. Loya
owning a business but this would destroy their rural peace and quiet.
Steve Cooper, 16500 Beebe Draw Farm Parkway, Platteville, CO 80651, resides two miles north and one
half mile east of proposed facility. Mr. Cooper said he is a retired registered professional engineer
speaking on behalf of fifty property owners in his area. County Road 39 is the only access to Denver 1-76
unless they want to access Hwy 85 and it has a blind corner. CR 39 is congested with oil and gas truck
traffic and other trucks trying to evade the port of entry and will become much worse with the additional
traffic this facility would generate. Changing the intersection would help mitigate the traffic problem but
there are many other issues including lighting that he feels need to be resolved.
Joan Camp, PO Box 127, Platteville, CO 80651, also representing her father, Melvin Camp, lives west and
south of application site. The Camp family has ranched the area for many years. She commended the
applicants for attempting to develop something they believe in. They are leasing part of their property to a
two hundred cow/calf operation to the west which is north and south of CR 28 not just directly west of
proposed/existing facility. Cattle grazing to the north of CR 28 must cross it to go south for water as there
is no water in the section to the north. Ms. Camp strongly believes that as leaseholders of the land, they
have the responsibility for maintaining the land and safely providing for its occupants.
Mr. Ochsner asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, about the cattle guard on CR 28. Mr.
Carroll said he is aware of the cattle guard but is not sure if pasture to the south is fenced.
Ms. Camp replied that the pasture is not fenced.
Melvin Camp, PO Box 127, Platteville, CO 80651, addressed the commission and corrected the section
numbers of his pastureland as 30, 31, 25, and 26. He is concerned with the effects of this facility on his
pasture land.
Daniel Costas, 40 Anchorage, Longmont, CO 80501, does not live in the area of the facility but has
attended events at Mr. Loya's facility. He felt the event was safe, did not see evidence of alcohol, did not
feel that the noise is unreasonable and saw a lot of people having a good time.
Gabriel Bueno 508 North 30th, Greeley, CO, 80631, supports the facility as he feels Mr. Loya has put in
much thought and effort in its planning. Mr. Loya has the security experience to run this facility regarding
the alcohol and crowd issues. This facility would be good for the Hispanic community and a great
outreach for all.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design, representing the applicant, 1269 N. Cleveland Avenue, Loveland,
CO 80537 said the bottom line is compatibility and to keep in mind this is not a change in the zone district.
This is totally related to the area and is supported many places in the code. The use and operation has
been laid out and the county can shut it down if not built and operated to the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. There are much higher uses in the area including Tire Mountain, a dairy and an
old turkey farm. There is a large urban scale development in the middle of the ag district where
surrounding property owners are concerned about desolation of the area: This is a facility that supports
the ag business and should be allowed. Dust, noise and traffic have all been addressed in the
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. The thirty foot right of way on the road will not
impact the adjacent property's gate. Phase one and two try to allow for some flexibility. The well permit
spells out 1103 persons allowed on property. If the facility is expanded they would go through proper
channels and re-apply for water and septic. Application is for outdoor arena, there are no plans to build an
indoor arena. Noise changes daily but the application has criteria based on commercial zone limits, which
he believed are more restricted than the ag district which has no limit, therefore they are more restricted
than their neighbors.
The Chair asked Char Davis, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, to address the
noise limitation for this facility.
Ms. Davis recommended that for commercial it would be about sixty-five decibels measured at twenty five
feet off property, anything more is in violation of the USR.
Mr. Hodges said the lighting plan is minimal but allows for clean up and maintenance of the facility after
operation hours. There are some light poles around the arena and caretaker's house and they will meet
criteria on plat. Access from paved roads will include an agreement with county on approving roads to
include thirty foot right of way.
The Chair asked Mr. Carroll if they are adding turn lanes. Mr. Carroll said that is all addressed in the
information he will present later.
Mr. Hodges continued and said that oil and erosion issues occur because this is dry land. Most of the
area will be surfaced to mitigate that issue. They have set aside water for dust abatement. Roads will be
surfaced in gravel or recycled asphalt. Parking plan is on north side, middle of property. The trailway and
areas around the grandstand will be covered with gravel or surfaced. To answer fire questions, they will
maintain compliance with access through the gate for Platteville Fire Protection Department equipment
and provide extinguishers on site. Mr. Hodges said this is not a two year plan and then they will leave.
There has never been any indication from Mr. Loya that this is a short term project and he has invested a
lot of time and money in facility. This facility has grown out of the result of a need that Mr. Loya has seen
for this type of facility in the county.
Mr. Ochsner asked Mr. Hodges about operation hours, and the difference between special occasions and
special events. Mr. Loya responded that the application allows for those three days and the special
events year round. Special events would occur on holidays indicated in the application. Special
occasions speak to time frame. Ms. Hatch interjected that in development standard thirteen, page nine,
she listed special occasions rather than special events.
Mr. Holton asked for more clarification about how many days of the week they would run races. Mr. Loya
said it would be Saturday or Sunday and in the summer it could be two days a week. Mr. Holton then
asked about soil erosion specific to the track itself, what they will do for the track when they are not there,
and when they would apply for the liquor permit. Mr. Loya said the soil needs to be mixed with something
to control dust from the blowing wind and still maintain speed for the horses. The sand as it is now is not
conducive to racing. He said will pursue approval for alcohol on the site upon approval of the USR. Mr.
Holton asked how much of the plan has to be complete prior to holding events and if there is a plan for
fencing the perimeter in the conditions of approval. Ms. Hatch responded they need to complete the
conditions of approval and record the plat prior to operation. She added that screening and landscaping
were addressed but not specifically fencing.
Mr. Hodges said there is fencing on the perimeter of the property.
Mr. Holton said the fencing he saw on his site visit was inadequate to keep cows/calves out of area. Mr.
Loya replied that he would have to install better fence as it is not acceptable at the present time.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Loya if he owned the property. Mr. Loya said he does not but will purchase the
property pending approval of the USR.
Mr. Holton asked for more clarification on the fence and asked if the applicant moves the road to his side
of the property, will he fence the property on the south so Mr. Camp's property will be separated from the
road and he will be able to use the existing pipe gate. Mr. Loya said he would.
The Chair asked about access to events. Mr. Loya said they would locate the entrance on CR 28 at the
far corner to prevent staging (cars waiting to get into the facility)on CR 39 and upon further review they
could move it next to the parking lot.
Mr. Holton said that if the traffic got bad and CR 28 had to be finished to the west to get traffic out of the
facility, how can you ensure that Mr. Camp would get water to his cattle in Section 30. Mr. Carroll, Public
Works, said he would cover that in his presentation.
Mr. Spitzer asked Mr. Loya if the main parking lot was paved, recycled asphalt or gravel. Mr. Loya said
recycled asphalt. Mr. Spitzer also asked about EMT response and if Platteville is committed to providing
those emergency services. Mr. Loya replied that the referral process serves to notify the agencies of the
facility's and they are on alert when there is an event scheduled.
The Chair inquired about the twenty employees at the facility. Is security included in the EMT numbers
and are there provisions for the beer garden and vending in the twenty employees that included parking
attendants, race officials, cleaning and security personnel, and is twenty going to be enough. Mr. Loya
said twenty is accurate as the beer garden will be enclosed and not the main attraction and the security
personnel (one per every 350 people)were included in the EMT numbers.
Ms. Hatch said she did not put in a development standard limiting the facility to twenty employees,just
limited the site itself to1103 people and that number includes, employees, officials, spectators, EMT, and
security. That was done so that the well permit will not be exceeded as it cannot sustain more than 1103
people. The Department of Planning Services contacts the surrounding property owners within 500 feet
by mail. None of those notices were returned, so we assume they were successfully delivered as
addressed.
Char Davis, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, said restroom facilities will be
adequate for the numbers expected.
Mr. Ehrlich asked about the water and sewer and if it could fail if more attend. Ms. Davis said the septic
system will sustain those numbers per event at 1103.
Mr. Spitzer asked if any of these facility's will be allowed to operate prior to sanitary services being
completed. Ms. Davis said they would not, by code they are required to have restroom facility's, not
portable toilets, for a permanent business such as this.
Don Carroll, Public Works, cited information contained in his memo to Ms. Hatch. He said that
development standard J.5 on page five covers road classifications. CR 39 is a collector status road and
that means is it is a step up from local paved or gravel roads and can easily carry thousands of vehicles.
Public Works has researched the patent date through Land Title and has determined that there is only
thirty feet of County right-of-way available in Section 30 only. Section 31 predates 11-8-1881 our 1889
Resolution. Therefore, we cannot claim any additional right-of-way in Section 31. All of the access road
should be built within Section 30 on the applicant's property. Road improvements on CR 28, section line
access road, shall be upgraded to accommodate two-way traffic. The Section line road or driveway must
be constructed and maintained at a minimum as a graded and drained all-weather surface. Consideration
must be given to the width of two-way traffic and weight of emergency services equipment, fire trucks,
ambulances, etc.,which may need to access the property. Concerning the staging of 1103 people—not
everyone drives a vehicle, usually 3 per car, so maybe there would be 300 vehicles. That area can
accommodate a lot of vehicles in the staging area. On page four, item F.2 the applicant shall supply a
detailed drawing for the intersection of CR 28 and CR 39 including re-alignment, grades, surface,
intersection improvements, drainage, site distance, etc, to make intersection function for the facility.
Currently, we have average daily traffic counts of 700 to 1100 vehicles daily in that area. That road can
accommodate that amount of traffic and that is why it is designated a collector road. There have been two
accidents reported in five years.
The Chair requested Mr. Carroll investigate the two accidents to find why they happened. Mr. Carroll
continued by saying they have covered off-street parking which will be recycled asphalt, erosion control,
and that the walkways be surfaced with pea gravel or something similar. There will be no staging on CR
39 and CR 28 and that will be mitigated by stacking everyone on the property. Storm water drainage will
be examined at the intersection so as not to damage adjacent property's. Noxious weeds will be
addressed. Handling of the cow/calf operation if they need to move through public right-of-way could be
mitigated in two ways; on a typical county road the rancher could set up a tank on one side and pipe it
underneath, or they could follow the free range law. Mr. Morrison interjected that since this is a public
road, the cattle will be crossing at the owner's risk so the county has no obligation to use the public right-
of-way to provide water for the cattle, though we may be able to post it. Mr. Holton asked if there will be
cattle guards put up in those two sections. Mr. Morrison said it is not the county's obligation to control
livestock but will work with the landowner and issue permits to install cattle guards if needed. Mr. Carroll
said all of these items are in the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and will be met prior
to operation.
Mr. Spitzer asked Mr. Carroll whether there will be any egress problems regarding nighttime operations
and would lighting or a stop light be required at that intersection. Mr. Carroll deferred to Ms. Hatch, who
said the hours of operation are until sundown with employees staying one hour beyond that for clean up.
The Chair pointed out that not all visitors will be gone from the site by sundown.
Ms. Hatch went over the following changes:
Page 4, delete items 1. B and 1.C as they have been completed.
Page 5, add a new L and re-letter accordingly.
Page 7, change G.3 to 1,103 patrons.
Page 8, number 3 change the 1,079 to 1,103 patrons.
Doug Ochsner moved that they accept the changes as submitted by Ms. Hatch. Tom Holton seconded the
motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Spitzer said he would like safety features after dark improved on the site through the lighting plan. Mr.
Carroll suggested an additional line over to the corner of the property for an additional light, and when
asked by the Chair, said it would be best if it were on every night.
Ms. Hatch responded if there were a light on all of the time, it would disturb the property owners in close
proximity.
Tom Holton moved that they install a street light at the corner of CR 28 and CR 39 which would operate
from dusk until dawn. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the
members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, no; Erich
Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried.
Mr. Ehrlich expressed his continuing concern with the hours of operation and feels they should be more
precise due to daylight savings time and other factors. He repeated that public safety is also of concern to
him as far as entrance and exits.
The Chair asked Mr. Hodges to respond.
Mr. Hodges replied that they are willing to look at hours of operation based on daylight savings time and
variance in daylight different times of the year. Mr. Loya said most participants are gone by dusk. He is
willing to sit down and compile tinies per season. After much discussion among the board it was
suggested that specific times be set for hours of operation and clean-up to avoid confusion.
Ms. Hatch said she would like to see specific time limits for patrons and employees. The applicant wanted
to remove the one hour time limit and make it unlimited. Staff would be comfortable with a two hour time
limit.
James Welch moved that development standard thirteen read "to end one hour prior to sundown for all
events." Doug Ochsner seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the
Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom
Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Holton questioned if they needed all of the major holidays. Mr. Loya said yes as they are family events
and those are the days families are together. Mr. Spitzer asked if it is also appropriate to shut down liquor
sales prior to sundown as well. Mr. Morrison said if they feel strongly about that, they should act on it and
the Board of County Commissioners can decide if it is appropriate. It would be more appropriate to decide
here than with the liquor license.
Roy Spitzer moved to shut down liquor service one hour prior to sundown corresponding with the final
event, adding it to the development standards and conditions approval as number fourteen and then re-
number accordingly. Tom Holton seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the
members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich
Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if he has read and agrees with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval. Mr. Hodges replied that he had but asked for two minor changes; that in condition 1A, page
three, concerning the surface use agreements with mineral owners. We request that this condition be
removed from number one and listed under number 2 so that it does not delay their scheduling before the
Board of County Commissioners.
Paul Branham moved that 1A on page three be moved to 2A on page four and renumbered so that the
applicant's agreement with the mineral owners/operators be received prior to recording the plat. Erich
Ehrlich seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hodges would like development standard twenty nine changed to add "If applicable"at the beginning
of the sentence. Ms. Davis, Heathe Department, agreed with this request.
Doug Ochsner moved that"If applicable"be added to the beginning of development standard twenty nine.
Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning
Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and was in agreement with the changes to the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. He replied that he had and he was in agreement. The Chair then
asked the commission if there was any further discussion regarding this case.
Mr. Ochsner said this comes down to whether this is consistent with land use in the area. His pet peeve is
people building houses, changing the use from ag to residential, and then they are not happy when the
use changes to commercial.
Mr. Holton thinks it's a good plan but his problem is with the days of operation, though the hours of
operation are acceptable. Everything else has been mitigated by the Development Standards.
Mr. Ehrlich was concerned with the land use and traffic still bothers him. Overall he feels the plan is well
developed inside the gates but sees issues outside of the gates.
Mr. Branham said he felt the applicant had successfully met or will successfully meet all of the Weld
County Code requirements.
Mr. Welch said though he has no problems with the facility itself, though he expressed concern regarding
the dates of operation and feels too much time has been dedicated to weekends and holidays.
The Chair agreed that there is a need for a facility like this. Off site impacts bother him and many of those
issues the applicant will have a difficult time mitigating, even with the changes made to the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The Chair asked for a motion.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1522, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of denial. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the
members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer, no;James Welch,yes,with comment
regarding days of operation; Erich Ehrlich, yes, with comment regarding hours of operation and traffic
problems;Tom Holton,no; Doug Ochsner,yes,with comment citing inconsistency of land use;Paul Branham,
no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
LkA,,U/SE), Ai\c7s
Donita May
Secretary
Hello