The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20042281 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, July 20, 2004 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,4209 CR 24'A, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin Absent I John Folsom Stephan Mokray Absent James Rohn Bruce Fitzgerald _ Tonya Strobel Absent J rp Chad Auer -• Doug Ochsner Also Present: Char Davis, Pam Smith, Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Jacqueline Hatch The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 6,2004,was approved as read. The following item will be continued: CASE NUMBER: USR-1475 APPLICANT: Samuel Clark PLANNER: Sheri Lockman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B of RE-1917; being part of the NE4 of Section 13, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District (Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46; west of and adjacent to CR 13. Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read a letter a requesting a continuance to August 17, 2004 to allow the applicant time to notify mineral owners.. The following item will be removed from the consent agenda and continued due to notification error: CASE NUMBER: PZ-629 APPLICANT: Dallas & Marjorie Schneider PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2293; part of the NE4 of Section 30, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD (DalMar Estates)for nine (9) lots with E(Estate)Uses(34 acres)and three(3)non-residential outlots(21 acres)open space. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 1. Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, gave a brief explanation of the circumstances surrounding this continuance. The legal notification was incorrect. The case will be continued to August 17, 2004. The following items are on the Consent Agenda: CASE NUMBER: USR-1458 /1 APPLICANT: Kenneth Shannon 2004-2281 o2Ccy PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 29, Ti N, R66W 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 Special Review, (Oil & Gas Support & Services) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 85 business (CR 27); approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 6. James Rohn moved to accept the Consent Agenda. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried. The following Items will be Heard: CASE NUMBER: USR-1480 APPLICANT: Mildred Mae Sarchet LLC/Arrested Oil Field Services PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3668; pt of N2 NW4 of Section 35, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral resource development facility including an oil and a gas support,and service facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 21 %; and south of and adjacent to CR 28. Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1480,reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. James Rohn asked about the letter from the neighbor indicating the operation has been there, but there was no indication from Ms. Salzman, Zoning Compliance Officer, there was a violation. Ms. Hatch stated there was an approved RE and with the site inspection of that RE it was determined a business was operating. The property owner was then instructed to apply for a USR to address the business. John Folsom asked if there was documentation in the packet that gives Mr. Brown authority to sign for the application. Ms. Hatch indicated that Mr.Sarchet has the authority to sign and he is the owner of the property, the Browns are leasing the property. Mr. Folsom asked about the questionnaire indicating three employees and there being no signatures. Ms. Hatch indicated they are not required to sign the questionnaire, but Mr. Sarchet has signed the application. Bruce Fitzgerald stated the application was submitted by the tenant and the comments indicate a vested property right, but who would the vested property right be for? Ms. Hatch stated Mr. Sarchet was told a USR would need to be done but since this was not his business he had the tenant do the paperwork. Mr. Sarchet did review the paperwork and sign off on it. Mr. Sarchet, the owner of the property if fully aware of the business and it operation. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to the property right. Ms Hatch indicated the vested right goes with the property. Michael Miller asked if there was a condition indicating the USR is for the existing tenant only,when or if he leaves the USR will be no longer valid. Ms. Hatch stated there is not a condition in place now but one can be added as a Development Standard. Michael Miller asked about 2A addressing a reasonable attempt to be compatible with the area. Ms. Hatch indicated that was from the code. Robert Sarchet, property owner, indicated he does have the authority. The letter of objection came from the home to the east. They would like for nothing to happen on the ground due to their view to the west,the view could be disrupted. The Browns described the business operation in the submittal though Mr.Sarchet did get the well permit and the cost was split because that would be a benefit to both. The operation is nicely kept and maintained. Mr. Brown has a small operation and really no desire to increase. John Folsom asked how long the business was in operation on the site. Mr. Sarchet was not aware before he applied for the RE. Mr. Folsom asked if"at any point were you not aware that this type of operation required a special permit?" Mr.Sarchet stated he was not aware of this. Mr. Folsom indicated the application includes oil &gas support and asked if any of the activities conducted are not related to oil &gas or mining? Mr. Sarchet will defer those questions to Mark Brown the operator of the business. James Rohn asked Mr. Sarchet the purpose for the RE that he applied for. Mr. Sarchet indicated it was irrigation problems on the farm and the need for a pivot system. The best way to finance the new system was to sell off part of the farm that was separated from the farm. Mr. Sarchet indicated the RE is at the east end near CR 28. Mark Brown, tenant, provided clarification on the project. John Folsom asked how long the business has been in operation on this site. Mr. Brown stated he began three years ago. Mr. Folsom asked if the business is solely related to oil &gas or mining. Mr. Brown stated that most of the contract work has been through Patina Oil&Gas. Mr. Brown indicated they do what they can to keep working. Michael Miller asked what equipment is on site. Mr. Brown indicated he has two tandem dump trucks, one two ton vehicle and a road grader which is rarely on site. Three are three employees that work every day. Mr. Brown added that it is a small business and he does not plan on expanding. There are no material and limited traffic. Mr. Miller clarified that if he chooses to expand he will need to come back to the Department of Planning Services and re-apply. Mr. Brown indicated he is aware of this and may be downsizing anyway. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Michael Miller suggested having a restriction added that states the USR is valid only with this tenant and cannot be conveyed to the land. Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add Development Standard #25 that states"This USR shall be terminated upon sale or renewed lease agreement with a new tenant." Doug Ochsner asked for clarification with regard to the USR and the tenant moving, if another business moved in it would need to be identical to the existing business. Mr. Miller stated it comes down to interpretation of the next possible business on site with the same USR. This would leave it up to the County to determine the difference. James Rohn asked if the USR is tied to the name. Mr. Miller stated the USR is tied to land owner. Bruce Fitzgerald indicated he has not seen an application like this, normally the owner is making the request and he is not comfortable without the liability of having the Development Standard limiting the USR to this owner. Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison asked for clarification with regard to a possible provision that ties the USR to the tenant not the property. The application was submitted by the tenant with the owners knowledge and signatures. Mr. Morrison asked if there was any capitol investment in the property that goes along with the use. Mr. Miller stated the use is basically parking equipment on site and using the house as office or base of operations. Mr. Morrison added that the property owner would need to be in agreement with the Development Standard limiting this. Mr. Miller added the owner does not have an issue with adding this. James Rohn added he is not open to writing blank checks without expiration, it will be hard for the property owner to replace the business. Mr. Rohn suggests leaving the comments alone. Chad Auer seconded the motion that was on the table. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, no; Michael Miller,yes;James Rohn, no;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion failed Mr.Sarchet added that this is a rental house so if Mr. Brown leaves it will still be considered as such. The only thing that would remain is the commercial well that is recorded. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there was an expense in the conversion of the well. Mr. Sarchet indicated the fees were split. James Rohn asked Mr. Brown "you had been operating this prior for three years, did you know when you started the business that it would be in violation of the code?" Mr. Brown indicated he did not. Mr. Rohn continued "have you operated a similar business in any other part of the County?" Mr. Brown stated he has not. John Folsom moved that Case USR-1480, 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; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. James Rohn commented "normally I am a little more skeptical on these cases but seeing that the two, the owner and the lessee, are working so hard together I think we need to give them a little benefit of the doubt." CASE: PZ-1045 APPLICANT: Highland Acquisition Group PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3105 N2NW4 of Section 5, T1 N, R68 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from (A)Agriculture to PUD(Highland Estates)for nine (9) lots with (E) Estate Uses (17acres) and (2)two non-residential outlots (13 acres)for open space and one (1)agricultural outlot (24 acres) LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 52 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 3. Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1045, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there was for sale sign on property now. Ms. Hatch indicated there was not. James Rohn asked about the letter from Anadarco stating objection without the agreement and if they would need to strip mine because of the coal that is underground. Mr. Rohn believes this should be looked at further. Ms. Hatch indicated she would not have that information, but Molly Somerville is present. John Folsom asked if a PUD with Estate zones have no minimum lot size? Ms. Hatch indicated the overall density has been met for septic systems with the agricultural outlots. Mr. Folsom stated, "so in other words it doesn't have to conform to the requirement of an Estate Zone District,which is in 23-3-40.A which requires 2.5 acres so this does not apply to this application?" Ms.Hatch stated the reason for the 2.5 acre requirement is for the septic and if the overall density has been met the Health Department agrees with this. Mr. Folsom indicated that the leech fields will need to be on each lot and 1.7 acres is not sufficient ground for the septic and leech field. Pam Smith, Health Department,added that since they have the agricultural outlots that helps the overall density. The overall density is one septic system per 6.3 acres. The policy is if on community water and a septic system there can be a lot size of one acres provided all the setbacks can be met. The soil types will also play a part in this. The minimum lot size has been met and the overall density has been met also. This property does show that the perk rates are good in the area. Mr. Folsom added that his concern is that the lots are in cluster and those leech fields must be within the 1.7 acres within that cluster. Ms. Hatch added that the Health Department has asked that envelopes be shown. James Rohn asked Ms. Smith about the possibility of the agricultural outlot being sold and if that will destroy the minimum lot size required and used in the density calculation. Ms. Hatch stated the outlots are non buildable and that is a Development Standard. Mr. Rohn added that there is no Condition addressing Ordinance 2022-11. Ms. Hatch indicated that it can be placed in the Conditions. John Folsom asked if there had been any response from CDOT. Ms. Hatch stated there is a Condition requiring the applicant to contact CDOT. James Rohn asked about the adjacency to two existing PUD and would this not be considered an urban use rather than Estate use? Ms. Hatch indicated the applicant is proposing to pave the roads. Mr Rohn clarified that"based in the Code when an Estate use PUD is next to one or two more PUD it is to be considered Urban in scale rather than rural, because of this should this application not be considered an urban development?" Mr. Miller added that the County does allow for the developments to be on septic systems instead of public sewer. Mr. Ochsner added that PUD can border each other, it is the Minor Subdivision that cannot. Lauren Light, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the project. This does meet the non urban intent defined in the code. The average lot size is 1.89 acres and there are two septic envelopes on the plat. The open space is accessible by all the lots, 37 acres are designated open space and the cannot have homes built on them. The engineers have been working with the ditch companies to obtain an agreement. CDOT has been spoken to for an access permit and Ms. Hice Idler has no concerns. There will be only one major access. The applicant has concerns with condition 2D because the bus shelter design has not been done. Michael Miller asked where the location of the road access is? Ms. Light indicated on the map the location. Mr. Miller asked Mr.Schei if this was a right of way that was abandoned. Mr. Schei stated the roadway to the north is CR 3 1/4 and there is no right of way to the south, so there is no concern. Robert Bulthaup, manager fo the LLC, introduced himself to the Planning Commission. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Molly Somerville,Anadarco representative,provided clarification with regards to the Oil&Gas agreement that will need to be signed prior to the Board of County Commissioners. The objection letter identifies the mineral interest that are owned by Anadarco. Encana also has interest in the property. Encana currently operates two wells on the property. The letter identifies the hard rock mineral, coal on the property. Anadarco works with surface developers to reach agreements and they are working with the developer in this case. The agreement is in principle with respect to the hard rock mineral interest including the coal but there is not a final agreement. Anadarco with be working with the developer including Encana to put together a surface use agreement for the Oil & Gas. The reason for the objection letter is because the agreement is not final. James Rohn asked if the coal in the region will be mined through strip mine or tunnel. Ms. Somerville indicated she does not have an answer, it is shallow coal. Those issues will be resolved in the agreement that will be finalized soon. Doug Ochsner asked when agreement are made is there anything in the agreement that is relayed onto the purchaser of the properties? Ms. Somerville stated that the hard rock minerals including the coal will be addressed by giving the developer a relinquishment of the service rights. The Oil and Gas will be addressed differently, an agreement will be made to identify the locations where the wells will be drilled. Those agreements include a provision which requires the developer to give notice to possible owners of the locations of the Oil and Gas. The surface use agreement will be filed on record with the County. The Chair closed the public portion. Lauren Light, addressed the applicants concern with 2D. The applicant would like to leave a portion of the condition in and move the last three sentences to Prior to Building Permit. Ms. Light indicated that they need to pull a building permit for the bus shelter but it is not designed at this time. Mr. Miller asked for clarification. Ms. Light indicated they do not know at this time what the structure will look like. Mr. Miller indicated that was a simple structure and it should not take long to design. Ms. Light indicated they would know by the time the reached final plat stage. Mr. Miller added that it is basically a drawing of the structure. Ms. Light did not want to hold up the recording of the plat since they have to finish with final plat. Ms. Hatch stated that moving the last three sentences to Prior to Final submission was fine with staff but agree that it is no an unreasonable request at this time. Mr. Miller does not believe this will hold up the process but it is up to the Planning Commission as to what they think. John Folsom asked if the question pertains to when it will be recorded. Mr. Miller added that the applicant does not want to hold up recording the change of zone plat while they decide what type of structure will be placed at the bus stop. Ms. Light indicated that timing is the issue. Mr. Folsom does not see this as a problem. Bruce Fitzgerald moved to allow the applicant to provide the design at the final plat. Mr. Miller asked if this was a proper place to divide the Condition. Ms. Hatch indicted it was. Mr. Miller stated that the beginning of the paragraph requires the bus shelter plans be submitted to the Planning Department. Ms. Light's interpretation of the condition was that the plans were for justification of the location. Ms. Light indicated they do not have the plans but the language can be changed to"location"not"plans". Ms. Light indicated to leave it as recommended and the applicant will address. Mr. Bulthaup stated that the school district did not recommend a shelter in the beginning. James Rohn moved to add language to 3D consisting of"Effective January 1,2003, building permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact program. (Ordinance 2002-11) Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1045, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Doug Ochsner commented that he believes this is compatible with the surrounding area. CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX APPLICANT: Weld County PLANNER: Peter Schei LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections T2N&T3N, R68W& R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Amendment to Mixed Use Development Area Map(MUD). LOCATION: Weld County, Colorado. Peter Schei, Department of Public Works presented Case 2004-XX, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. With development pressure in the MUD area the transportation infrastructure plan needed to be updated to reflect the anticipated needs of the County. The following is a summary of the updates and why these changes were made: • Cleaned up the map and removed insignificant details. • MUD boundary checked for current status with Planning Department. Updated markings. • Updated Legend of line identifications. • Contacted local area agencies to be consistent with transportation planning: Firestone—contacted them and waiting for response. • Longmont- continual contact. • Frederick—arterials on section lines and collectors on V2 section lines. CDOT—continual contact regarding state highways and Interstate 25. • Addition of 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridors (East'9 /2 &West '7') Inspection of all intersections showing 'Existing' and 'New' signals. CR 7''A between CR 20 and CR24 reduced classification from 4-lane major arterial to a 4-lane minor arterial (because of West 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridor addition). • CR 7 between SI 166 and CR 32 upgraded classification from local to a 4 lane minor arterial (to match Ii IU's Weld County Roadway Classification Plan). • CR 1 between CR 20 and CR 32 upgraded classification from 4-lane minor arterial to a 4-lane major arterial(to match FHU's Weld County Roadway Classification Plan and Weld County GIS data map), and length extended from CR 26 to CR 32. • CR 13 between CR 20 and CR 32 upgraded classification from local to a 4-lane major arterial (to match previous Weld County standards and FHU's Weld County Roadway Classification Plan). • CR 20 between CR 7 and CR 13 upgraded classification of segments from local & collector to a 4- lane minor arterial (to connect 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridors and CR 13 per Weld County Public Works recommendation). • CR 24 between CR 9'V2 and CR 13 upgraded classification of segments from local and 4-lane minor arterial to 4-lane major arterial(to extend SH 119 and connect 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridors and CR 13 per Weld County Public Works recommendation). • CR 28 between CR 7 and CR 13 upgraded classification of segments from local and collector to 4- lane minor arterial (to connect 1-25 Parallel Arterial Corridors and CR 13 per Weld County Public Works recommendation). These were the major changes made to the MUD Map 2.2, upon review by the Public Works staff and management. Keith Meyer, Engineering Manager from Public Works, added that the intent is to clean up the map and making it consistent with the strategic road program as well as some of the traffic network needs in the area. Michael Miller asked if Hwy 119 will be 6 lanes? Mr. Schei indicated it will go to 6 lanes at some point in the future. The plan is for the County to plan for the right of way for this future growth. Mr. Miller asked how far north CR 9 V2&CR 7? Mr. Schei added they go farther north and south. Mr. Meyer added they go to Hwy 60. Chad Auer asked about Hwy 119 east to CR 13, from CR 11 to CR13 is outside the MUD area, but Firestone wanted to extend the 6 lanes designation to CR 13. Mr. Schei indicated that may be the case but what Public Works has is what they have anticipated for the Weld County perspective. There may be developments with municipalities in the future. Public Works is trying to set aside a plan at this point but they are open to working with the municipalities on their road structure requests. Mr. Meyers added that Public Works has attempted to coordinate with Firestone, Frederick and Longmont on the plan but they have not responded. Mr. Schei added that the roadway structure can get 140'of right of way that is needed. What is reviewed is the best option for Weld County, there may be circumstances when it does not work out to the betterment of the County. Bruce Fitzgerald asked what was the difference between a major and minor arterial. Mr. Schei indicated a the County is looking at the right of ways that they can hold and retain for infrastructure. The difference will be between 110'to 130'of right of way or depending on what the County recommends. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated there would be higher speeds on the major arterial versus the minor arterial. Mr. Schei indicated that the municipalities will be worked with in accordance to the speed on some of the roadways. Mr. Fitzgerald added that major arterial are engineered for high speed. John Folsom indicated there is a light at CR 13 at CR 20 & CR 22. Mr. Schei indicated that this map is ever changing and that light can be added. Mr. Folsom added that Hwy 119 is 6 lanes under the 1-25 interchange and there is not adequate room to accommodate this. Mr. Schei that there are times the area can be adjusted according to the needs of the future. Mr. Folsom added that the RR track that is labeled on the map has been abandoned and could be stricken. Mr. Folsom asked if Public Works had been advised as to whether the school district has dedicated the necessary right of way for the four lane on CR 7 around the proposed new high school. Mr. Schei indicated the high school has worked with Public Works and there is no concern with rights of way. Mr. Folsom asked if the Town of Mead has ceased objecting to west side parallel that is shown. Mr. Meyers added that Mead annexed CR 7 to take the school, this means that portion of CR 7 is no longer County jurisdiction. Mr. Meyers added that they are actively in negotiations with Mead for an IGA to preserve the future road right of way for CR 7. Mr. Folsom asked how Public Works stands with State Parks as far as continuance of CR 7 across St. Vrain Creek. Mr. Meyers indicated a new signal is under construction at CR 7 and Hwy 119. Mr. Folsom asked about funding and if it was complete? Mr. Meyers indicated the County has a"signal pool"for funding assistance and the ability to re-coop some of the funding as development occurs. Mr. Meyers added that this map is changing constantly so it is hard to bring a complete map to the Planning Commission. There is currently no grant money to extend CR 7 beyond Hwy 119, it is in the design stage with 14 consultants working on it. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a plan to extend CR 7 1/2 to the State Park area. Mr. Meyer stated that there is a master plan for improvements in the area and once that has been approved this map will need to be modified to accommodate this. Mr. Folsom recommended adding the light that is at Longmonts 9`"Avenue and CR 1. This is a busy intersection because of the ditch. Mr. Folsom asked why the acceleration lane in on the north side of Hwy 119 at CR 7. Mr. Meyers added that the accelleration lane on the northwest corner of the intersection is planned for the future south bound CR 7 traffic. Mr. Folsom asked if Public Works was working with Boulder County as far as County Line Road. Mr. Morrison indicated that both Counties have title to the rights of way depending on which side of the road it falls on. James Rohn asked why there are two lights proposed on the southbound entry onto 1-25. Mr. Schei indicated this is a signal light on the east/west street that would limit the cars accessing onto 1-25 ramp and not stopping the southbound traffic. Mr. Meyers added that the intent is for this to control the volume of traffic from the east/west road. The intent is there will be a lot of volume of traffic on the road. Chad Auer asked if there was any discussion for limiting access onto 1-25 from the"on ramp" on the west side? Mr. Meyer added that CDOT controls the accesses onto that roadway and there are controls in place. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. John Folsom moved that Case 2004-XX MUD Map 2.2, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm Respectfully submitted Voneen Macklin Secretary Hello