HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042928 HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2004-91
RE: SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE HEARING, SCH #25, ON A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH
PREVIOUSLY HAD A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION DENIED-MARCELLE
GEUDNER, CIO JESS ARAGON
A public hearing was conducted on October 20, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tern
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Char Davis
Public Works representative, Donald Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated October 1,2004,and duly published October6,2004,
in the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider whether there has been a
substantial change in the facts and circumstances regarding the application of Marcelle Geudner,
c/o Jess Aragon, for Use by Special Review Permit #1430, which was denied by the Board of
County Commissioners on October 1,2003. Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, made this
a matter of record. Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, gave a brief description of
the location of the site,which is within the three-mile referral area for the Town of Windsor and City
of Greeley. Ms. Lockman clarified the purpose of this hearing is not to rehear the issues of the
original Use by Special Review, rather, it is to verify if a substantial change has occurred. She
reviewed the Substantial Change criteria listed in Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code,as well
as the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval based on Criteria #1, #2, and #4.
Regarding Criteria#4,Ms.Lockman stated the applicant has indicated the SouthGate III Commercial
Annexation and plans for retail sales at the Cozy Cow Dairy as newly discovered evidence. They
have also submitted a copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)between the Town of Windsor
and City of Greeley, which indicates the subject site is within the secondary corridor. She stated
this area allows for residential,retail,restaurant,neighborhood commercial,and other institutional
uses. Ms. Lockman stated due to the conflicting information between Windsor's referral response
and the IGA, she spoke with Scott Ballstadt, Windsor Planner, who indicated they would review
commercial uses in this area on a case-by-case basis. She stated the applicants have also
provided a Traffic Report and Trip Generation Comparison, and she reviewed photographs of the
site. Commissioner Geile questioned what has taken place since the denial. Mr. Morrison stated
those are not issues that are relevant to this decision, and the Board must consider whether the
new proposal is substantially different from the original application. He stated there was a court
action which stipulated the operator must discontinue bringing new products onto the site for resale;
however,they could sell the products already at the site,and then as of October 15,2004,they were
2004-2928
PL1684
(C . AZ. f°7-‘ > // / ��
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 2
required to cease all activity. In response to Commissioner Geile,Mr. Morrison stated the testimony
was limited at the Planning Commission hearing to help make the distinction between substantial
change issues and comments regarding the application itself. He stated the Board does not
typically reject evidence; however,the Commissioners do need to weigh the comments based on
their relevance. He further stated testimony should be regarding the substantial changes, not
whether the court stipulation has been met in the last three months. Responding to Commissioner
Jerke,Mr.Morrison stated he has had conversations with the applicant and their counsel,to ensure
they understand any changes made to the property are made at their own risk. He explained even
if they are successful with the Substantial Change and the Use by Special Review processes,the
Board does not necessarily have to adopt all of the changes that have been made to the site.
However,the Board can consider the modifications as an indication as to what the applicant may
do differently under the new application. In response to Chair Masden, Mr. Morrison stated the
burden of evidence of a substantial change is on the applicant. Responding to Commissioner Vaad,
Ms. Lockman reiterated the criteria for review is listed in Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code.
Rick Zier,Attorney,represented the applicant and stated they have a clear understanding with the
County Attorney that any changes being made are at their own risk and may not be accepted. He
explained the changes were done based on statements and allegations that were made at the
previous hearing which the applicant felt were untrue. The applicant listened to the concerns and
made physical modifications to address the issues. Mr. Zier stated the court order states if the
applicant obtains approval fora Substantial Change and a new Use by Special Review Permit,then
they would be allowed to operate. He stated they have not brought in new material since the court
order was issued, although they were allowed to sell existing materials from the site, and they
ceased all operations on October 15,2004. He reiterated that the existence of the lawsuit is not to
have a bearing on the Substantial Change consideration. Mr.Zier stated the applicant has made
substantial changes at the site and in the new application materials to address visual impacts,
noise,dust,and traffic safety. He stated these issues have been reviewed by experts and they are
prepared to make the necessary mitigation efforts. He further stated the adjacent dairy operation
now has a retail component, and a parcel to the southeast has since been classified as
commercial. Additionally,there is an Intergovernmental Agreement between Windsor and Greeley
regarding road improvements along Weld County Road 17 and anticipated mixed commercial uses
south of this parcel near Highway 34. Commissioner Geile expressed concern regarding how and
when the petition was circulated, and he read the language for the record. Mr. Zier stated the
petition was at the site if patrons were interested in signing, and it expresses the opinion that the
applicant has mitigated the concerns expressed by the Board. Responding further to
Commissioner Geile, Mr.Zier stated he is unsure what the surrounding municipalities knew at the
time they made their referral responses for the October 1,2003,hearing;however,the plans for the
property to the south were not public knowledge, and Windsor did not disclose the information to
the applicant when they had discussions. In response to Commissioner Long, Mr.Morrison stated
the applicant did have the option of displaying proposed changes on paper only; however, they
chose to make some physical changes at the site in addition to what is proposed in the application
materials. He stated it is evidence worth considering that the new application will be substantially
different, since the changes were made in an attempt to address the reasons of denial from the
previous hearing. Responding to Chair Masden, Mr.Zier stated they have complied with the court
stipulation, and the materials that were brought onto the site were for the improvement of the site,
not for operating the business. Mr.Zier further stated they reviewed the October 1,2003, minutes
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 3
and Resolution, listened to the neighbors, and tried to establish credibility by making some
corrections at the site.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated she has no comments regarding
the substantial change.
Donald Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated the access to the site is a private easement,
not maintained by the County. He stated the applicant has provided dust suppressant and additional
base for the access.
Keith Meyer, Department of Public Works, stated the Traffic Study was submitted to staff on
October 19, 2004, and it does reflect significant changes. Mr. Zier explained the traffic study
provides new evidence based on a traffic count submitted by a surrounding property owner taken
during the busy summer season, as well as traffic counts done by an engineer.
Cindy Rubiano, co-applicant, stated last October they approached the Town of Windsor and they
were given no indication of potential land use changes south of this site. She stated shortly after
their application was denied, newspaper articles were published regarding the potential car mall.
Prior to that time they were not aware of a working agreement between Windsor and Greeley,and
the "principal employment corridor" was never mentioned. She further stated she called and
confirmed the plans for the auto mall and the property owner's intent to annex to Windsor,which
prompted the Intergovernmental Agreement. Ms. Rubiano referred to Exhibit A of the Agreement,
which is the Cooperative Planning and Utility Area, showing the primary and secondary corridors
and she reviewed the uses that would be allowed. She stated this area was previously classified
as high-density residential;however,the types of uses have now been expanded,and she reviewed
the surrounding uses that have undergone recent changes or properties that are proposed for
change. In response to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Rubiano referenced a letter from Martin Lind in
which he indicated he had no commercial plans for his property. She also checked with the Town
of Windsor just prior to the initial hearing,and she was told there were no plans for commercial uses
in this area. However,30 days following their denial,the plans for the area became public and the
IGA has since been recorded with Weld County.
Jess Aragon,applicant,stated last October the application was denied based on false information
and he had no way to refute those comments. He stated he was discouraged when the Board
expressed doubt regarding his integrity. Following the denial,he was told by the Planning staff that
there was no way to refute the action other than reapplying;however,he later discovered he should
have had the option of appeal through the courts. Regarding the issue of compatibility, Mr.Aragon
stated this is a rural area,not a dense neighborhood. He stated Martin Lind provided a letter,dated
July 2003, indicating that he had no commercial plans for his property, yet he is now adamantly
opposed to this operation. He explained he had difficulty obtaining legal council for the Substantial
Change process because so many local attorneys are familiar with Mr. Lind,which posed a conflict.
He further stated once he found an attorney that had no connection to Mr. Lind,they immediately
began working on a new application that mitigated the concerns. He stated they tried to compile the
information as quickly as they could, and the Traffic Report was submitted October 19, 2004. Mr.
Aragon stated the Stipulation did allow them to operate until October 15, 2004, without bringing
materials in for resale. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison requested Mr. Aragon
avoid further discussion regarding the stipulation. Mr. Aragon submitted a notebook, marked
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 4
Exhibit N,and he explained many of his patrons questioned why his application was denied based
on the pleasant condition of the site,therefore, he provided a petition the public could sign if they
supported the proposed use. He stated it was left on the counter and if questioned,they explained
they were attempting to reapply, and they did not use a formal consultant to draft it. He further
stated they felt they also needed to talk to the Windsong Ranch residents and found many were in
favor and agreed the changes made the use compatible. He stated the announcement of the auto
mall constituted a significant change to the area, his business will be restricted to five acres, and
he displayed the old and new site plans, marked Exhibits P and Q. He stated they spoke with the
dairy that now has a retail portion which is new since the original proposal was denied. He stated
the dairy also provides educational activities regarding dairy operations, which is similar to the
landscaping operation where they provide education on landscaping, xeriscape, etcetera. He
referenced Exhibit N, and requested the Board disregard the photographs of the Weiler property
because it has been significantly improved. Mr.Aragon stated he has done weed management,and
although there were no dust complaints filed with the County,the neighbors expressed concern with
dust at the previous hearing. Based on those comments, he has provided dust abatement on the
haul road and the interior area, and he is willing to continue improving the road. He stated he
originally thought the structure where he parked his equipment qualified as an agricultural exempt
building;however,one of his neighbors turned it in so he got a permit. (Switched to Tape#2004-48.)
Mr.Aragon stated he has installed and permitted a septic system, and in an effort to show he was
willing to make conditions better for the neighbors to the west, he relocated some of the material
piles. He also put in more screening and landscaping to block wind and views of the site. He
reviewed photographs of the site showing gravel surfacing on 90% of the site to reduce dust,
engineered retaining walls to improve drainage, and perimeter fencing. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison stated the applicant's testimony is relevant because it reviews
the prior conditions in relation to the proposed site plan, regardless of whether physical changes
have been made or not. Mr.Aragon continued reviewing previous and current photos of the site.
Chair Masden recessed the meeting until 1:30 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr.Aragon stated he has
demonstrated that the land use application has substantially changed;they have demonstrated that
the proposal is now compatible with the area; and there is an IGA indicating different uses will be
allowed in the area. He stated he has buried the overhead electrical line for the health,safety,and
welfare of the public,and the fence screens a majority of the site. Mr.Zierclarified their substantial
change is based on three of the four criteria,the proposed application addresses issues of concern
with the initial application, and the changes that have been made are only a portion of what is
proposed in the new application.
Kathy Wienmeister,surrounding property owner,stated her original concerns dealt with dust, noise,
and traffic, not the appearance of the site. She stated since February 15, 2004, the facility has
continued to become more established. She stated the fencing will not alleviate the traffic impacts,
the buildings will not eliminate the noise of loading materials, and the trees are not enough of a
buffer. Ms.Wienmeister referenced the referral response from the City of Greeley which indicates
tall fences to screen the site is not consistent with their plans for the area,and the proposed corridor
is not a substantial change.
Tina Schinner,surrounding property owner,stated TimberRock is a beautiful property and she was
a previous customer; however,there has not been a Substantial Change because this will still be
a landscaping business, and the corridor was public knowledge even before the surrounding
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 5
property owners received official notice. She stated the site is accessed using a private easement,
and her main concern is the use of a private access road for commercial use.
Lori Staley,surrounding property owner,stated the applicant has made numerous attempts to work
with the neighbors and he appears to be willing to make the necessary improvements required of
him. She stated the applicant provides a business that beautifies Windsor and the surrounding
area. She further stated this area is changing, and she supports the applicant's opportunity to
conduct business here.
Tom Weiler, surrounding property owner,stated there have been a lot of cosmetic changes to the
site; however, the new proposal does not address the primary issues regarding dust, traffic, and
noise. He further stated changes at the site have increased drastically since the denial hearing.
James Spears, Greeley resident, stated he works for the applicant and they are maintaining the
road. He stated they provide gravel twice a month,the fences mitigate the dust,and the sheds help
with noise. Mr. Spears stated there was dust in the area before this operation existed, and they
have made a big improvement to the site.
Mike Tarpinian, surrounding property owner, stated his son used to work for the applicant and he
has witnessed significant improvements to the road,which is posted with five miles per hour speed
limit signs. Mr.Tarpinian stated the applicant instructs his drivers to follow the speed limit to reduce
dust,the improvements to the site are phenomenal,and they provide play areas for children while
their parents shop. Compared to other landscaping businesses, this is much cleaner, provides
restroom facilities,the prices are competitive,and the applicant has made every attempt to comply
with the County's regulations. •
Garry Weinmeister,surrounding property owner,questioned whether the petitions are applicable
to the Substantial Change hearing. Mr.Morrison stated the Board has the ability to determine how
much value to place on the petitions when making their findings. Mr.Weinmeister indicated there
are many examples of both spouses signing, as well as signatures from people who do not live in
the area and were not aware of the issues. He commented the number of signatures substantiates
the amount of traffic that can be expected if this is approved,and he does not believe the comments
from the applicant meet the criteria required by the code.
Ken Tigges,surrounding property owner,stated he has done business with the applicant for many
years,and this type of facility also supports the agricultural businesses in the area. He stated the
applicant has substantially improved the access easement,and he supports Mr.Aragon's financial
and physical investment in this project. Mr. Tigges stated there is a lot of business growth along
Highway 34,and the applicant has provided physical evidence of his intent to comply with what is
required of him.
Judy Hartshorn,surrounding property owner,stated she is opposed to consideration of the petition,
and she feels the road was of decent quality before the applicant made improvements. She stated
appearance of the site was not their initial concern, therefore, his changes do not address their
concerns.
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, CIO JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 6
Tim Connell stated the applicant has drastically improved the site,and in comparison to many other
landscaping operations,this is one of the nicest. Mr.Connell stated the applicant has upgraded the
road, mitigated noise and dust, and has complied with the County's concerns, therefore, he
supports this application.
Carmen Staley,stated she was the listing agent for this property when it was sold to the applicant's
parents who were going to build a home on the site. She stated their plans changed and the
applicant began to move forward with the subject landscaping business. She stated as a Windsor
resident, she feels Mr.Aragon has made a huge improvement since the site previously consisted
of a silage pit full of trash. She stated traffic along the road is minimal, this business will be a nice
addition to the area, and may provide a buffer from the future auto mall anticipated for the area to
the south. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Staley stated she was the listing agent;
however,she did not represent anyone in the sale. She noted the property was created through the
Recorded Exemption process,they did confirm the easement as the legal access to the parcel,and
determined it is jointly owned and maintained by all of the adjacent properties. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Ms.Staley stated she is acquainted with Martin Lind and John Chamberlain.
She further stated the applicant has provided a letter from Mr. Lind which made no indication of
future plans for this property. She explained his first choice fell through, and he later decided to
develop his property south of the subject site. Ms.Staley stated she became aware of the proposed
uses when it became public in the newspaper. In response to Chair Masden, Ms.Staley stated she
was not a part of the petition. Mr. Morrison explained the access was deeded to the property
owners; however, it is more than an easement, and there is joint ownership. He stated the record
for the previous hearing reflected his comments which indicated TimberRock was not impeded from
using the easement,and they had a legal right to use it and pay their fair share of the maintenance
costs. He further stated the strip of land the access road is located on is jointly owned by adjacent
property owners, and they all have a right to use it and maintain it. In response to Commissioner
Jerke, Mr. Morrison stated the properties to the west also have joint ownership to the strip of land,
not just what is in front of their properties.
Victor Tallon stated he has been working on installing the septic system at the site, and he is also
the Vice-Chair of the Windsor Planning Commission. He stated the applicant has improved this
from a farm trash pit to its current condition. He further stated the road has been greatly improved,
he has not witnessed a significant amount of dust,the business will be an asset to the community,
and it will be compatible with the future plans for the area, as well as the new uses on the dairy to
the east. He stated he did recuse himself from the Windsor Planning Commission hearing
regarding this matter because he had already entered into a contract with the applicant for installing
the septic system. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Tallon stated it is his opinion that the
Town of Windsor would be interested in annexing this property; however, it would require formal
action. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr.Tallon stated he is familiar with Jim Flesher, and
he would have been authorized to sign the referral from Windsor, dated June 6, 2003.
Ron Martin stated he is a business associate of the applicant and he feels this area is likely to
change due to the potential auto mall.He stated the landscaping business has significantly improved
the site, and the applicant will continue to work to address the area concerns, as well as respond
to the desires of the Board.
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, CIO JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 7
Lyn Martin stated she has been a customer of the proposed business. She stated she supports this
family business, there are substantial changes anticipated for the area, and the applicant has
exceeded the standards required to ensure the health,safety,and welfare of the public. Ms. Martin
stated the applicant has improved the public access road by widening it,applying dust suppressant,
and providing stabilization, and she noted the improvements were made and paid for solely by
TimberRock,although all the other users will benefit. She stated they have also provided buildings,
fencing, and landscaping to buffer any noise, and there is less dust on the site then some of the
surrounding properties. She further stated she has visited the site on various days of the week and
at different times of the day, and she has witnessed only minimal traffic amounts, which is no
comparison to what will be generated by the projected auto mall to the south. Ms.Martin requested
the applicant be allowed to operate during this review process and that the Board find substantial
changes have been made to the site.
Matthew Aragon,applicant's brother,stated Weld County has always experienced problems with
dust. He explained the prevailing winds come from the west,therefore,any dust blowing from the
site should only affect the dairy to the east,with only a minimal impact to the neighbor to the west.
He stated the subdivision to the north is barely visible from the site, and he feels this facility is
substantially better than most landscaping businesses. He stated most of the equipment is new
and very quiet,the access has been improved from two tire ruts to a nice road with speed limit signs
posted. He also stated the applicant has addressed the issues of concern and is now compatible
with the surrounding uses. There being no further comments, Chair Masden closed public
testimony.
Mr.Zier stated at the initial hearing they were not aware of the various uses now identified for this
area, and he verified the subject site is not located within the area that restricts outdoor storage.
He stated much of the public testimony provided today was regarding issues of the Use by Special
Review Permit, rather than whether there have been substantial changes to the application,
surrounding land uses, and unavailable information. He further stated the neighbors' main
contention is that the applicant is still requesting a landscaping business;however,the Board needs
to review what is being proposed and how the applicant has mitigated the neighbors' and
Commissioners'concerns with the new application. Mr.Zier stated they have put a lot of effort into
improving the visual impacts, and they have conducted a professional traffic study as a means of
rebutting testimony from the initial hearing. He stated they have raised and surfaced the road,
installed a culvert to improve stormwaterdrainage,and provided dust abatement at the site and out
to Weld County Road 17,with some improvements also being made by the neighbors. He further
stated they have been responsible during their ownership, and three of the four opponents to this
proposal live further west and are not impacted by the easement. Mr.Zier stated if the applicant had
been aware of the future uses to the south, the applicant would have foreclosed that information
because it would have supported the issue of compatibility; however, County staff was not aware
of the plans,Windsor did not disclose any knowledge,therefore, how could the applicant possibly
have known what was going to happen in the future. Commissioner Geile commented the
applicant's testimony indicated he could not get an attorney because they were associated with Mr.
Lind, implying people were involved with what was going to take place at that property. Mr. Zier
stated they were not privy to the information. He submitted a letter,marked Exhibit R,dated May 2,
2003, in which Martin Lind did not disclose any plans for his property. Mr. Zier stated there are
significant changes shown between what was proposed previously and what will be proposed if the
Substantial Change request is granted,and there will be additional changes that will be more than
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 8
cosmetic. He stated the applicant's ethics is not at issue, rather, it is whether there has been a
substantial change in the application and the surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Vaad commented he finds the applicant has provided evidence for three of the
criteria supporting a substantial change. He stated the nature of the application is substantially
changed and the site plans are clearly different;however,his finding for a Substantial Change in this
matter does not reflect his opinion for the future Use by Special Review application should they be
allowed to reapply. He further stated the surrounding land uses have changed on the small scale,
as well as the significant changes that are now anticipated. He stated the comments in the letter
dated June 6, 2003, from the town of Windsor is very different from the terms of the IGA that was
signed on August 9, 2004, which will establish many new changes in the area.
Commissioner Jerke commented it may not have been appropriate for the applicant to continue
making substantial changes to the site when they did not have the authority to do so,and he feels
that is contrary to the intent of the Substantial Change process, although the work has been an
improvement to the site. He stated the dairy recently changed to incorporate an educational facility
and a potential retail situation,and the auto mall was not public knowledge at the time of the denial
hearing,which will be bringing substantial changes to the area,therefore,he supports this request.
Commissioner Geile commented he has some concern with the actions of the applicant to continue
proceeding with their business plan; however,the agreement between Windsor and Greeley was
not completed or finalized until recently and it does not appear the applicant had access to that
information. He stated Windsor's plans for the area have changed since October 2003. Therefore,
he finds there has been a substantial change that will affect the entire area,and surrounding uses
have changed at local operations, which does justify rehearing the matter.
Commissioner Long commented the reasons for denial of the original application dealt with off-site
traffic and the nature of the business, therefore, he feels a substantial change would involve a
change in the nature or design of the site, not the appearance. He stated dairies have visitors all
the time,so he does not feel the educational feature is a substantial change. The previous findings
also dealt with incompatibility with properties to the north, not what may happen to the south. He
stated as long ago as three years,the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor were under discussions
regarding this area,and the specific use is still as uncertain now as it was then,therefore, he does
not find that there has been a substantial change.
Chair Masden commented the site plan and the site itself has changed,the neighboring dairy and
surrounding properties have changed, and there is new evidence that has been discovered,
therefore, he supports the finding of a substantial change.
In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison stated the court order is that they are not to
operate, but if they gain approval of a Substantial Change,then they will be allowed to proceed with
the Use by Special Review process in hopes that they are approved, in which case they could
potentially begin operating as early as next Spring. He reiterated they will not be able to operate until
a Use by Special Review Permit has been reviewed and approved. Mr. Zier concurred with that
arrangement and read the terms of the Court Order for the record. Responding to Commissioner
Vaad, Mr.Morrison stated the dust abatement mitigation measures and other work done at the site
do not violate the court order, nor were they a requirement of the court order.
2004-2928
PL1684
HEARING CERTIFICATION - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON (SCH #25)
PAGE 9
Commissioner Vaad moved to find that there has been a substantial change in the facts and
circumstances regarding the application of Marcelle Geudner,do Jess Aragon,fora Use by Special
Review,based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission. The
motion was seconded by CommissionerJerke,and upon a call for the vote,the motion carried four
to one, with Commissioner Long opposed. There being no further discussion, the hearing was
completed at 3:15 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 27th day of October 2004.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
E La
W D COUNTY, COLORADO
•
��7 p2n
1861 � : Robert D. Masden,Chair
Clerk to the Board
®U William H. Je e, Pro-Tem
Deputy Clerk to the Board
M. ile
TAPE #2004-47 cO
Davi Long/
44
DOCKET#2004-91 � �
Glenn Vaad
2004-2928
PL1684
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case SCH #25 - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 09/07/2004)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Garry and Kathleen Weinmeister Letter re: Forged documents, dated
09/20/2004
F. Applicant Letter requesting court reporter, dated
10/05/2004
G. Clerk to the Board Response Letter re: Deposit for court
reporter, dated 10/08/2004
H. Harry Hartshorn Family Letter of Opposition, dated 10/13/2004
I. Vicki Albertson Letter of Support, received 10/20/2004
J. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
K. Scott Ballstadt E-mail re: Windsor Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map and Windsor-Greeley IGA,
dated 10/20/2004
L. Cindi Rubiano Letter and Windsor Resolution No. 2004-56
(remainder of Exhibit removed since it was
a duplicate of Exhibit O)
M. Cindi Rubiano Traffic Count and Trip Generation
Comparison prepared by Matthew Delich,
dated 10/15/2004
N. Applicant Follow-up Exhibits (first 20 pages removed
since it was a duplicate of Exhibit 6a)
O. Town of Windsor Letter dated 06/06/2004, and
Intergovernmental Agreement, dated
08/09/2004
P. Applicant Oversized Original Site Plan, poster board
Q. Applicant Oversized Revised Site Plan, poster board
R. Applicant Letter of Opposition from Martin Lind, dated
05/02/2004
S.
T.
U.
V.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2004:
DOCKET#2004-90 -ALFONSO BORREGO
DOCKET#2004-91 - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
''1I(E TAg-FINIAN 1(:03 INOIHN TEAIU D2. WIN0So2 Co, &55b
MirraW f p'taod qsd i- 6cc' +wK vie. Feel" Cow r,vs-C o gos 26
, -/2-0.52 Sp aas Q5 .7.U//‘,,7%S' a g &e-,1- :( Pc ..7`5/
v,v4 e /ZAxmir 3S34eziiA e1 ri- Cr �MS, 6 FUSS 5
l May-kv\ ?)3h LPPi.,,(vA1 I+ p . 0 �i.,)-��, (�� .f 2S
5-1-a t. Liss S-573 50rAfv9o. C.rC��n /vrf <0//v.12 Go 0ROSa-.C
/ 'm . G'6nhe// 51/q /S/,pS4e;n ref ChP�venne e.49, - �02coy
)1CAI Cabf fh cNt- 5200 W 1 s a et , ,71 C-o I l ii Sul i C.0 (C-6529
-Tom Tu nit. teC8 Oink, L)4_AD S--c \ .z _ \N\ NDe—i (t r60 SSD _
Or (zl BL7Io to r. R. God Lc, hdsnr < n ?QscQI
E -ea... , i9/k5 4- rage 4 2 sf ,v z 1 -, ' 2,7_5 ( /e 1649-s"L., I Zc) 10 , ci... o JR,,,.� - kA) -e-, . C'() 13a 55
ar . r 9%r 2961// 0. - ,I / J,%euz G°e, , ,8,550
� /._,24 ay yl �/ n..� , / 7 �a.,,Li 4r1 , (Ar. $ o�s ,sO
V WC/NME is-rER, 2 8 61/ 9 kJ.c, /7 1-J/NpsOA, C o,rs-a
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2004:
DOCKET#2004-90 -ALFONSO BORREGO
DOCKET#2004-91 - MARCELLE GEUDNER, C/O JESS ARAGON
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John`1 Doe 123
Nowhere Street, City, State,tat Zip
t V�Rti�� 3' d�lnU�t CQ 11 I)-kr See , �l�S G
fin/A Seen nne(' oS669 c X2 17 r,Ji/N1b5aK CO 2oSSO
I oor*s 0v- v‘. .24 A \c/ CR I"/ I� ndSovl l� QoS Sc
/tJtC Z/ 5 , , 0,41
n9ESS R MRACCL/ .S6a9 vWCR 17 WiticscK, CO ?0SSO T kl (,fsrn`e
Pane ��� 'reaO 140 5 mi1L--e lrA t ' °&-A 1 << 5 En teVo C
a s. 6�1�.�,� w,U.5� ., ``7�)s_ , c ��J:JlA'c, c-�l o\a-Y,/2,ize,7g6y...t
2,:.k 0e.R,;U.z z
A3 en +-&u d10
Hello