HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010077.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (Corrected)
Tuesday, November 21, 2000
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, November 21, 2000, in the
Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair, Cristie Nicklas, at 10: 05 a.m.
ROLL CALL I __
Fred Walker Present b
Cristie Nicklas Present
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present ( 1 =
Michael Miller Present l r
Stephan Mokray Present ' >
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Absent
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Anne Best Johnson, Monica Daniels-Mika, Julie Chester, Robert Anderson, Chris Gathman,
Kim Ogle, Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services; Trevor Jiricek, Pam Smith, Sheble
McConnellogue, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll, Diane Houghtaling, Public Works; Lee
Morrison, Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney; Trisha Swanson, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 7,
2000, was approved with changes votes after Michael Miller and Bryant Gimlin left, as well as some minor
spelling and grammatical corrections..
REQUEST: Approval of Planning Commission Hearing Dates and Fee Schedule for 2001
PRESENTER: Wendi Inloes
Wendi Inloes, Planning Tech, presented the Planning Commission hearing dates for 2001 as well as the fee
schedule for the following year. Wendi noted that the only change in the fee schedule would be the removal
of the COC(Certificate of Compliance)from the applications available. Wendi stated that the ZPMH (Zoning
Permit for a Mobile Home) has taken the place of this application at the same cost.
John Folsom moved to approve the Planning Commission Hearing Dates and Fee Schedule for 2001.
Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 197-A
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall
include additions to the Definition Section, Cluster PUD procedure, and Public Water and
Sewage Disposal additions. Other amendments include document-wide renumbering,
spelling corrections,type face, and alignment for consistency.Amendments to the Planned
Unit Development Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include amendments to Section 2.5
and 6.4.5 to cover substantial changes to the Open Space requirement including a land
dedication or cash-in-lieu option.
/ 82nD; 2001-0077
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 2
Anne Best Johnson, Planner, presented Ordinance 197-A. Anne noted that she had discussed the minor
changes at the previous hearing and was moving on to the first substantial change, concerning the addition
of several definitions.
Fred Walker presented his alternate wording for the definition of conservation easement. Discussion followed
concerning wording for the definition.
Fred Walker moved to have the definition of conservation easement to read as follows: "An encumbrance
upon an identified parcel of land stipulating the restriction on additional or future development. The easement
restricts the development rights to the land, but the landowner still holds the title to the property, the right to
restrict public access,and the right to sell,give,or transfer ownership of the property." Arlan Marrs seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Walker presented the wording for the definition of non-urban and urban development, as well as a new
definition for suburban development. Discussion followed concerning the presented changes, covering the
number of lots, allowing two adjacent subdivisions,and the restriction on the size of subdivisions with septics
systems.
Bruce Barker and Lee Morrison noted that there are no set-ups to allow for development as a "suburban
development". Anne stated that this would be problematic in the administration of subdividing land.
Fred Walker noted that he does not like that the health department has the final say on whether or not to allow
certain septic systems in a subdivision,that he feels the Board of County Commissioners should have the final
say in allowing the systems. Cristie Nicklas noted that the Department of Public Health and Environment and
Department of Planning Services are only making recommendations to the Planning Commission. Fred
Walker noted that the Health Department still has the final say as the current wording of the Conditions of
Approval state.
Stephen Mokray moved that the definition of Urban, Non-Urban, and Suburban development to read as
follows:"NON-URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT: Developments comprised of eight or fewer residential lots,
located in a non-urban area as defined by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. NON-SUBURBAN SCALE
DEVELOPMENT may include developments,which combine clustered residential uses and agricultural uses
in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming and ranching operations for the next forty(40)
years. SUBURBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT: Developments comprised of more than eight residential lots
but whose gross densities are no greater than 2 1/2 acres per lot, with a minimum lot size of one acre per
residential lot. All lots would be serviced by a potable water and enhanced septic systems. URBAN SCALE
DEVELOPMENT: Developments comprised of more that eight residential lots and are located in close
proximity to existing PUD's, subdivision, municipal boundaries, or urban growth corridors. All urban scale
developments shall pave the internal road systems of the development. URBAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT
requires support services including potable water,sewer systems,road networks,and storm drainage." Cathy
Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Jack Epple, no; Cathy Clamp,yes;
Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no. Motion failed.
Arlan Marrs noted that he understands the problem presented by the suburban definition, but thinks that this
may be the start of a new idea for development in the county. Arlan also stated that he does like the removal
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 3
of restricting two side-by-side lots and the removal of the minimum 80-acre agricultural outlot, but that he is
not comfortable with the 40 year restriction.
Jack Epple noted that he understands some of the concerns that Fred Walker has stated, but that there is
validity to cutting off the number of homes allowed on septic systems. Mr. Epple noted that he does like the
definition because of the use of the words "potable water".
John Folsom noted that the wording proposed by the Department of Planning Services because it is more
restrictive, as having a subdivision in the middle of a city on septics systems is very difficult.
Cathy Clamp commented that the municipalities are planning too much for the county and that the county is
meant to be rural, that there is not enough freedom to develop in the existing definitions.
Stephen Mokray noted that he feels this simplifies the definitions and make new ground to work with in the
future.
Fred Walker commented that he understands the philosophies presented by the other members,but he feels
individuals should have the ability to chose how to develop their land.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she feels that the Suburban definition presented would create a problem with
potable water and density. Ms. Nicklas commented that she feels the Department of Planning Services staff
could work on a possible suburban definition and use in the future.
Michael Miller noted that he does like the 8 lot minimum and that the 5 lot subdivision is too restricting.
Michael Miller also noted that he feels the 80 acre minimum outlot may slow urban sprawl, as more
amendments like Amendment 24 may be facing the voters in the future.
Fred Walker noted that he would like to remove the requirement that the subdivisions not be next to each
other. Cathy Clamp asked why 80 acres is the specific number of acres required. Anne Best Johnson noted
that part of the reason may be the need for 80 acres to accomplish allowing a well on the property. Monica
Daniels-Mika, Director of Planning Services, noted that the 80 acre lot size also corresponds with the
minimum buildable lot size in Weld County. Lee Morrison noted that the 80 acres is also a holdover from
existing rules before the creation of the cluster option,to avoid attached clusters of 5 lots next to each other
on the same land. Arlan Marrs asked why some are required at the 80 acre lot size, but some are allowed
at the 2/3 of the farm land. Lee noted that this allows alternatives for the cluster. Arlan Marrs asked why the
40 year requirement is attached to the cluster development. Lee pointed out that this is a requirement of the
State, but to never remove the development ban on these acres allows people to qualify for the tax break, as
well as allowing the subdivision to apply for the wells on the subdivision.
Cristie Nicklas asked why they could not take out the programs required on the urban scale development.
Cathy Clamp moved to amend the staff proposed Non-Urban Scale Development to allow 8 lots,the change
from an 80 acres outlot to a 40 acre outlot. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no;Jack Epple, no; Cathy Clamp, yes;
Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, no. Motion failed.
Diane Houghtaling noted that the paving of the roads would be required after the 21st lot on the road.
Michael Miller commented that he feels this is a step in the wrong direction and the 8 lot adjacent subdivisions
would not cover preservation of the agricultural outlots.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 4
John Folsom noted that he agrees with Michael Miller that this loosens the protection for the agricultural lands.
Michael Miller moved to change the Non-Urban definition to allow 8 or fewer lots and state gross density. Jack
Epple seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes;
Fred Walker, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented that he does not like allowing 8 lots in an non-urban subdivision.
Fred Walker commented that he feels this is a slap in the face of private property rights.
Michael Miller moved to change the Urban definition to allow 8 or more lots and state gross density. Stephen
Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, abstain; Arlan Marrs, abstain; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy
Clamp, yes; Fred Walker, abstain; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Anne Best Johnson presented the substantial change component 5,to allow the gentleman who made up the
public to speak concerning the changes. Anne noted that substantial change component 5 deals with the
paving of roads within the PUD ordinance at the direction of Public Works and Diane Houghtaling would
answer any questions associated with the change.
Diane Houghtaling noted that the changes dealt with the 1/2 paving of streets causing safety problems and
would require the property owner to acquire the right-of-way for the entire roadway in the PUD and MUD area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this change. Jim
Mountain, a land planner, noted that this puts too much burden on the developing property owner, noting
possible problems if the property owner would not sell. Mr. Mountain also noted that the cost would all be
carried by the developer and a future landowner would be able to develop without having to incur any costs
for paving the road near their subdivision, leaving all the costs to the initial developer.
Jack Epple noted that municipal sewer and water work this way as well for subdivisions. Mr. Mountain noted
that many of the services mentioned by Mr. Epple reimburse the original developer when new subdivisions
are added for a specific time period.
Lee Morrison noted that the developer could contest the Condition of Approval at the state level and that the
developer does not have to pay all the costs associated. Fred Walker asked why this could not be clarified
for the applicants.
Arlan Marrs noted that the phrasing "required improvements MAY include the acquisition of right-of-way" is
not fair to the applicant as the wording is too nebulous, that the applicant will not know until the subdivision
is done.
Lee noted that the following wording could be added to the statement: Improvements attributed to the
development shall be consistent with nexus of proportionality and shall be equivalent to the impacts of the
development.
Discussion concerning the impacts upon the road being larger than assumed would possibly be borne by the
developer as well as the ability of the developer to dedicate the entire right-of-way on the property being
developed.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 5
Jack Epple moved to add Mr.Morrison's sentence to Section 4.2.5.8 as the fourth sentence in the paragraph.
Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs, no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Cathy Clamp, no;
Fred Walker, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Arlan Marrs commented theat he is uncomfortable with the acquisition of right-of-way being required.
Cathy Clamp commented that the wording of"required" bothers her.
Fred Walker commented that he agrees with Arlan Marrs and Cathy Clamp.
Michael Miller to approve moved that Ordinance 197-Abe forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs commented that he feels the same as his previous comment, also noting that he feels that
property taxes should be used to cover the additional need in the road system.
Anne Best Johnson presented Substantial Change#2, which covers the Cluster PUD.
Fred Walker commented that he is happy to see this attempt by the Department of Planning Services to
respect private property rights. Mr.Walker noted that the 40 year requirement of the Cluster PUD is a bit hard
to take, but supports the Cluster PUD nonetheless. Cristie Nicklas noted that she understands the frustration
of the 40 year requirement with the uncertain farming conditions being faced.
Cathy Clamp noted that she would like to see W.Goal 3 placed somewhere in the section to notify people that
hunting is allowed on the private farm areas.
Discussion covering the placement of this section followed.
Cathy Clamp moved to add "and W. Goal 3" in Section 10.1.4 after "Farm". Michael Miller seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs moved to accept Substantial Change#2. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Anne BestJohnson explained that Substantial Change#3 covers requests by the Department of Public Health
and Environment. Pam Smith noted that the section used to cover both water and sewer, that the two new
sections would replace the previous section and add more details to the separate parts.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 6
Fred Walker asked for a definition of potable water and if this would include private water districts. Lee
Morrison noted that this would cover public water systems created by the Homeowner's Association. Fred
Walker noted that he feels that the restrictions imposed by the Department of Public Health and Environment
could be too restricting, including the requirement of an economic feasibility study. Fred Walker noted that
he feels the Department of Public Health and Environment has too much authority to deny PUDs without some
room for the Board of County Commissioners to change the regulations.
Cristie Nicklas noted that the applicant could appeal the decision before the Board of County Commissioners.
Arlan Marrs asked Lee Morrison if someone had less than eighty acres, could they still use the Cluster PUD
to create lots. Mr. Morrison noted that the Cluster PUD does allow for smaller acreage to be developed.
Sheble McConnellogue noted that the new EPA requirements ban motor vehicle or automobile wastes into
the septic system.
Fred Walker noted that this would require an enhanced septic system with zero tolerance and noted that this
is a good concept.
Discussion followed concerning the amount of control that the Department of Public Health and Environment
should have over the septic systems allowed, as well as the word "economic" in the section.
Cathy Clamp moved to accept 2.20 with eight lots. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller noted that he feels the appeal process of the Board of Health is fast enough for the applicants
to contest the requirements by the Department of Public Health and Environment.
Fred Walker moved to accept Section 2.21 with the removal of the word"economic"before the word feasibility.
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Anne Best Johnson presented the changes to the vested rights section as well as the cash in-lieu change to
the PUD Ordinance. Ms.Johnson noted that the cash-in-lieu option allowed for open space dedication outside
of the land being developed.
Cristie Nicklas noted that there were no members of the public present for any of the changes to the PUD
other than Mr. Mountain, who had commented concerning the change to the requirements for roads.
Fred Walker noted that he likes the idea of the cash-in-lieu, but does not want this to become a transfer of
development rights. Michael Miller asked if the open space had to be within the MUD. Anne noted that it
would either be in the MUD or somewhere specified by the Board of County Commissioners. John Folsom
asked if the public entity by the county could use this money to buy conservation easements. Ms. Johnson
noted that this would be an option for that public entity.
Cathy Clamp asked if the "scenic farmland" section would be used to force farmers to make their farms
"pretty"? Anne noted that the farmland would stay as it originated.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 7
Discussion covered a wording change for the public entity that would take care of the funds in question.
Michael moved to amend Ordinance 197-A to include amendments made as well as an addition of language
stating "Such public entity shall possess the authority to hold land for public purposes." In paragraph 2,
second to last sentence of Section 6.3.2.5.7.1 and Ordinance 197-A be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 173-F
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include additions
to the Definition Section; Amendments at the request of the Department of Public Works;
Amendments to Section 4, 7, and 11 for consistency with other Weld County Planning
Ordinances and current policy;Section 8 amendments for clarification on what information
is required for the Resubdivision process;and Sections 4 and 6 on Vested Property Rights.
Other amendments include document-wide renumbering, spelling corrections, type face,
and alignment;and consistency between all Weld County Planning Ordinances and current
policy. Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include
amendments to Section 10 to cover substantial changes to Public Sites and Open Spaces,
including a land dedication or cash-in-lieu option.
Anne Best Johnson presented the cash-in-lieu option of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Jack Epple was absent from the room for about five minutes.
Michael Miller questioned Anne if the language was the same as the previous ordinance. Anne noted that
there were small changes to make it fit with the Subdivision Ordinance, but that the language had the same
intent.
Michael Miller moved to approve Substantial Change#7 of Ordinance 173-F. John Folsom seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,abstain; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 191-F
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Mixed Use Development (MUD) Plan. Substantial Changes shall
include amendments to MUD Policy 2.8, Section 2.3, Section 2.4 to cover substantial
changes to the Open Space and Maximum Lot Coverage requirements, including a land
dedication or cash-in-lieu option. Amend Section 2.7.3 regarding Structural Road
Improvements.
Anne Best Johnson presented the cash-in-lieu section of the MUD Ordinance.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 8
Michael Miller moved to approve Substantial Component#2 of the MUD Ordinance. Cathy Clamp seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 173-F
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include additions
to the Definition Section;Amendments at the request of the Department of Public Works;
Amendments to Section 4, 7, and 11 for consistency with other Weld County Planning
Ordinances and current policy; Section 8 amendments for clarification on what information
is required for the Resubdivision process;and Sections 4 and 6 on Vested Property Rights.
Other amendments include document-wide renumbering, spelling corrections, type face,
and alignment;and consistency between all Weld County Planning Ordinances and current
policy. Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include
amendments to Section 10 to cover substantial changes to Public Sites and Open Spaces,
including a land dedication or cash-in-lieu option.
Anne Best Johnson presented the minor changes of Ordinance 173-F.
Michael Miller moved to approved minor change#1. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to approved minor change#2. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cathy Clamp moved to approved minor change#3. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved to approved minor change#4. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cathy Clamp moved to approved minor change#5. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 9
Stephen Mokray moved to approved minor change#6. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to approved minor change#7 with the addition of the words",including signatures,"after
the words "all components". Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion concerning Substantial Change#1 began, but was continued until after the previously scheduled
cases were finished.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1298
APPLICANT: Boulder Scientific
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2/SE4 of Section 4, Township 4 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use permitted as a Use
by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 7, North of WCR 48.
Julie Chester, Planner, presented USR-1298 and noted that the Department of Planning Services was
requesting an indefinite continuance to allow the applicant additional time to bring in the required information
that the Department of Planning Services had requested.
Jim Birmingham, applicant, noted that they would like to bring in the information that the Department of
Planning Services had requested.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuation.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1298 be continued indefinitely. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-548
APPLICANT: California Home, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 35,Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for a proposed 18-lot business park PUD.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28, East of and adjacent to 1-25 frontage road.
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case Z-548,and noted that the applicant had met with Public Works,but
had not yet turned in the proper information requested to meet with the county standards concerning the
alignment of WCR 9.5.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 10
Cristie Nicklas asked if the county could just decide where the road could be placed and design it. Diane
Houghtaling noted that Public Works could do the feasibility study and design the road, but that the Public
Works workload was high enough that the road would not be done until 2002.
Don Leffler, applicant with Design Development Consultants, noted that they did have an agreement signed
by everyone but the owner of the Riverdance property supporting the placement of WCR 9.5 in the place
proposed by Mr. Leffler. Mr. Leffler noted that they would prefer a 45 m.p.h. speed limit on this road. Mr.
Leffler also mentioned that he would like to have a Condition of Approval for alignment of the road to be
finalized and agreed upon before recording the plat. Don Leffler also noted that the site will have the required
15% open space upon the site, as well as an additional 15% required on each of the lots to be developed.
John Folsom asked if CDOT had any concerns with the site concerning 1-25 being in the vicinity. Mr. Leffler
noted that CDOT was only asking for the 90' right-of-way.
Mr.Leffler brought along an outline of the proposed road, including proposed layout of the road. Cathy Clamp
asked Diane Houghtaling if she had seen this plan before today. Ms.Houghtaling noted that she had not seen
this plan before the hearing and would need more time than available in order to assess if the plan would
work.
John Folsom asked why the setbacks from the Oil & Gas structures on the site were proposed to be 150'
rather than the 350'required. Mr.Leffler noted that they were planning on working with the local fire protection
district to create approved structures to protect the surrounding sites. Stephen Mokray asked if Mr. Leffler
wanted approval from the Public Works staff and the Department of Planning Services with the submittal of
this late information. Mr. Leffler noted he would like a Condition of Approval in order to continue with this
project.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Arlan Marrs noted that he feels this is a responsible proposal and that most people in the area are ready for
this alignment, that a Condition of Approval would be acceptable.
Stephen Mokray seconded Arlan Marrs' comments.
Michael Miller commented that he does not like that the agreement is not final and that he is not comfortable
approving conceptual ideas for the road placement. Mr. Miller also noted that he has a problem with the 150'
setback from the oil wells.
Stephen Mokray noted that he agrees with Mr. Miller and questions what would happen to the project if the
alignment is not approved by the staff and by Siegrist properties.
John Folsom commented that the county should decide if the agreement and alignment are acceptable.
Fred Walker noted that the applicant had requested this earlier continuance date, rather than the later date
requested by the Department of Planning Services and the applicant has still not solved the problems.
Mr. Leffler noted that instead of a denial he would prefer a continuance to resolve the road issues.
Cathy Clamp noted that she does not feel just having names on the petition is legal enough to approve this
site.
Monica Daniels-Mika noted that the Riverdance/Siegrist property will be in front of the Board of County
Commissioners sometime in January of 2001.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 11
Stephen Mokray moved that Case Z-548 be continued indefinitely. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Walker noted that he had to leave at this time.
APPLICANT: Rincewand, Inc. /Jerry and Lois Hilburn
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 5, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review Permit for indoor storage facility and vacant lot.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to SH 257, South of and adjacent to WCR 74 (Harmony Road).
Chris Gathman, Planner, noted that the applicant was requesting a 60 day continuance to January 16,2001,
in order to consider annexation into the Town of Windsor.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1295 be continued to January 16,2001. Stephen Mokray seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1144
APPLICANT: Richard and Phyllis Podtburg
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2/SE4 of Section 19, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an amendment to an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal
husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including Livestock
Confinement Operations for 3000 head of cattle.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 66, west of and adjacent to WCR 25 3/4.
Julie Chester, Planner, presented Case AmUSR-1144 and read the comments along with the Department of
Planning Services recommendation of approval into the record. Ms. Chester also noted that there are
changes to the Conditions of Approval to allow 60 days to record the plat and correct a date in C. of the
reasons for approval.
Michael Miller asked if the dairy would have to conform to the City of Greeley's air quality regulations. Julie
noted that they were to attempt to address these concerns, but that they are responsible to be in compliance
with to the county regulations only.
Eric Dunker, Representative for AgPro, stated that Mr. Kennedy would speak for the applicant as he had
worked for the dairy for years.
Dan Kennedy stated that the applicant had decided to add 1,000 head to his dairy, expand the lagoon to
accommodate a 25 year 24 hour storm, add five pens, and an area for future composting.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 12
Cathy Clamp asked why the dairy was moving up to 3,000 head from the 2,000 head requested three years
ago. Mr. Kennedy stated that they need the volume to succeed in the business. Ms. Clamp asked if there
would be buyers for the additional milk. Mr. Kennedy stated that there are buyers waiting.
Stephen Mokray asked if there had been any complaints about the odor in the past few years. Trevor Jiricek
commented that there were none in the Department of Public Health and Environment files. Cristie Nicklas
asked how far the Willcut property is from the dairy. Mr. Kennedy noted that the home is about 1/4 mile from
the lagoon.
Michael Miller asked how many acres are farmed with the dairy. Mr. Kennedy noted there are 320 acres, but
that not all the acreage is contiguous.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cathy Clamp asked if the applicant is addressing the odors mentioned in the letter from Mr.Willcutt about the
current dairy. Dan Kennedy noted that they are abandoning an old grey water system and improving the odor.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-1144 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Arlan Marrs seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller commented that even a well run dairy is tough to approve this close to the City of Greeley, but
that a good effort could help future dairies,while a poor effort could hurt future dairies from getting approval.
Cathy Clamp concurred with Mr. Miller and asked that the dairy try to work with the surrounding property
owners.
CASE NUMBER: Ord-195A
APPLICANT: Town of Firestone
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendment to the Town of Firestone's Urban Growth Boundary to reflect a smaller area.
Anne Best Johnson, Planner, presented Ordinance 195-A and noted that the Town of Firestone is working
to create a smaller Urban Growth Boundary. Anne noted that the Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this case.
Stephen Mokray asked why the Town of Firestone is decreasing the size of their UGB area. Anne noted that
the town does not want to grow in the previous area included.
John Folsom noted that the boundary has increased to WCR 13,which was supposed to be open space and
to include Brooks Addition. Mr. Folsom also noted that the town has discovered it is not feasible to annex to
the west and that the change will create some conflict.
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 moved that Ordinance 195-A be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 13
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1297
APPLICANT: Bradley and Heidi Windell
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcels 1A and B; Lupton Meadows Subdivision; being part of the S2 of
Section 12, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Multi-Family Dwellings
for persons customarily employed at or engaged in Farming, Ranching, or Gardening in the
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 22.5; '/:mile west of WCR 25.
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented Case USR-1297 and read the Department of Planning Services
recommendation of approval into the record. Mr.Anderson noted that the application is actually for a single
family home on the property, not a multi-family dwelling as the original application stated, and that
Development Standard#9 had been added with renumbering.
John Folsom asked if this application is only for the existing homes on the property. Robert noted that this
is correct.
Brad Windell,Applicant,stated that he is applying for this Use by Special Review in order to save the historical
homes on the property that have been restored.
Stephen Mokray asked how large the second home is. Mr.Windell noted that the second home is about 800
square feet. John Folsom asked about the septic permits for the sites. Mr.Windell stated that he has current
septic permits for both homes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant stated that he is in agreement.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1297 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1292
APPLICANT: Mike Jones / Reach Ministries
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1028; being part of the SE4 of Section 18, Township 6 North,
Range 64 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Industrial Use, (Office and Storage Building) in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 415 feet north of SH 392; west of and adjacent to WCR 51.
Kim Ogle, Planner, presented Case USR-1292 and read the Department of Planning Services
recommendation of approval into the record.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 14
Cathy Clamp asked if the application is for Industrial or Commercial use, as the application and comments
say two different things. Mr.Ogle noted that the application is for Industrial to allow for storage on the property
Michael Miller asked if the USR will stay with the property or with the applicant. Kim noted that the USR stay
with the property. Lee Morrison commented that the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will
also be attached to the USR to stay with the property for this specific use.
Michael Jones,Applicant,stated that this is the organization center for a program that works with kids building
homes, mostly out east, but eventually coming to Northern Colorado.
Stephen Mokray asked what will be stored at the site. Mr. Jones noted that there will be sound equipment,
stage equipment, tools, nails, T-shirts, etc.
Michael Miller asked how large the building will be. Mr. Jones stated that the building will be 60'x100'.
Stephen Mokray asked how large the office area will be. Mr. Jones noted that the office area will be 30'x40'.
Mr. Jones noted that the camps would not be at the site,just supplies. Stephen Mokray noted that this will
be for administration and storage only. Mr. Jones agreed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Jones stated that he is in agreement.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1292 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. Cristie Nicklas noted that there were no members of the public present for the changes
to the Ordinances.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 173-F
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include additions
to the Definition Section; Amendments at the request of the Department of Public Works;
Amendments to Section 4, 7, and 11 for consistency with other Weld County Planning
Ordinances and current policy;Section 8 amendments for clarification on what information
is required for the Resubdivision process;and Sections 4 and 6 on Vested Property Rights.
Other amendments include document-wide renumbering, spelling corrections, type face,
and alignment;and consistency between all Weld County Planning Ordinances and current
policy. Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include
amendments to Section 10 to cover substantial changes to Public Sites and Open Spaces,
including a land dedication or cash-in-lieu option,
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 15
Anne Best Johnson,Planner,presented the Substantial Changes#1 -#6(Substantial Changes#5 and#7 had
already been approved by the Planning Commission).
Stephen Mokray moved that Substantial Change #1 of Ordinance 173-F be approved. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Anne Best Johnson noted that this just allows for reference to one table in one code, rather than many
incorrect tables for road classification in all ordinances.
Michael Miller moved that Substantial Change#2 of Ordinance 173-F be approved. Cathy Clamp seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved that Substantial Change#3 of Ordinance 173-F be approved with the amendments
made to the PUD Ordinance. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved that Substantial Change #4 of Ordinance 173-F be approved. Stephen Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved that Substantial Change#6 of Ordinance 173-F be approved and Ordinance 173-F
be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 89-LL
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Substantial Changes shall include additions to the
Definition Section, Modifications to the requirements for Mobile Homes, Modifications to
Section 42 on Signs, amendments at the request of Public Works, and amendments to
section regarding Flood Hazard Development. Other amendments include document-wide
renumbering, spelling corrections, type face, alignment, and consistency with current
practice.
Anne Best Johnson, Planner, presented the changes to Ordinance 89.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 16
Michael Miller moved to approve Minor Changes #1-#9 of Ordinance 89LL. Cathy Clamp seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion followed concerning the definitions following the definitions used with the PUD Ordinance. Cathy
Clamp asked why the changes were being made concerning recreational vehicles. Wendi Inloes noted that
making sure they were not primary residences is too difficult to keep track of for so many homes. Wendi also
noted that this involves safety with hook-ups to the sewer and water.
Michael Miller moved to accept Substantial Change#1 to Ordinance 89LL with amendments to the definitions
to match the PUD Ordinance. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved to accept Substantial Change#2 to Ordinance 89LL. Michael Miller seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to accept Substantial Change #3 to Ordinance 89LL. Cathy Clamp seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved to accept Substantial Change#4 to Ordinance 89LL. Michael Miller seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to accept Substantial Change#5 to Ordinance 89LL. Stephen Mokray seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to accept Substantial Change#7 to Ordinance 89LL. Stephen Mokray seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2000
Page 17
Discussion followed concerning what structures would be allowed under the new rules of this section.
Stephen Mokray moved to accept Substantial Change#6 to Ordinance 89LL and to forward Ordinance 89LL
to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Michael
Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 191-F
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Amendments to the Mixed Use Development (MUD) Plan. Substantial Changes shall
include amendments to MUD Policy 2.8, Section 2.3, Section 2.4 to cover substantial
changes to the Open Space and Maximum Lot Coverage requirements, including a land
dedication or cash-in-lieu option. Amend Section 2.7.3 regarding Structural Road
Improvements.
Anne Best Johnson presented the changes to Ordinance 191-F.
Cathy Clamp moved to approve Ordinance 191-F with the approved amendments from Ordinance 197-A and
forward to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
5Th
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello