HomeMy WebLinkAbout20240364.tiffSummary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair
Elijah Hatch, at 1:38 p.m.
Roll Call.
Present: Elijah Hatch, Skip Holland, Butch White, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Michael Palizzi, Virginia
Guderjahn, Barney Hammond.
Absent: Shana Morgan.
Also Present Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Molly Nelson, and Evan Pinkham, Department of Planning
Services, Lauren Light, Department of Environmental Health, Karin McDougal, County Attorney, and
Michelle Wall, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the December 5, 2023, Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Michael
Wailes, Seconded by Butch White. Motion passed unanimously.
Case Number: Ordinance 2024-01
Presented by: Evan Pinkham
Request In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting with Amendments, Chapter 8 Public Works of
the Weld County Code (Appendix 8-O - Functional Classification Map).
Evan Pinkham, Transportation Planner, Planning Services, gave a presentation to the Planning
Commission. He explained that the Functional Classification Map is used as the official future roadway
plan for the County and is one of the most important transportation planning tools associated with the Weld
County Transportation Plan. Mr. Pinkham explained the road classification definitions and went over
current and future right of way. His presentation included informational maps of future upgrades to Weld
County Roads including WCR 64.5, WCR 27, WCR 13, The Weld County Way, WCR 7, WCR 90, and WCR
21.
Mr. Pinkham said that the Board of County Commissions will be hearing the First Reading on Ordinance
2024-01 on February 26, 2024, the Second Reading on March 13, 2024, and the Third Reading on March
27, 2024.
Commissioner Edens asked Staff how many property owners were going to have a major roadway going
through their living rooms after increasing the right of way to 140 feet. Mr. Pinkham explained that the
Functional Classification Map is a tool to use for future planning so any future buildings will be built following
setbacks off the proposed new right of way. It does not affect any homes that are currently constructed. If
the decision to make a road an ultimate arterial standard it could potentially impact a structure or home.
Weld County always works with property owners to try and shift the roads where they can.
Commissioner Hammond asked why Weld County Way road is a priority when it is a new road. Mr. Pinkham
reiterated that this is a planning tool for the future so that future building would meet future setbacks from
the right of way.
Commissioner White said that future classification maps are not trying to direct traffic, but keep up with
traffic and look ahead to the future. Mr. Pinkham stated they follow trends as to what traffic has been and
use traffic model to predict where traffic is going in the future. Mr. Pinkham agreed and said this is a way
to avoid future issues by having the buildings already set back and notifying the public of future upgrades
that could happen 20 years down the road.
CoMMv,s; co,+;onS
02121 /2.y
2.02H -036L
Commissioner Wailes explained just because there is a future classification map, it doesn't necessarily
mean that superhighways are coming in anywhere there is a red line. It is used as a planning tool to identify
areas of concern for future roads.
Commissioner Guderjahn asked Staff how many current property owners could be affected by the upgrades
spoken about today. Mr. Pinkham responded that he does not have a list of properties that would have
structures on the 20 -foot setback. Existing homes would be exempt from this change.
Commissioner Holland asked Staff if the County interfaces with the State on their counts on the roads.
Staff said they interface with the State on many different levels. They attend a lot of the same meetings
and go over the traffic issues, concerns and projects. Weld looks at CDOT's counts as well as their own.
Commissioner Hatch asked when the County takes a right of way from a Collector Road to an Arterial Road
and the private resident is losing 60 feet of usable area, are those individuals being compensated for that
land. Mr. Pinkham said they are not compensated in that situation. The Chair stated that he would hope
the County will take compensation in consideration in cases like this.
The Chair asked if the County has any plans to upgrade the intersection at 83rd Avenue where it connects
to County Road 27 where it curves. The County had outlined improving that curve in their CIP for 2028.
Since then, the City of Greeley has approached Weld County regarding an annexation. The City of Greeley
plans on improving that curve in the next few years. Staff explained if the annexation didn't happen, the
County still has plans to improve the road.
Commissioner Hammond asked if there is contact information available to homeowners who are affected
by road projects. Mr. Pinkham said that their Engineering Team has landowner meetings during the
process. During the construction phase, the contact would be Don Dunker with Public Works. During the
planning phase, the contact would be himself, Evan Pinkham.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak.
Steve Fiegel, 32801 County Road 27, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Fiegal said he lives right at the intersection
of County Road 27 and Highway 392 where there is a lot of car accidents. He would like to know why 83rd
Avenue couldn't run south to County Road 27. Mr. Fiegal feels that would be a straight shot and that the
pipelines are running the same direction. He wonders why the road can't run along with the powerlines.
Dave Mitchell, 32799 County Road 27, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Mitchell said he has lived on his property
for 19 years. When he first moved in he said he would come to the Commissioner hearings to listen to the
plans for County Road 27. At that time the alignment would go through Bracewell Cove and would align
with County Road 27 on the north side of Highway 392. He feels like this is where the improvement should
be. When he received the postcard in the mail, he was upset to find the plans for an arterial road right in
front of his house. He said when they get done with the alignment he can step off his front step onto the
roadway and that does not set well with him. Mr. Mitchell said there are currently about 12 private driveways
from the road and wonders how safe that will be when they have to go from an arterial road. He is concerned
about his property value as well.
Kevin Schumacher, 12710 Shiloh Road, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Schumacher said he is the President of
the Bracewell Subdivision and is speaking on their behalf. He wanted to voice their concerns living along
the curve. Mr. Schumacher's home is right on the corner of the curve. Based on the traffic counts, there is
a car that drives by every 30 seconds. The subdivision is concerned about the future intent of changing
the road to an arterial road. There are accidents happening on that curve a couple times a week and he
said he has to run out there to help; it takes Windsor's emergency vehicles about 12 minutes to arrive.
Joe Stricklin, 32550 County Road 27, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Stricklin feels the simplest way that would
affect less people would be to go straight from 83rd to County Road 27. He said it would affect his home
either way, but he would rather it go through his property then it affect 12 others going the way the County
has it planned.
2
Ty Woodworth, 32695 Bravo Point, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Woodworth wants the Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners to take into consideration the safety of the people who live off County
Road 27. He said he realizes it would be more expensive to extend County Road 27 across Highway 392
to the south and then hooking up with 83° Avenue, but what value can you put on the safety of the people.
Mr. Woodworth suggested putting a light at County Road 27 and Highway 392.
Ken Schraeder. 31552 County Road 27, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Schraeder grew up in the area 1960s.
Even back then with less traffic there were accidents along the curve. He stated that the shortest distance
between 2 points is a straight line and it would eliminate the safety problem at the corner. Mr. Schrader
feels it would affect less property owners and be much safer.
Jerry Marsh, 33175 County Road 27, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Marsh said he has lived on his property for
14 years. When they first moved in, they could hear a car drive down 392 every once in a while. He said
it is totally ridiculous now. He and his wife travel the back dirt roads to go places. Mr. Marsh said the main
concern needs to be safety. Highway 392 is unsafe and is a disaster.
Allisa Woodworth, 32695, Bravo Point, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Woodworth says that she has to leave
really early to take her children to school. She turns left, heading west, onto County Road 27 and then left
onto Highway 392. Ms. Woodworth said there are days they wait 25 to 30 minutes before she can even
turn. She has almost been hit by trucks or other vehicles and it is extremely dangerous intersection. Ms.
Woodworth said the school bus will sometimes be 50 minutes late coming home from school due to traffic
or accidents. She said people drive too fast, some people are impatient and try to U-turn in the road, and
vehicles end up off the side of the road.
Mr. Pinkham addressed the public's concerns of safety. The County has plans to remove the offset and
put in turn lanes at the intersection of Highway 392 and County Road 27. He said they do for see this
intersection needing a traffic signal in the future. Both of these areas are highly prioritized with the County's
CIP.
Mr. Pinkham said the County did look at bringing County Road 27 straight north but based on cost and
other considerations including utilities, the canal, current homes and structures, and power poles they
decided not to construct County Road 27 straight in the section line.
Mr. Pinkham addressed the concerns of how many homes will be taken out with these proposed
improvements. He said the County does not plan on widening County Road 27 and doesn't see that will
happen for several years. The plans are for a 2 -lane alignment on both County Road 27 and Highway 392.
Mr. Pinkham is not aware of any homes that will be affected by the proposed alignment.
Commissioner Edens asked Mr. Pinkham what these residents would have to do to get a traffic light at the
intersection of Highway 392 and County Road 27. Mr. Pinkham said a Signal Warrant Analysis will need
to be conducted and the roadway will need to be realigned. They will have to work with CDOT to get that
included with their CIP. She asked if the public would contact Weld County or CDOT to get going on the
traffic light. Mr. Pinkham said it would be the County's project, while coordinating with CDOT.
The Chair asked Mr. Pinkham why the County has not moved forward with making improvements on the
curve prior to the proposed reclassification. Mr. Pinkham explained that the County did have plans to
improve that roadway but they were approached by the City of Greeley to take that project over later in the
year. Mr. Hatch asked if the County could set aside the proposed reclassification of the Bracewell section
of the roadway until the City of Greeley does annex and complete the improvements since it does seem to
be a valid concern of the residents. Mr. Pinkham said he does understand the timing and would take that
into consideration. He explained they do their future planning every 2 to 3 years so they plan ahead. Mr.
Hatch said he sympathizes with the residents because he has had near misses of having an accident on
that curve.
3
Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Pinkham what would happen if the Planning Commission didn't
recommend approval of this Ordinance. Mr. Holland stated that he feels the safety issues should be
addressed by either the County or the City of Greeley before the proposed changes move forward to the
Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Holland asked Mr. Pinkham if he feels Weld County has properly
addressed the safety issues and their plans. Mr. Pinkham replied that he feels comfortable moving forward
with the proposed Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. He does understand everyone's
concerns. Commissioner Holland asked if the City of Greeley and Weld County are in agreement to move
forward with these future plans. Mr. Pinkham said yes.
Ms. McDougal, Weld County Attorney, explained to the Planning Commission that if they choose to make
a recommendation, they may do so. However, that does not change the scheduled 3 -Reading Process
with the Board of County Commissioners. She explained the County Commissioners would take their
recommendation into consideration. Public comment is allowed at all 3 Readings.
Ms. McDougal also explained that changing the classification map is changing the designation of a road
which allows the County to look at what needs to be done to improve future safety planning. The County
does understand that safety needs to be addressed. Ms. McDougal encouraged those who came today to
come express their concerns with the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Wailes established with Mr. Pinkham that the Planning Commission was only looking at the
Functional Classification Map, and how the alignments of the roads would be classified. Mr. Pinkham said
that is correct.
The Chair explained to the Planning Commission that they could make a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners if they chose to or they can just make comments or suggestions. Ms. McDougal
explained that the Ordinance could be handled as informational; the Readings will move forward with the
Board of County Commissioners as scheduled. She also explained to the Planning Commission that they
can make a recommendation for approval or denial so they can make comments on record to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2024-01 to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Virginia Guderjahn.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, .
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Skip Holland, Virginia
Guderjahn.
No: Pamela Edens.
Commissioner Wailes asked that the Board of County Commissioners and Staff take into consideration the
public's comments from today's hearing.
Commissioner Palizzi said that he thinks the alignment location of County Road 27 should definitely be
looked at.
Commissioner Hammond said the County should take serious consideration on straightening the County
Road 27 out and getting rid of the curves. If they cannot do that, the County should have detailed language
on the reasoning that it cannot be done. Mr. Hammond said there should be reasons better than cost,
moving power poles, and a ditch crossing. He said if you can get rid of 2 curves by making a straight line,
it makes common sense. Mr. Hammond said if it saves one life and improves the residents' quality of life,
a price can't be put on that. He suggested that the County and City of Greeley could work together and
split some of the cost on improving that area.
Commissioner Holland said he strongly agrees with the comments made previously before his. He feels
the safety of these roads is very critical.
4
Commissioner Hatch agrees with the other Planning Commissioner's comments. He feels that there are
changes that need be taken into consideration before we get to the 3'd Reading. Mr. Hatch said we need
to do what is best for the citizens of Weld County.
Case Number USR23-0040
Applicant: Cervi Enterprises, Inc., do Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP
Planner: Chris Gathman
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 190 -
foot Telecommunication Antenna Tower in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 63 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Location: Approximately 3.5 miles south of the intersection of County Road 69 and U.S.
Highway 34. The site will access onto U.S. Highway 34 via a private access.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0040, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The applicant has provided a letter stating that they will allow colocation on the
proposed tower. There is an existing tower located approximately 2 miles from the proposed tower location.
However, the applicant stated that it would not be possible to collocate their equipment on it. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval
and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Matt Wells, Kerr McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, 1099 18th Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado. Mr. Wells
explained the proposed Bronco Communication Tower will be 190 feet tall communication tower. The tower
will provide automation and radio communication to all Bronco wells and facilities allowing remote
monitoring and control capabilities. There are currently 9 well pads and 141 wells.
Commissioner Wailes asked how big of an area the wells are on. Mr. Wells responded that the area is over
24,000 mineral acres between Highway 34 and 1-76. The proposed tower will be located strategically to
allow communication to the 141 wells.
Commissioner Hammond asked if it would be possible to put a repeater out there for fire protection. Mr.
Wells replied the applicant is going to allow colocation by going through an application process.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0040 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Barney Hammond.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Skip
Holland, Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number: USR23-0024
Applicant Lee and Ruby Linblad and M.A.Linblad, LLC, c/o CBEP Solar 22, LLC and CBEP
Solar 23, LLC
Planner: Molly Wright
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar
Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
5
Legal Description:
Location:
Lot B Recorded Exemption, RE -391, and another parcel, both being part of the
SE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 17, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6°' P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to Highway 392; 0.30 miles east of County Road 27.
Molly Wright, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0024, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Planning Department sent notice to 17 surrounding property owners within
500 feet of the property. No written correspondence or telephone calls were received. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval and
development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Bryson Daughton, Cloudbreak Energy, 300 East Cannon Street, Lafayette, Colorado. Mr. Daughton said
that the Antelope Hill 1 project will be approximately a 32 -acre community solar garden and Antelope Hill 2
will be approximately a 6 -acre community solar garden. Both properties have no existing water rights and
will establish a native dryland pasture. Sheep will graze under the panels. The projects will produce the
equivalent of the annual electricity consumption of about 1,650 homes. Mr. Daughton explained that the
landowners can lease a portion of their land to provide a stable income for years to come.
The Chair asked what Cloudbreak is doing to alleviate the issue of climate weather pattern changes that
can happen above the solar garden due to the heat exchange produced from the site. Mr. Daughton
explained that is an issue that can happen when a pasture is not planted underneath the panels. By having
the pasture, it generates a microclimate.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bunny Noland, 13750 Highway 392, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Noland said that she lives directly across from
this site. She is not opposed to the project; she just would like a couple questions answered. Ms. Noland
would like to know what would happen if a child touched a panel. She also would like to know which
direction the panels will be facing. Ms. Noland said she spoke to the applicants about putting up a fence,
but wonders if a berm would be possible instead. There has been 2 fatal accidents near her home and
wonders if a berm would prevent vehicles from ending up in the field.
Wesley Aragon, 13600 Highway 392, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Aragon said he is in support of project. He
thinks it is better than a bunch of homes being built there.
Jeff Thomas, 15251 County Road 86, Pierce, Colorado. Mr. Thomas said that he is in favor of solar and
has a signed a solar exploratory lease on his own property. He believes we should remember that Weld
County's heritage is agriculture. If water is available to a property then use it for agriculture. If there are
no water rights, he believes we should explore these options and help the community.
Mr. Daughton addressed Ms. Noland's questions. He said he hopes a child would never get past the 8 -
foot fence, as well as the other gates, but the panels are safe to touch. The units do have a rapid shut
down in case of fire or other emergencies. The panels will be in rows going north/south and the panels will
follow the sun from the east to the west. Mr. Daughton said the Noland's will be looking down the rows.
The fence line is about 85 feet from the road. He doesn't think a berm would be an option in this case
because of drainage issues. Mr. Daughton feels they do support agriculture by having the native dryland
pasture and grazing sheep.
Motion: Strike Condition of Approval 1.A. and Amend Condition of Approval C.12. to read "Show the
approved Colorado Department of Transportation access permit number. Label the access points to be
closed as "Close and Reclaim."" Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Michael Palizzi. Motion
passed unanimously.
6
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Amended
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0024 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Palizzi, Seconded by Butch White.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Skip
Holland, Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number USR23-0043
Applicant: ECO Properties, LLC, do ECO Services, LLC
Planner: Kim Ogle
Request: A Site -Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Oil and
Gas Support and Service including establishments principally engaged in serving
the oil and gas industry (fabricating, installing and maintaining containment liners
for oil and gas operations) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: LotA Recorded Exemption RECX17-0186; being part of the S1/2 NE1/4 of Section
32, Township 7 North, Range 64 West of the 6. P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: West of and adjacent to County Road 53; approximately 0.5 miles north of County
Road 74.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0043, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Planning Department sent notice to 9 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of
the property. No written correspondence or telephone calls were received. The Department of Planning
Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval and development
standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Hannah Dutrow, Agprofessionals, 3050 67th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Dutrow stated she was
representing ECO Properties, LLC. ECO Properties is a containment liner company. On -site operations
will include fabrication and repair of secondary containment liners and storage of equipment and vehicles.
Liners are constructed from polyethylene delivered to the site in rolls. The installation and repair of
secondary containment liners occurs off -site, at oil and gas tank battery sites.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0043 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Skip Holland, Seconded by Virginia Guderjahn.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Skip
Holland, Virginia Guderjahn.
7
Case Number: USR23-0038
Applicant: Marvin Spayd and Edie Pittman, c/o French Bred Frenchie's, LLC
Planner: Kim Ogle
Request: A Site -Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Breeding Kennel limited to 30 dogs over the age of six (6) months outside of
subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: Lot A of Recorded Exemption, RECX17-0223, being part of the E1/2 SE1/4 of
Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 4; approximately 4000 -feet east of County
Road 49.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0038, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Planning Department sent notice to 8 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of
the property. No correspondence was received in opposition to the proposed facility. One phone call was
received today from an adjacent neighbor with concerns of excessive levels of barking dogs, lights shining
onto their property, and the possibility of more noise when additional dogs are allowed. The applicant
submitted 3 letters of support. One from the neighbor adjacent to the north, one from the neighbor 2
properties down to the west, and one from the neighbor south of County Road 4. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval and
development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Edie Pittman, 24781 County Road 4, Hudson, Colorado. Ms. Pittman said this is a dream of hers. Most of
her dogs are imported from around the world and she works to improve the breed and the health of the
dogs. Ms. Pittman said she is very proud of her dogs; they come from world champion blood lines.
Commissioner Hammond asked the applicant how long she has been breeding French bulldogs. Ms.
Pittman replied 8 years.
Commissioner Wailes asked Ms. Pittman when the dogs bark a lot. Ms. Pittman said that Frenchies are a
very quiet breed that don't normally bark. However, there has been a lot of construction going on and the
dogs have been reacting to the contractors that come to the back of the house. She said if the dogs are
barking, they take care of it quickly. The dogs are never outside unattended.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Ms. Light asked that Development Standard 20 be amended. Change the word "The' to "Any" and delete
"for the residence".
Motion: Amend Development Standard 20 as recommended by Staff. Moved by Pam Edens, Seconded
by Michael Palizzi. Motion passed unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0038 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Pam Edens, Seconded by Michael Palizzi.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Elijah Hatch, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Pamela Edens, Skip
Holland, Virginia Guderjahn.
8
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
isikc ze l(t, �rC Qt•
Michelle Wall
Secretary
9
Hello