HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200431.tiff EXHIBIT
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION 0IETP -O303
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Gene Stifle, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission . Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: MET19-0003
APPLICANT: DRY CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST: THE PURPOSE OF THE METRO DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING PLANNING, DESIGN, ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, RELOCATION AND REDEVELOPMENT. IN
THE DRY CREEK REGIONAL URBANIZATION AREA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : LOT B RE-4462 AND LOT B RE-433 LYING WITHIN THE W2 OF SECTION 35,
T1 N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 2, EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 21 .
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Title 32 of C . R.S.
and Chapter II , Article XIV of the Weld County Code as follows:
1 . Section 32- 1 -203(2 ) states the Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove the Service Plan
unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented:
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be
serviced by the proposed special district.
The proposal identifies that the district is necessary to provide for public improvements,
including planning , design, acquisition , construction, installation, relocation and
redevelopment. in the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area. Sufficient need is contingent
upon the approval of a planned unit development (PUDZ18-0006. Todd Creek Village North)
which his being considered in conjunction with this request.
(b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate
for present and projected needs.
The proposal identifies that there are currently no other governmental entities, including the
County, located in the immediate vicinity of the District that consider it desirable, feasible or
practical to undertake the planning, design, acquisition, construction. installation . relocation,
development and financing of the Public Improvement.
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the
area within its proposed boundaries.
In the Finance and Administration referral dated December 6, 2019. Mr. Warden wrote the
following,
The information presented regarding the statements of significant assumptions seem
reasonable and the pro-forma financial plan prepared seems realistic and feasible, assuming
the build out of the districts takes place as projected. Therefore, from review of the Service
Plan I have no objections in approval of the service plan with the Total Debt Issuance Limit in
the service plan of $30, 000, 000, Total Debt Mill Levy Limit Cap, and Total Aggregate Mill
Levy Limit cited in the service plan based upon my conclusion that the financial matters in
the service plan appear to be in conformance with the county's metro district policies.
(d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability
to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
In the Finance and Administration referral dated December 6. 2019. Mr. Warden wrote the
following,
QV1 D - 0q31
RESOLUTION MET19-0003
DRY CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
PAGE 2
The financial plan calls for the Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1 to have a maximum of
55 mills for the debt limit cap. The debt mill levy limit cap is within the standard of a
maximum debt mills in the Weld County Metro District Policies County Code Section 2- 14-30
with the permitted assessed valuation ratio adjustment per County Code Section 2- 14-20 H
from the base year of 2006 to the current year's residential ratio of 7. 2% to allow a maximum
debt mill levy of 55. 277. As proposed the financial plan has a reasonable debt mill levy and
a reasonable debt tax burden on all residential and commercial properties within the District
(development).
2. Section 32-1 -203(2.5) states "the Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service plan if
evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following , at the discretion of the Board . is not
permitted :"
a Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other
( ) q 9
existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within
a reasonable time and on a comparable basis.
The proposal identifies that there are currently no other governmental entities including the
County, located in the immediate vicinity of the District that consider it desirable, feasible or
practical to undertake the planning, design, acquisition , construction, installation , relocation ,
development and financing of the Public Improvement. The City of Brighton, in the December
6. 2019 referral response, stated "there is no existing infrastructure available to serve the
urbanized development patterns proposed by the development. Weld County does not have
an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Brighton.
(b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the
facility and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to
be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32- 1 -204,
The Weld County Attorney referral response dated December 19, 2019 states the following,
The Service Plan includes all items
proposed c udes to s required by Statute and the Weld County
Code, and generally follows the model service plan found in Weld County Code Appendix 2-
C. The purpose of this metropolitan district is to serve a large Planned Unit Development
within the Dry Creek RUA, which is being permitted concurrently under PUDZ18-0006. I find
no impediment to approval of this Service Plan, however my recommendation for approval is
contingent on the Board's approval of PUDZ 18-0006, because without such approval 1 do not
believe the Applicant can demonstrate the need for the metro district.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services received a response expressing no
concerns from the City of Northglenn and did not receive a response from the City of
g P
Thornton. The referral response dated December 6, 2019. from the City of Brighton indicated
that the City was not in favor of development in the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area
and intended that area for rural uses associated with agriculture. The City was not in favor of
the metropolitan district, as taxation is too high and funding for schools is inconsistent.
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section
30-28- 106, C.R. S.
The proposed Service Plan is in conformance with Chapter 22, Article XIV of the Weld
County Code.
(d) The proposal is in substantial compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state
long range water quality management plan for the area.
The proposed special district will not have an appreciable impact on the water quality.
RESOLUTION MET19-0003
DRY CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
PAGE 3
(e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed
to be served.
The proposed District will include water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure; road creation
and a park/trail network within the Todd Creek Village North planned unit development,
contingent upon the approval of Planned Unit Development Change of Zone PUDZ18-0006.
The Change of Zone cannot be approved without evidence of adequate sewer service
availability.
3. Section 2- 14- 10 of the Weld County Codes states, "The County establishes the following as its policy
for the review and approval or disapproval of Service Plans, including any amendment thereof, for
Metropolitan Districts and other Title 32 Special Districts. The County generally accepts the
P P P
formation of the Districts where it is demonstrated that the formation of a District is needed to provide
public services or facilities to local development and will result in benefits to existing or future or
business owners of the County and the District. "
(a) Districts will be permitted to conduct ongoing operations and maintenance activities where it
can be demonstrated that having the District provide operations and maintenance is in the
best interest of the County and the existing or future residents and taxpayers of the District.
The purpose of the District is to plan for, design , acquire, construct, install, relocate,
redevelop, finance. operate and maintain the Public Improvements.
(b) For Districts whose primary revenue source is property taxes. District formation will not be
favorably received where the future assessed value of all property within the District at full
build-out is projected to be less than two million dollars ($2, 000, 000. 00). The two-million-
dollar assessed valuation threshold for Districts whose primary revenue source is property
taxes will increase biennially to adjust for inflation as depicted in Appendix 2-D. Special
circumstances and special cause must be demonstrated for exceptions to be granted.
c p s p
The projected three hundred (300) units in the first phase of the Todd Creek Village North
PUD will easily surpass two million (2 ,000,000) dollars in value.
(c) Districts. when properly structured, can enhance the quality of growth in the County. The
County is receptive to District formation as an instrument to provide competitive financing for
projects, build better and enhanced infrastructure, and. where needed, create a quasi-
governmental entity to provide essential and beneficial services which are otherwise not
available and could not be provided by the County or any other existing municipal or quasi-
municipal entity, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis. It is not the intent of the County to create multiple entities which could be
construed as "competing governments.
The proposal identifies no existing services in the area, being equidistant from four
surrounding municipalities. The project is expected to provide housing and commercial
opportunities and the Service Plan will provide services not provided by other jurisdictions.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The recommendation of approval of the Service Plan is conditional upon the following:
1 . Approval of PUDZ18-0006.
2. The applicant shall add the following to Section VI . I to the Service Plan: "At least thirty (30) days prior
to the District's organization election, the proposed ballot questions shall be submitted to the County
for review to ensure that said ballot questions are in compliance with this Service Plan".
RESOLUTION MET19-0003
DRY CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
PAGE 4
3. The applicant shall add the following to Section VI . E to the Service Plan: "The District shall not apply
for or accept conservation Trust Funds, Great Outdoors Colorado Funds, or other funds available
from or through governmental or nonprofit entities for which the County is eligible to apply, except
pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the County".
Motion seconded by Elijah Hatch .
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Bruce Johnson
Michael Wailes
Tom Cope
Gene Stille
Lonnie Ford
Richard Beck
Elijah Hatch
Skip Holland
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I , Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on January 21 , 2020.
Dated the 21s' of January, 2020
41)V146611
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
EXHIBIT
8
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1Me'l9 Cob
Tuesday, January 21 , 2020
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,
Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Johnson, Elijah Hatch , Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip
Holland , Tom Cope.
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Angela Snyder, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light,
Department of Health; Mike McRoberts, Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem,
Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: PUDZ18-0006
APPLICANT: ALF TODD CREEK VILLAGE NORTH LLC
PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST. CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR THREE
HUNDRED (300) LOTS WITH R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). R-2
(DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL, R-3 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). R-4 (HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), AND C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE
DISTRICT USES WITH 14. 1 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AND ONGOING OIL AND
GAS ACTIVITY.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4462 AND LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-433, BEING PART
OF THE W2 OF SECTION 35, T1 N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION : NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 2. EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 21 .
CASE NUMBER: MET19-0003
APPLICANT: DRY CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST: THE PURPOSE OF THE METRO DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING PLANNING, DESIGN , ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, RELOCATION AND REDEVELOPMENT. IN
THE DRY CREEK REGIONAL URBANIZATION AREA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : LOT B RE-4462 AND LOT B RE-433 LYING WITHIN THE W2 OF SECTION 35,
TIN , R67W OF THE 6TH P.M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
LOCATION : NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 2, EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 21 .
Bob Choate, County Attorney, noted that MET19-0003 is the request to approve the Service Plan for this
proposed Planned Unit Development.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with
300 units located within the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area (RUA). Ms. Snyder said that the site is
located within three miles of the Cities of Brighton, Ft. Lupton and Thornton . The City of Thornton
expressed no concerns. The City of Brighton sent a letter of objection and the City of Ft. Lupton indicated
that they are the sewer provider for the project through an IGA with Todd Creek Village Metro District. In
one letter from Ft. Lupton , it indicated that they have conditions that must be fulfilled prior to serving the
site and in a subsequent letter received today they are requesting another continuance.
Ms. Snyder said that the proposal is for a 300 lot PUD on approximately 80 acres. The project is compatible
with the Dry Creek RUA Guiding Document found in Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code. The site is
currently zoned Agricultural, and the proposed PUD zoning will accommodate neighborhood commercial
uses and both single-family and multi-family dwelling units in accordance with the Dry Creek RUA.
Ms. Snyder stated that the proposed Dry Creek North Metropolitan District, MET19-0003 being considered
in conjunction with this Change of Zone Application.. is a Service Plan intended to provide funding for the
1
public improvements necessary for the proposed subdivision, including potable and non-potable water
systems, sanitary sewer facilities. road construction and site construction.
Ms. Snyder noted that after notice was sent to surrounding property owners for PUDZ18-0006.p p y 8 0006. two
responses were received. One property owner to the west expressed concern of a high-density
development being located in a rural area and the potential negative health and safety effects of being
located adjacent to a large oil and gas well pad. Another letter was received that indicated concern over
drainage involving the New Brantner Irrigation Canal . Ms. Snyder added that the New Brantner Extension
Ditch Company met and discussed the project and submitted the following conditions:
1 . Requested that the ditch not be used for flood routing or flood storage. Storm water may not be
routed to and will not be permitted to enter the ditch.
2. Public access to the ditch easement area is not permitted.
3. Pedestrian, equine and motorized vehicle trails are not permitted within the ditch easement area
4. No above or below ground improvements are permitted within the ditch easement area.
5. No crossing of the ditch property or other encroachment into the ditch easement area is permitted
without New Brantner's prior written approval .
Ms. Snyder deferred to the County Attorney to explain Ft. Lupton's request for continuance.
Bob Choate. County Attorney, said that the PUD Change of Zone and the Service Plan go hand in hand
and the recommendation for approval for the Service Plan is because they have met all of the requirements
laid out in the Weld County Code and Colorado State Statute. He said that there are a couple changes
that both he and Don Warden, Weld County Director of Finance and Administration , recommended to the
Service Plan. However, the recommendation for approval of the Service Plan is contingent on approval of
the PUD Change of Zone because you have to prove a need for the services that will be provided and if
there are no lots or no likelihood of having new lots then there is no need for a Metro District.
Mr. Choate said that what the applicant has to prove up for the PUD Change of Zone is that they are going
to likely be able to provide sewer and water service, however the sewer service is what has come under
fire. He added that the City of Ft. Lupton has an IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) with the Todd Creek
Village Metro District (Todd Creek) to provide sewer service to this area. Todd Creek agreed to the
proposed Dry Creek Metro District No. 1 to provide sewer infrastructure on their behalf, so only one ( 1 )
Metro District, Todd Creek, will provide sewer service. Mr. Choate said that there is a little bit of a
misunderstanding between Todd Creek Village Metro District and the City of Ft. Lupton about whether or
not they will be providing sewer service because according to these two agreements Ft. Lupton will actually
provide sewer service. Mr. Choate reviewed the IGA from 2008 between Ft. Lupton and the Todd Creek
Village Metro District and it appears that they can meet all of the requirements there: however, there is one
requirement which is odd in that it requires Todd Creek to enter into an IGA with Weld County and when
they do that then they have vesting under the IGA and Ft. Lupton will provide sewer service. Mr. Choate
added that we don't really know what that IGA between Todd Creek and Weld County would include
because that is not how we do business in Weld County. He added that Weld County doesn't require
developers to enter into agreements with the county. Therefore, he added that the request from Ft. Lupton
is to continue the cases today so that they can have time to talk to Todd Creek and determine what was
meant by the Weld-Todd Creek IGA request because all of the people who were involved in drafting and
signing that IGA in 2008 are no longer there. Mr. Choate stated that he is not recommending that the
Planning Commission continue this matter. He added that the Planning Commission can continue it if they
want or they can defer this to the Board of County Commissioners. He said that Staff just wanted to bring
this to the Planning Commission's attention because of the request by the City of Ft. Lupton . Mr. Choate
said that Staffs recommendation is for approval of PUDZ18-0006 and MET19-0003.
Commissioner Johnson clarified that the recommendation is to approve both of these cases with the
contingency that the other one is approved. Mr. Choate said that there is no reason to approve one over
the other and added that the PUD will not happen without both and there is no reason to approve one case.
He recommended separate motions on any action that is taken by the Planning Commission .
Commissioner Cope asked why this doesn't fall under the Todd Creek Metro District if this falls within their
service area. Mr. Choate said that it does fall under their Metro District. Mr. Cope asked why another Metro
District is being created then. Mr. Choate said that it will provide lots of other services and the applicants
can talk about that. He added that it is more of a funding mechanism so that they can have additional mill
2
levies to pay for streets, lights, water and sewer infrastructure, however, the provision for that service will
be made by Todd Creek.
Mike McRoberts. Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and roadway
classifications. He noted that the applicant's proposed access locations on County Roads 2 and 21 do not
meet the Weld County minimum intersection spacing requirements for arterial roads and therefore the
applicant will need to work with Public Works to find complying intersection locations or locations with
intersection configurations that Public Works deems acceptable.
Commissioner Cope referred to the applicant's site map with an access to County Road 21 and another to
County Road 2. He asked if the roadway from the north access going to the east ties into existing road.
Mr. McRoberts said that he has not seen the master plan and where it will eventually go. He said that they
are reviewing the intersections as they are not meeting the distance requirements and request a meeting
to come up with a solution , specifically with the access to County Road 2.
P Y
Lauren Light. Environmental Health , reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, trail
system, and active recreational amenities.
Commissioner Holland asked if there was a positive response from the Fire District for this proposal . Ms.
Snyder said that Brighton did submit a positive referral and added that there is a condition of approval for
the applicant to address their concerns because the Fire District was wanting to nail down the location of
the fire station within the full build-out of this area. Ms. Snyder said that the original Dry Creek RUA doesn't
call out when it would be developed but that it would meet the Fire District's requirements.
Commissioner Ford referred to the Sakata response regarding a larger detention pond and asked Staff to
respond. Mr. McRoberts said that they have received an updated drainage report, however staff hasn't
reviewed it yet.
Peter Martz. PO Box 50223, Colorado Springs, Colorado. stated that the Todd Creek Metro District
boundary area is small but their service area is much larger and includes all of the RUA and then some.
When the RUA was approved in 2010 it was roughly 2000 acres and the service area for Todd Creek Metro
District includes about 5000 acres total . He added that they do have adequate fire supply and the existing
water systems serves between 1400 to 1700 homeowners.
Mr. Martz said that they are aware of the concerns from Sakata Farms regarding drainage to the east. He
said that they have included that in their drainage report and will work with Public Works to make certain
as they move forward to work out details for detention from the PUD.
Mr. Martz said that overall they agree with Staffs recommendation for approval ; however, they do not agree
with Ft. Lupton's request to continue because they have been meeting with them about the sewer
connection and potential annexation. He said that the only issue they have is whether or not Weld County
should be entering into an IGA with the district. He added that they feel between now and some point in
the future they can resolve this issue with Ft. Lupton. Mr. Martz asked for recommendation of approval for
the PUD and the formation of the Metro District.
Commissioner Cope asked how they will prevent drainage into the irrigation ditch. Mr. Martz said the ditch
is about a half-mile east of the site so it shouldn't be a problem.
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 Staff if they have any changes to the Resolutions for PUDZ18-0006 or MET19-0003.
Ms. Snyder recommended deletion of Condition of Approval 1 . E in PUDZ18-0006 regarding submittal of
proof of surface use agreements with the mineral interests as Staff received a letter from Occidental
Petroleum Corporation , formally known as Anadarko, that they have all their agreements.
3
Mr. Choate recommended adding Section VII to the Service Plan for MET19-0003 "At least thirty (30) days
prior to the District's organization election , the proposed ballot questions shall be submitted to the County
for review to ensure that said ballot questions are in compliance with this Service Plan".
Additionally, he requested that a condition recommended by Don Warden be added to the Service Plan
Section VI .E for MET19-0003 to read "The District shall not apply for or accept conservation Trust Funds,
Great Outdoors Colorado Funds, or other funds available from or through governmental or nonprofit entities
for which the County is eligible to apply, except pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the
County".
Motion : Delete Condition of Approval 1 . E in PUDZ18-0006. Moved by Gene Stille, Seconded by Elijah
Hatch. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion : Add Conditions of Approval as stated by Staff to the MET19-0003 Service Plan , Moved by Gene
Stille . Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Conditions of Approval for PUDZ18-
0006 and MET19-0003 and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion : Forward Case PUDZ18-0006 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval . Moved by Gene
Stille, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Commissioner Stille said that he doesn't see any reason why there should be a continuance.
Commissioner Johnson said that there should be a contingency of the approval that MET19-0003 is also
approved. He added that one without the other is a moot point.
Commissioner Holland referred to the City of Thornton's referral that indicated no concerns. He said that
the Thornton waterline project is struggling to get proper approval and is surprised that Thornton would
indicate no concerns if Thornton is providing any of the water supply for this project due to the problems
with NISP. Commissioner Stille said that no one knows when that waterline will be brought down and when
NISP will start construction so he understands why Thornton would indicate they have no concerns. He
added that he doesn't have any concern with water service. Commissioner Cope said that the applicant
mentioned that their engineers did study the existing system and found that it is already adequate to handle
the proposal , therefore he agrees that it has been shown that they seem to have adequate water volume
and pressure. Mr. Choate clarified that the City of Thornton is not providing water to this project.
Motion : Amend the Motion to include that PUDZ18-0006 is contingent upon the approval of MET19-0003.
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Tom Cope.
Commissioner Holland asked Commissioner Johnson what his concern is. Commissioner Johnson said
that he is concerned that the MET19-0003 might not be approved .
The Chair called for the vote to amend the original motion.
Vote: Motion failed (summary: Yes = 2. No = 6, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Johnson , Tom Cope.
No: Elijah Hatch. Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes. Richard Beck, Skip Holland.
The Chair called for the vote to forward PUDZ18-0006 to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes : Bruce Johnson, Elijah Hatch . Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford , Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland ,
Tom Cope.
Motion : Forward Case MET19-0003 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval , Moved by Gene Stille. Seconded
by Elijah Hatch .
4
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes : Bruce Johnson , Elijah Hatch , Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford . Michael Wailes. Richard Beck, Skip Holland,
Tom Cope.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
�6 — i 4n4Lttiti
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
5
Hello