HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181450.tiff1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80634
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
IN RE: CONSIDER CONDITION OF APPROVAL #1.C OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT,
USR17-0043 - CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY, C/O SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC.
(9:52 A.M. TO 10:20 A.M.)
The above -entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners on Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado,
before Amanda Petzold, Deputy Clerk to the Board.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that upon listening to the audio record, the attached transcript, as
prepared by Rebecca J. Collings, DausterjMurphy, www.daustermurphy.com, 303.522.1604, is a
complete and accurate account of the above -mentioned public hearing.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Ksz4,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
`,oyr► rviAA.1UC
U5—d1'l$
2018-1450
. FL A5O3
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
3 COMMISSIONER STEVE MORENO, CHAIR
4 COMMISSIONER BARBARA KIRKMEYER, PRO-TEM
5 COMMISSIONER SEAN P. CONWAY
6 COMMISSIONER JULIE A. COZAD
7 COMMISSIONER MIKE FREEMAN
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, AMANDA PETZOLD
10 COUNTY ATTORNEY, BRUCE BARKER
11 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, RIM OGLE
12 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE:
13 ANNE BEST -JOHNSON, TETRA TECH
3
1 (Beginning of audio recording.)
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: We'll move on to
3 Item Number 3 in the Planning, Consider Condition of
4 Approval, Number 1.C of the Use by Special Review
5 Permit, USR17-0043, Cactus Hill Ranch Company, in care
6 of Simon Contractors, Incorporated. Kim.
7 MR. OGLE: Good morning. Kim Ogle with
8 Department of Planning Services. USR17-0043 was approved
9 by the board. And as a Condition of Approval under
10 Number 1.C, the applicant will submit a landscape
11 screening plan or a visual mitigation plan for the
12 facility.
13 They sent out, by electronic mail, a copy
14 of the proposed mitigation plan to the surrounding
15 property owners, and they've received comments back.
16 They have a presentation to provide the Board before the
17 Board taking action.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions for Kim?
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'll wait until the
20 presentation.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
22 UNKNOWN MALE: Call up Anne.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. We'll bring
24 up the applicant, Anne. State your name and address for
25 the record.
4
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Good morning. Anne
2 Best Johnson, Tetra Tech, 1900 South Sunset Street,
3 Suite 1F, Longmont, Colorado 80501.
4 So as Mr. Ogle stated, on February 7th and
5 8th, land owners within a thousand feet --- so along 80 1/2
6 from State Highway 257 to Weld County Road 19 -- were
7 sent an email with a landscape plan provided that was
8 part of the public record on December 27th as well as
9 January 5th.
10 The coiiauunities of Severance and Windsor
11 were also provided with an email. Recipients were
12 invited to provide comment to us so that we could
13 incorporate their comments into any revisions.
14 All recipients received those emails on
15 the 7th except Silicon Ranch, That email went out on
16 the 8th. The email delivery was sent with a return
17 receipt -- with delivery receipt and then with a
18 read -receipt request.
19 Delivery receipt is automatic, and a
20 read -receipt was at the recipient's discretion.
21 Evidence of delivery receipt was provided to the Clerk
22 to the Board, as well as Planning to be incorporated as
23 part of the record.
24 Those who provided a read -receipt --
25 again, that was at their discretion -- Town of
5
1 Severance, Town of Windsor, Cactus Hill Ranch, Clerk to
2 the Board, and Planning. Comments were received from
3 Town of Windsor, Town of Severance, and K&M Company.
4 Due to the size of the parcels involved
5 and those receiving notice, input was requested beyond
6 just to elicit additional responses. So, we went half a
7 mile to the west, north, east, a mile and a half to the
8 south.
9 The first -- we received, again, three
10 comments. The first will be the species selection. The
11 Town of Windsor suggested that we remove staghorn sumac
12 and request and consider replacement of additional
13 evergreen species, so we did.
14 These are the three junipers that were
15 with the original plan, and they remain with this plan.
16 One, the Austrian pine was with the original plan, and
17 we have masked in two additional pines now, ponderosa
18 and scotch, instead of the staghorn sumac. Three shrubs
19 remain for just some variety of color and texture, and
20 the vine and the grass remain as well. Vine and grass
21 remain.
22 So this is the new planting schedule.
23 You're going to be seeing some graphics that depict a 3D
24 rendition. And the graphics show two views and two
25 different heights of plant material.
6
1 The shoulder heights are going to show
2 what the plant materials could look like after five
3 years. That incorporates the -- we did go -- we bumped
4 up the size. We went up to 8 feet minimum. That's what
5 our landscape architect suggests is going to be a
6 minimum that's going to survive stress and grow faster
7 after transplant. And so the shortest slide that --
8 picture that you're going to see will be the plant after
9 five years. So that incorporates some growth stress as
10 well.
11 And then the largest size that you're
12 going to see, we divided it between the two mature
13 heights. So, for example, the Austrian pine, it could
14 grow 40 to 60 feet. We did not go to 60; we went to 50.
15 So we split -- split the baby that way.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: What's the number of
17 years to reach that height, Anne? Sorry. Go ahead.
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That mature height is
19 going to be, you know, 20 -- 20 years to get to mature
20 height, 15, 20 years. I'd say 20 to be fair.
21 Okay. So, this is the view on State
22 Highway 257. This is looking northwest of the
23 intersection of 80 1/2 and 257 looking southeast. And
24 so this is what, in five years, after planting the
25 plants, it could look like. And after maturity, that's
7
1 what the view could look like.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's after
3 20 years?
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That's after 20 years,
5 after maximum growth, that mid -- mid -range maximum
6 growth.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: This is the view from
9 the east edge of the permit boundary looking west on
10 80 1/2. This is what the site looks like now with the
11 proposed berm height, with the proposed landscaping
12 after five years. And this is what it could look like
13 after 20 years. And then, again, we added landscaping
14 down to the east, and so we have the same -- after five
15 years, after 20 years.
16 Now we're going to address additional
17 comments made by the property owner to the east.
18 K&M Company indicated that the berm in the landscaping
19 was in the power easement, and it is not.
20 Included with your December 27th notebook
21 and included with application materials before the
22 hearings, we have letters from Platte River Power
23 Authority indicating support, and they -- they have no
24 concerns. So it's -- again, we did not (unintelligible)
25 anything or put the berm in the easement at all.
B
1 The last comment from the Town of
2 Severance --
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Mr. Chair?
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Back to the previous
6 slide, you kind of skipped over some things. The
7 consideration of planting along the southern border, are
8 you going to address that later?
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That's the next slide.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thanks.
11 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So the last comment is
12 consideration of planting along the southern border that
13 was raised by the Town of Severance and also by K&M
14 Company.
15 So we did add some -- we are going to take
16 a look at some views looking at the property from the
17 south, from 19 as well as 78, because we wanted to
18 understand the comments that were received by the Town
19 of Severance from individuals in Soaring Eagle Ranch
20 neighborhood as well as the property owner to the east,
21 what their concerns were for view.
22 And so we went out and took some photos,
23 and the result was that we added some extra landscaping
24 in this area, and then we added a privacy fence in this
25 area. And we felt that that would best buffer the views
9
1 from the property owner to the east.
2 So taking a look at the next set of
3 slides, there are some commonalities in all these
4 slides. And rather than repeat them with each slide, I
5 thought I'd just go -- walk through what it is that
6 you're going to look at.
7 So the top of all the maps is going to be
8 north. Weld County Road 78 is to the south, 19 is to
9 the east, State Highway 257 is on the west, 80 1/2 is on
10 the north right here, and State Highway 14, which is
11 also Mulberry in Fort Collins, is this road right here.
12 So the parcels that are outlined in this
13 darker blue is everything owned by Cactus Hill Ranch.
14 The property that we're talking about is outlined in
15 yellow. The property outlined in orange is owned by K&M
16 Company. And then this is a lake right in here.
17 And the blue arrow that you'll see on all
18 the maps -- and it changes as we go around this area --
19 is the view -- the end of the arrow is where the photo
20 was taken, and the direction of the arrow indicates the
21 view of where it's pointing at.
22 There -- the photos are zoomed in a little
23 bit just so that you can see some points of reference on
24 the photos, but for the most part we tried to remain
25 true to what you're looking at on the road.
10
1 So this is directly south of where the
2 facility is. There are three points of reference. One
3 of them is this large silo. It's an agricultural silo.
4 It's located right here in Cactus Hill Ranch property,
5 and that is one of the most prominent features on the
6 horizon. And so it is right here.
7 Another prominent feature on the horizon
8 are these water tanks. They're located right here,
9 again, just on the south side of State Highway 14 or
10 Mulberry. And then the Simon facility is located right
11 here just under these residential structures. Right
12 there.
13 So the next slide is from a little bit
14 north on 19, north of 78. Again, you can see the Cactus
15 Hill Ranch water tower -- I mean silo. You can see the
16 water tower, and then you can see the existing silo at
17 the facility.
18 We move up north on 19 a little bit, and
19 you can see the Cactus Hill Ranch silo, the water tower,
20 and the silo at Simon. Going up on 19 a little bit
21 farther, you can't see -- I could not make out if this
22 is a reflection of the water tower or where the water
23 tower is. So that's a guess. But here is a Cactus Hill
24 Ranch silo. And I'm thinking that by zooming in, that,
25 I believe, is the Simon silo.
11
1 Moving on to Weld County Road 80 1/2, this
2 is approximately at the south edge of where this little
3 road right here, 19, goes on up to connect with 14
4 looking west. This is just east of the bridge going
5 over the ditch. You can see the road over the ditch.
6 You can see there's a crest, a natural crest in the
7 road. You can't -- you can see the towers, the power
8 towers here. Here's the silage pile or an agricultural
9 pile that's existing on the K&M property. And there's
10 their existing agricultural outbuilding.
11 This is from just north of the
12 agricultural outbuilding on K&M property. Right. here I
13 lined up, took a photo looking directly west. And this
14 dark structure right here is the existing silo of the
15 asphalt plant. And this is how the -- how the view
16 corridor looks today without any landscaping.
17 And then this is a repeat. If we wanted
18 to discuss it from the hearing on the 5th of February,
19 existing view corridor from the property owner to the
20 east. This is the house right now. It's directly to an
21 outbuilding, directly to an cut -- a large -- again, I
22 don't know what the material is, but it's a large
23 natural berm, a natural buffer. And then it looks
24 across the property.
25 These are the site -- site lines. And so
12
1 to -- to try to address the concerns of individuals from
2 Soaring Eagle, which are two miles in -- a mile and a
3 half, a mile and three-quarters, and two miles to the
4 south, we really wanted to go out and look to see
5 what -- what their concerns are, what their -- what
6 their visual concerns are.
7 And so we felt as if Cactus Hill Ranch
8 sent in a letter indicating they're directly south; they
9 didn't find a conflict with not having landscaping along
10 the south side. So, we were looking at how can we
11 address, then, the concerns of this individual here
12 wanting some more screening of this facility.
13 This is all vacant here. So, what we did
14 is we added some more landscaping here to completely
15 screen this eastern edge, and then we added a privacy
16 fence from this point here to this point. So, this
17 entire area right here would be mitigated visually. So,
18 again, we listened, we talked to the Town of Severance,
19 we listened to what they had to say, and they concurred
20 with this approach as well.
21 So, at this point in time, this concludes
22 our presentation, and we're happy to answer any
23 questions that you may have.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any questions for
25 Anne? Commissioner Freeman?
13
1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I guess I'm a
2 little confused what you're trying to screen from on the
3 south. There's -- I mean, it looks like there's nothing
4 there.
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: What I'm --
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: The ditch?
7 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, on the south.
8 I'm not sure what we're -- I'm not sure what we're
9 trying to screen from there.
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: It was just -- there
11 was concerns from the property owner to the east and
12 residents in Soaring Eagle Ranch that we tried to screen
13 the view from their properties. And we --
14 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: That's two miles
15 away.
16 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes. We -- we
17 struggled with that and we -- that's why we went out and
18 we took some photos, because we really wanted to
19 understand what the visual impact was. We found that
20 there was very minimal visual impact from that view,
21 but, again, we went out twice. I went out. I sent
22 another individual out because I wanted to make sure
23 that we were really looking at this very seriously.
24 I spoke with the Town of Severance. We
25 wanted to give it very serious consideration. And
14
1 putting a 6 -foot privacy fence along the southern end of
2 the property, when we have Cactus Hill Ranch who owns a
3 mile and a half, it's -- it's not going to provide any
4 visual benefit.
5 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: That's the reason I
6 was asking.
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah. And so, again,
8 we want to give serious consideration to the property
9 owner to the east. We're willing to add the additional
10 landscaping in here. We're willing to add some
11 additional screening to help mitigate their concerns.
12 So we're -- we're listening --
13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Okay.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- to what individuals
15 have to say.
16 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Thank you.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other questions?
18 Commissioner Conway.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I appreciate you
20 sent out emails and everything else. Did you try to --
21 in terms of the people, like K&M, did you go meet with
22 them?
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We met with them before
24 the hearings, and we asked if there was anything that we
25 could do to mitigate. We met in the field with them.
15
1 And to date, we have -- I left --
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY; You haven't followed
3 up with them since the hearing?
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I did follow up with
5 them after our meeting in the field and asked if we
6 could meet with them again, and I have not heard from
7 them.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. So, I want to
9 address some issues that were part of the letter. Have
10 you seen the letter from Mr. Tom Moore that was sent to
11 the Board on February 15th?
12 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Uh-huh.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Do you want to
14 address -- or I can ask questions, whatever you want to
15 do on this. He had some very specific questions. In
16 terms of the question that Commissioner Freeman asked,
17 he -- it sounds like you've done some work on
18 landscaping to the south in regards to this letter; is
19 that correct?
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We did some landscaping
21 along the south and --
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm sorry. Go
23 ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt you. You did some
24 landscaping. Because in his letter, he stated -- and
25 I -- this is 2,640 feet and 40 percent of the entire
16
1 site's perimeter. So that's what he was talking about
2 in terms of landscaping. Did you have any conversations
3 with Mr. Moore in terms of this letter, in terms of this
4 feedback?
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I did not have a
6 conversation with Mr. Moore regarding this particular
7 letter, no.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Isn't he the
10 neighbor to the east?
11 MS. BEST JOHNSON: He's the neighbor to
12 the east.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. So you are
14 addressing his concerns specifically?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We addressed his
16 concerns specifically --
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's the --
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- with this, yes.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. The other --
20 the other question he has in his letter is who will be
21 responsible for repair -- repair this landscaping when
22 it is removed or destroyed? Because we have all sorts
23 of weather -related events. And he asked that question
24 in the letter, so that's what I'm asking to you.
25 Is there a -- and maybe you can -- I'm
17
1 trying to go through all the documents. Is there a
2 specific development standard that you must maintain the
3 long-term -- in terms of whether it is drip irrigation
4 or maintenance or whatever in terms of this? I'm just
S trying to answer his -- get an answer to his question in
6 his letter that he sent to the Board,
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: There are
8 development standards that requires maintenance.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's what I'm
10 looking for.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Typically there
12 is. I don't know what number it is.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I don't know on this
14 one because --
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, well, they
16 have to maintain the approved plan.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm just asking
18 (unintelligible).
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just don't know
20 what number it is.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's why I'm
22 asking. The public asked that question. Kim's looking
23 for it.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Mr. Chair.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
18
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You know, I'm looking
2 at Mr. Moore's letter, and specifically he said that
3 there were -- there was no landscaping on the site's
4 south boundary. So, I think what Ms. Johnson actually
5 went over with the fencing and the additional
6 landscaping does address his letter, and specifically
7 the residences to the direct east.
8 And as Commissioner Freeman said, there's
9 really -- there's nobody down on the south part of the
10 property, but I heard the applicant say they're willing
11 to put landscaping in to buffer and screen from the
12 south boundary line. So, I do think it does address the
13 concerns.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah. We added the
15 landscaping in this area, and we agreed to do additional
16 privacy fencing in this area to screen the property
17 owner here to the east. The property owner to the south
18 actually provided a letter, indicated that they don't
19 have concerns with the fact that there is no landscaping
20 on the south.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And, again, will you
22 reiterate? Because the other comment he made is that
23 you had landscaping within the Poudre --
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Power Line.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- Power
19
1 (unintelligible) easement, and you've said on the record
2 that you're outside of their easement.
3 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct. And so that's
4 what I believe, Commissioner Conway, he was concerned
5 with in his second paragraph --
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes.
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- is that the
6 landscaping was within that easement, and who's going to
9 be responsible to prepare this landscaping when it's
10 removed or destroyed during the maintenance activities
11 for the easement. And it's not in the easement, so we
12 don't anticipate it being destroyed for activities
13 within the easement because it's not in the easement.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: But who's
15 responsible for maintaining it?
16 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Well, Simon is
17 responsible for maintaining it.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And that's in there,
19 Kim?
20 MS. OGLE: It's under Development Standard
21 Number S.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. I
23 appreciate you clarifying.
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have a question.
20
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have a question for
3 Kim. You were also sent a copy of this updated
4 landscape plan from the applicant. In your opinion,
5 does it meet the requirements and does it vindicate the
6 concerns of those that had the concerns during the
7 hearing and also as a follow-up from the emails and that
8 sort of thing, this recent notification to surrounding
9 property owners?
10 MS. OGLE: Yeah, our opinion is that it
11 does meet the intent of the visual mitigation plan for
12 this facility.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any further
15 questions? Anne, continue.
16 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That concludes the
17 presentation.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: That's it? Okay.
19 All right. Why don't you just have a seat and I'm going
20 to open it up now for public comment. This is a public
21 hearing, so anybody in the public that would like to
22 come and address the Board on this consideration for
23 conditions on the approval of 1.C on this, please come
24 forward and state your name and address for the record.
25 Nobody in the public. All right. We'll
21
1 close the public comment and bring back the applicant.
2 Any further questions to the applicant on
3 this, or Kim?
4 All right. I'll bring it back to the
5 Board. Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Mr. Chairman, I
7 move that we approve the resolution, approving the
8 landscape screening plan with regard to Condition of
9 Approval 1.C of the Use by Special Review Permit
10 USR17-0043.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Second.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Moved by
13 Commissioner Kirkmeyer, seconded by Commissioner Cozad
14 to approve the resolution. Any other further
15 discussion? Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes. First of
17 all, I'd to thank you for having elevations and showing
18 us specifically which plants and trees that you're going
19 to plant. I think that was very helpful. We've had
20 other landscaping plans come in front of us and
21 screening plans, and they didn't have all of that
22 information. So greatly appreciate it.
23 I also appreciate you trying to reach out
24 and contact the neighbors even beyond what was required
25 and., you know, making every attempt to contact the most
22
1 adjacent neighbor. I think it's unfortunate that they
2 didn't respond back to you, so if they had any issues,
3 you could have helped fix them, because it appears that
4 you're more than willing to make changes all the way
5 throughout the whole process, like you did with the Town
6 of Windsor and the Town of Severance. So -- and I like
7 the plan.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Further comments?
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'll have some after
10 the vote.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. Do we
12 need a roll call?
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. All in favor,
15 aye.
16 MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: Aye.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Opposed?
18 Motion approved.
19 Commissioner Conway.
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I just want to
21 reiterate what this board says a lot around here in
22 terms of this. I appreciate you met the minimal
23 requirements here. You did go above and beyond in
24 (unintelligible) to address the concerns of Severance
25 and Windsor and Mr. Moore. That's why I supported the
23
1 plan.
2 But this is a message to your client. I
3 know you're from Wyoming. I know you want to be a good
4 neighbor. You need to demonstrate in terms of going
5 forward and listening to the folks that are around your
6 neighborhood.
7 I'm hopeful that you will do that, but if
8 not, you're probably going to be back here again because
9 people are going to have a close eye on you. They're
10 going to want you to live up to the commitments that
11 you've made in this.
12 In Weld County we encourage our
13 applicants -- whether it's you or other folks, oil and
14 gas -- to live up to the commitments they make. So, I
15 would just encourage you to -- you're going to be here,
16 it looks like, for 20 years, because that's what the
17 picture showed, right, in terms of the full growth of
18 the trees.
19 But I would be proactive in terms of
20 engaging the neighbors and being a good one. And it is
21 to your benefit to do that. So that's all I have.
22 Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Further comments?
24 I'm going to adjourn the board meeting at 10:19. And we
25 will reconvene --
24
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Do we vote? Oh, we
2 (unintelligible).
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, we voted.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: -- we'll reconvene
5 with lands use cases. We're going to take a 15 -minute
6 break, so we'll come back at 10:35.
7 (End of audio recording.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 21, 2018
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Rebecca J. Collings, a Colorado
Realtime Certified Reporter, Registered Professional
Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of
Colorado, do hereby certify that I prepared the
foregoing transcript from an audio recording of the
proceedings.
I further certify that the transcript is
accurate to the best of my ability to hear and
understand the proceedings.
I further certify that I am not an
attorney, nor counsel, nor in any way connected with any
attorney or counsel for any of the parties to said
action, nor otherwise interested in the outcome of this
action.
My commission expires September 14, 2021.
REBECCA J. COLLINGS
Not el y iD + Zap l402C792
vComrni”..antviroyp9.14.2421 ,
REBECCA J. COLLINGS
Registered Professional Reporter
Colorado Realtime Certified Reporter
Notary Public
DausterWurphy 303-522--2604
25
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss
COUNTY OF WELD )
I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board of Weld County Commissioner and Notary Public
within and for the State of Colorado, certify the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded
proceedings, In re: CONSIDER CONDITION OF APPROVAL #1.C OF USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT, USR17-0043 - CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY, C/O SIMON
CONTRACTORS, INC., before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, on
Wednesday, February 21, 2018, and as further set forth on page one. The transcription,
dependent upon recording clarity, is true and accurate with special exceptions(s) of any or all
precise identification of speakers, and/or correct spelling or any given/spoken proper name or
acronym.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2018.
• -4,4
Esther E. Gesick, Notary
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ESTHER E. GESICK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 19974016478
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 29, 2021
ORIGINAL (x)
CERTIFIED COPY ( )
Hello