HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1984-11-20BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
J Planning Commission
November 20, 1984
Commission:
Attending;
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman A1 Sager, Members Duane Blair, Mark
Brown, John Carmack, George Hix, Steve
Komito, Richard Wood
Chairman Sager, Members Blair, Carmack, Hix,
Komito, Wood
Town Administrator Hill, Attorney White,
Planner Stamey, Town Engineer Widmer, John
Pedas (Larimer County Planning Department),
Secretary O'Connor
Member Brown
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting held October 16,
1984 were approved.
2. COUNTY REFERRALS;
2.a. Lot 9, Block 10, Ferguson Subdivision (Request for setback
variance); Mr. David Habecker, representing the owner, presented
a request for a setback variance. The current County zoning (E-1
Estate) and setback from Marys Lake Road (100' from the center
line of Marys Lake Road) leaves no building envelope for Lot 9.
A two-story structure 52'x24' plus a one-story garage 16'x24' is
proposed, with ten-foot north and east setbacks. Mr. John Pedas,
Larimer County Planning Department, stated prior to 1904 no
zoning was required for this area and in 1977 this property was
rezoned causing the side and rear setbacks to be 25'. Mr. Pedas
also stated the Larimer County Planning Department was going to
favorably recommend this variance to the Larimer County Board of
Adjustment. No one was present speaking in opposition to the
variance request. Trustee Hix moved the Estes Park Planning
Commission favorably recommend the petition for variance for Lot
9, Block 10 Ferguson Subdivision to the Larimer County Board of
Adjustment. Member Komito seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
2.b. Lots 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, Block 3, Larimer Terminals
Subdivision (Request for Special Exception); Mr. Mark Gavell,
representing the owners, stated the request for a Special Excep
tion was to obtain a 110 Permit to continue their mining opera
tion in Larimer Terminals. Mr. John Pedas, Larimer County
Planning Department, stated the permit application is necessitat
ed as a result of the Mined Land Reclamation Board's revising
their regulations. Mr. Pedas also stated the Larimer County
Planning Department was recommending approval of the Special
Exception subject to: (1) a vehicle barrier (guardrail) and
fence along the perimeter of the north, west, and east property
lines; (2) the conditional approval be for a period of fifteen
years with review of the project every five years; and (3)
include a $5,000 bond for future reclamation. Mr. Gavell stated
the area was impossible to re-vegetate due to the National Park
Service removing the topsoil. Member Wood moved the Special
Exception be favorably recommended to the Larimer County Board of
Adjustment including the motion made June 19, 1984 by Member Hix
in which Planner Stamey and Russell Legg (Larimer County Planning
Department) would work together to draft a proposal for eventual
better use of land located at Larimer Terminals. Member Hix
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page two
3. AMEND CHAPTER 7.08 - REQUEST SUBMITTED BY GARY BROWN;
As stated in the September 18, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes,
Standards and Use Regulations to be combined with the Special
Review Process would be considered to maintain horses in the C-2
District. Mr. Gary Brown submitted the following standards in
response to staff suggestions:
1. Stables and piles of manure, feed and bedding shall be
located 50 feet from any street or non-residential lot
line, and 50 feet from any residential lot line, in
order to minimize odor and nuisance problems.
2. Manure piles shall be stored, removed or applied in
accordance with Town regulations. However, manure shall
not be applied on land that is closer than 100 feet to a
residential lot line.
3. A 100-foot wide area of vegetation cover shall be
maintained between any stable, manure pile or manure
application area, and any surface water or well, in
order to minimize runoff, prevent erosion and promote
quick nitrogen absorption. The 100-foot wide area may
be used for pasture.
4. Corrals, exercise areas, manure piles and manure appli
cation shall not be sloped greater than 5°, nor located
in waterways and flood plains.
5. Horses shall be maintained for the exclusive use of the
occupants of the premises. Horses shall not be kept for
renumeration, hire, sale or commercial boarding.
6. Land described in the permit to maintain horses shall
contain at least 10 acres of open space or buildings and
grounds related exclusively to the maintenance of the
horses.
7. Minimum lot size of 10 acres, with a maximum of 4
horses.
8. The term "stables" shall not include pasture land and
riding arenas.
Those speaking in favor of the amendment to Chapter 7.08 of the
Municipal Code, none. Those speaking in opposition were as
follows: Dr. Schroeder, questioned whether access would be
gained through city streets or private property, and where the
horses would be riden; Mr. John Roberts (Stanley Heights resi
dent) who fully supported Dr. Schroeder's statements and also
suggested the use be allowed only through the Special Review
Process. Mr. Roberts also questioned the possibility of con
gestion and safety for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and
the damage to asphalt roads; Mrs. Lorraine Roberts, who stated
east side residents were invited to attend meetings last summer
regarding zoning. In those meetings, the property owners agreed
on fewer horses and stables in Town. Mrs. Roberts also stated
the property owners would be distressed if the Town passed this
ordinance. Planner Stamey read his memorandum dated November 15,
1984 regarding amendment considerations:
1. The effect of the proposed amendment on the entire
community.
2. Are there changing circumstances in the community which
support this change.
3. Will the amendment correct an improper situation or
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page three
merely result in the granting of special privileges.
4. Should maintenance of livestock/large animals be
encouraged in an urban setting.
5. Potential for administration/enforcement problems (i.e.:
dog leash law).
6. Potential for future neighborhood conflicts/complaints.
Member Wood, in consideration of Items 1 - 3 of the aforemen
tioned memorandum, moved the request to amend Chapter 7.08 to
allow horses in C-2 Districts not be amended at this time.
Member Carmack seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
4. CJL SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT:
Mr. Todd Plummer, representing the owners, presented the Final
Plat for CJL Subdivision, Lots 20 and 21, Block 5, Second Amended
Plat, Town of Estes Park. The owners propose to take two exist
ing lots and create three lots thus allowing the three owners to
have separate ownership of each lot. Planner Stamey read his
Staff Report and the following correspondence;
Town Engineer.......................................................
Town Attorney......................................................... 11/14/84
Light and Power Director................................. 11/05/84
Urban Renewal Authority................................... 11/13/84
The owners took exception to Item #8 of Town Engineer Widmer's
letter in which he stated "... the 10' access easement should
be a dedicated public access easement for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic." Mr. Jim Crain (owner of Fudgeworks of Estes) stated
the dedication easement would take 7% of his lot. Mr. Ken
Jandrain (owner of Caramel Crisp) questioned if the easement were
dedicated, would parking still be allowed behind the businesses
and also if unloading/loading would be allowed in the rear of the
building. Chairman Sager stated current regulations (as they
exist today) would not allow building to take place within 8' of
the river and that the public access easement would only be
adding two more feet. Mr. Anderson (URA) stated the Authority
had no intention of taking the open area behind these lots and
the cost of underlaying the sidewalk with concrete to withstand
truck loading/unloading was estimated to be $800. Suggestions
were made to have businesses in this block pay 1/4 of the $800;
URA could waive the fee for a dedicated public access easement.
Mr. Plummer stated that at such time as the easement would be
usable land for the public, the owners would then agree to
dedicate the easement; however, it was premature to require the
dedication at the present time. When asked if the plat could be
approved now and a covenant placed on the plat stating the
dedication of a 10' public access easement for pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. Town Attorney White stated yes, it could be
done; however, the best solution would be to record the dedica
tion of the easement at the time the plat is recorded. In
consultation with the owners, Mr. Bill Van Horn stated he would
like to withdraw CJL Subdivision in order to allow the owners to
make an offer to dedicate the 10' access easement to the Town,
which would then be made freely, and then return to the next
Planning Commission Meeting being held December 18, 1984 to
formally present CJL Subdivision. Member Wood moved CJL Subdivi
sion be withdrawn and resubmitted December 18, 1984. Member Hix
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
5. MI CASA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - FINAL PLAT AND SITE PLAN;
Mr. Tom Reck, Planner, representing the owner, presented the
Final Plat and Site Plan for Mi Casa P.U.D. located on Lots 20,
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page four
21 and 22, Lake View Tracts. Planner Stamey acknowledged submit
tal of the Statement of Intent, Formal Application, Bylaws,
Existing Grades, Final Plat, Final Site Plan, Landscape and
Grading Plan and Typical Architectural Elevations. Planner
Stamey read his Staff Report along with the following correspon
dence :
Town Engineer......................................................... 11/13/84
Town Attorney......................................................... 11/14/84
Light and Power Director.................................11/05/84
Upper Thompson Sanitation District.............11/14/84
A letter dated September 19, 1984 submitted from John. G. Phipps,
representing Mr. and Mrs. Tom Poe, was also read into the record.
Mr. Reck objected to Item #7 of Planner Stamey's Summary of
Recommended Conditions which was ”. . . retain 10' open space
separation between Lots 4 and 5." The plan provides for a 5'
pedestrian easement through Lots 4 and 5; due to the way in which
the lots had to be designed, the 10' open space separation was
not practical. Those speaking in favor of the Final Plat and
Site Plan, none. Those speaking is opposition, none. Member
Blair moved the Final Plat and Site Plan for Mi Casa P.U.D. be
favorably accepted with the following conditions:
1. Show on Site Plan and supporting documents:
a. Pedestrian path.
b. Outlets A and B.
c. Existing fire hydrant on Vista Lane.
d. Clarify common open space areas.
e. 8-foot side setback for Lots 13 and 16.
f. 20-foot front setback for Lot 17.
g. Note 1 should be 22' for consistency with
"Statement of Intent."
h. Sign locations.
i. Drainage detention pond location and details, and
underdrain system.
j. Revised sewer line.
2. Clarify status of water line from Vista Lane to Hobby
Horse Motel. If line is not relocated, an easement
should be required.
3. The total area should be 4.11 acres, not 4.18.
Re-compute size of land-use areas.
4. Written soils study provided with building permit
application for Lots 9 through 16.
5. Provide schedule for installation of landscaping and
pedestrian path.
6. Clarify spelling of La or Grande, and designate as
Court.
Incorporate Sheets 1 through 4
Plat and Site Plan approval.
as part of P.U.D. Final
Plat Comments:
On the Board of Trustees Certificate, change "Major"
to "Mayor."
Dedication and Surveyor's Certificate, delete
"...Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado."
Lot 1: East boundary needs a dimension (80.07'),
the south line bearing should be N72°33'E.
Lot 4: South line bearing should be N72°33'E.
Lot 8: West line distance should be 30.00, not
40.00; south line bearing should be N72°33'E; area
a.
b.
d.
e.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page five
h,
i.
j ■
1.
m.
should be 0.11 acres.
Lot 9; Northeast line should be S80°04,56"E 17.33';
south line should be 122.56'.
Lot 12: North line bearing should be N72°33'E; area
should be .15 acres.
Lot 18: South line should be 158.96'.
Outlets A and B should have the areas shown.
The bearing on the west line of the subdivision
should be S17°27'E.
The easements along the West and South line of the
subdivision are for drainage purposes also.
The entire P.U.D. needs a 1/8" hatched border.
A scale needs to be added to the vicinity map.
9. Landscape Plan Comments:
The pine trees should be 10' high per the "Statement
of Intent."
The erosion rock drops along the east line should be
shown pursuant the "Statement of Intent."
Ten deciduous trees should be shown on the east line
pursuant to the "Statement of Intent."
The landscaping in the detention pond area may need
to be revised.
a.
b.
c.
d.
10. A section should be added to the covenants regarding
maintenance of all landscaping, including the mainte
nance of the two landscaped islands in the public
street.
11. The drainage study needs some minor revisions.
12. The engineering drawing of the street needs revision.
13. All property pins must be set prior to Town Board
approval.
14. An "Improvement Guarantee" for the full cost of all
public improvements will have to be posted prior to
obtaining the first building permit.
15. Improvement guarantee shall contain enough money to
allow the Town to remove the existing structure if the
developer fails to remove same during course of develop
ment.
16. Provide a street light in the cul-de-sac and entrance to
the cul-de-sac.
17. The developer needs to contact Public Service to deter
mine proper easement locations for gas service.
19. The dedication statement dedicates "recreation areas,
parks" to and for public use. Since there are no
recreation areas or parks on this plat, said language
should be eliminated from the dedication.
Member Carmack seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
6. STORER RANCH ADDITION - ANNEXATION PLAT AND PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED ZONING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN:
Annexation: Mr. Frank Gray (WestPlan), representing the owners,
submitted the Annexation Plat for Storer Ranch Addition. Chair
man Sager declared a public hearing. Storer Ranch Addition is on
the north side of U. S. Highway 34, West of the Inn at Estes Park
which contains 35 acres. The proposal is to subdivide the 35
acres into 16 lots ranging in size from ±1 acre to 3%/4 acres.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page six
There is a possibility of some of the lots being combined in the
future depending upon desired use. Several meetings with
adjacent neighborhoods have taken place, at the developer's
expense, to consider all concerns expressed by property owners.
Planning considerations have been given as to building coverage,
parking ratios, open space, adjoining property, and view.
Building envelopes will be setback 75' for one-story, 100' for
two-story with the maximum height being 25'. Planner Stamey
noted action taken by the Board of Trustees will occur on
December 4, 1984. Planner Stamey read the Staff Report and
correspondence submitted by the following:
Town Engineer....................................................... 11/08/84
Light and Power Director............................... 10/24/84
Estes Park Fire Department...........................
Billy B. Shoemaker............................................ 08/31/84
Mr. Gray stated Item 1, Section VI - Staff Recommendation of
Planner Stamey's Staff Report dealing with the dedication state
ment was inappropriate due to the fact that no dedication was
taking place. Member Wood moved Storer Ranch Annexation be
favorably recommended to the Town Board subject to the following
conditions:
1. Arrows should be added to the eastern boundary dimension
on 2645.26' to better define this dimension.
2. The S59°54'32"E 1.27 foot dimension to the right-of-way
brass cap is misleading and should be changed to a note
referencing a found monument.
Member Hix seconded the motion and passed unanimously.
Zoning: Planner Stamey read Item 2, Section VI - Staff Recommen
dation of his Staff Report. Mr. Lou Canaiy addressed the Commis
sion and questioned if the Storer Ranch Addition was proposed as
an Industrial Park or High Tech Development. Mr. Gray stated
technological parks fell under a type of industrial park by uses
permitted such as light industrial/technical applications. Mr.
Canaiy also questioned if the entire Storer Ranch was specifical
ly set aside for the technological park. Chairman Sager stated
the annexation requested to date included only 35 acres. Those
speaking in favor of the proposed C-2 zoning, none. Those
speaking in opposition: Mr. Ted Shanks, representing Billy B.
Shoemaker. Mr. Shanks stated the development would block views
for McFarland, Shoemaker, Schroeder and _ Weeks. Mr. Shanks
questioned the placement of two-story buildings on the east side
and also discussed the potential traffic problem with the access
road into Lone Pine Acres. Chairman Sager stated the developers
had exceeded regulations set forth by the Tov/n and the adjacent
property owners should welcome the fact that very serious consid
erations were given to setbacks as the development was planned.
Member Wood moved the proposed C-2 zoning be favorably recommend
ed to the Town Board with the condition that development occur as
a Planned Unit Development under Town Regulations. Member Hix
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Rocky Mountain Technological Park, Planned Unit Development
(Conceptual Plan) (continuation of public hearing): Planner
Stamey read Section ivl Major Concerns and Issues, Items 1
through 5 and the following correspondence:
Town Attorney..................................................... 11/02/84
Upper Thompson Sanitation District.... 11/14/84
State Highway Department............................. 11/07/84
Larimer County Planning Department.... 11/05/84
Larimer County Environmental Health... 10/31/84
Rocky Mountain National Park.................... 11/02/84
Public Service Company................................. 10/24/84
Billy B. Shoemaker.......................................... 10/30/84
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page seven
Mr. Gray stated by and large there were no overwhelming ob
jections to the conditions; he explained parking ratios, advised
there would be a minimal amount of paving and a maximum amount of
landscaping. Parking spaces would be 9x19' for full-size vehi
cles; 8x16' for compact vehicles. A traffic study being prepared
by the developer will identify needed traffic system improve
ments. The State Highway Department's criteria will be used in
designing acceleration/deceleration lanes. Those speaking in
opposition, none. Planner Stamey advised Water Superintendent
Richards has recommended oversizing a portion of the proposed 6"
water main to an 8" main, with the Town paying for such oversiz
ing. Mr. Gray has met with the Rocky Mountain National Park
Service to discuss open space corridors for elk migration. As a
fencing pattern is developed, the elk migration will be taken
into account. Chairman Sager declared the public hearing closed.
Member Wood moved Rocky Mountain Technological Park, Planned Unit
Development - Conceptual Plan be favorably accepted with the
following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A traffic study be submitted with the
Application and Final Plat.
formal P.U.D.
A detailed landscaping plan is submitted with the formal
P.U.D. Application and Final Plat for the 30' buffer
adjacent to Lone Pine Acres; the 40' setback along
Highway 34; the landscaped entry and median; and the
common open space center. Landscaping in the 30' buffer
area and 40' setback should meet the standard of one
tree per 30' and one shrub per 5'.
Landscaping standards for individual lots should be
identified.
Description of parking lot lighting. Parking lot
lighting should use low-mounted cut-off luminaires,
arranged and directed so as to create no glare off-site.
Clarify parking ratios.
Indicate parking surface.
Proposed parking should only be reduced or deferred upon
Town concurrence, and provisions included that the Town
can request construction of any reduced or deferred
parking at the owner's expense.
7. Indicate architectural character of proposed buildings.
8. Incorporate use performance standards.
9. Clarify development phases.
10. Regulate height and type of fences, if used.
11. Change entry way to 70' right-of-way.
12. Curb and gutter the entry street and loop street.
13. Specify the width and material for the internal walkway.
14. Provide a 20' wide pedestrian/bicycle public access
easement along the southern boundary, paralleling
Highway 34. The developer is to construct an 8' wide
asphalt trail in this easement.
15. Tenant's Association documents define tenant respon
sibility for maintaining median landscaping.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page eight
16. Construction of east street, including extension to Lone
Pine Drive, and construction of north street by develop
er, at the time other public improvements are made.
(Town code requires completion of all public improve
ments prior to the first building permit, or posting of
an improvement guarantee at the time of the first
building permit, with completion within one year.)
17. A detailed drainage study at time of formal P.U.D.
Application.
18. A 20' wide easement between Lots 9 and 10, and 10 and
11.
19. Water Department. Extend 8" water line from Highway 34,
through entry, westerly around loop street to inter
section with north street extension (Town will pay for
oversizing). Extend 6" line through Raven Avenue to
connect with water line in Lone Pine Drive.
20. Comply with U.T.S.D. recommendations (development plan,
petition, construction standards, pre-treatment).
21. Comply with Fire Department regulations.
22. Comply with State Highway Department recommendations
(traffic study, access permit, turn lanes, utility and
underground permit).
23. Public Service Company:
a. 8' wide utility easement paralleling interior
streets.
b. An exclusive 20,x40' utility easement for a
natural gas regulator station in the southwest
corner of Lot 1. (The exact location should be
determined by Public Service, the developer and
Town staff.)
Member Blair seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
8. PROSPECT MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 5TH
FILING - FINAL PLAT AND SITE PLAN:
Mr. Todd Plummer, representing the owner, presented Prospect
Mountain Subdivision, P.U.D., 5th Filing - Final Plat and Site
Plan. Planner Stamey identified the following correspondence:
Planner Stamey (Staff Report)........................... 11/14/84
Town Engineer.............................................................. 11/09/84
Town Attorney.............................................................. 11/14/84
Light and Power Director...................................... 11/01/84
Upper Thompson Sanitation District.................. 11/14/84
Mr. Plummer questioned the following comment made by Town Engi
neer Widmer: 1. 10 feet of right-of-way along Peak View was
reserved for road dedication on the First Filing. Due to recent
problems with similar past right-of-way reservations, it would
seem in the Town's interest to require this dedication at this
time for the Fifth Filing. Mr. Plummer stated if the additional
10' of right-of-way is required, the landscaped area would be
included in the right-of-way of Peak View Drive; also, under the
"Statement of Intent" a 30' setback was committed, thus making an
additional 10 feet dedication unfair. Mr. Plummer was informed
the 10' dedication was for the Town and the developer would not
be required to landscape this portion of the property. Member
Wood moved Prospect Mountain Subdivision Subdivision P.U.D., 5th
Filing - Final Plat and Site Plan be favorably recommended to the
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page nine
Town Board with the following conditions:
1. Building envelope setbacks from Peak View Drive, as
follows:
Lot 25 - 30'
Lot 26 - 25'
Lot 27 - 25'
(This setback is to be from the new right-of-way of Peak
View, established with the additional 10' right-of-way
dedication.)
2. Driveway easement E6 should be reduced in width to 25',
and begin at the north edge of the utility easement.
This will prevent potential future widening of the
travelled way, which could create traffic conflicts at
Devon Drive and Peak View Drive. Driveway easements El
and E2 should also be moved to the north edge of the
utility easement.
Include on the Site Plan:3.
5
6
8.
9.
10,
11.
a. Time schedule for removal of construction trailer.
b. Acreage of lots.
c. Building height.
d. Number of dwelling units and off-street parking
spaces.
e. Proposed subdivision sign, if any.
f. Landscaping.
g. Note that Lot 23 will share driveway access with
Lot 8.
h. Note that no fences shall be placed in 10' setback
area from Drive which will restrict visibility.
Dedication of 10' right-of-way along the north side of
Peak View Drive.
Correct descriptions in dedications and title.
East line of Lot 23 should be 98.32' on both the plat
and detail.
In the curve table and on the plat, the following
corrections need to be made:
A, Delta = 63°31'24", not 63°28'16"
C, Delta = 16°39'10", not 16°39'17"
D, Delta = 46°52'52", not 46'52 11"
On the plat. Curve B chord bearing does not agree with
the table.
Clarify 20' driveway easement shown as E5.
All property pines set prior to Town Board approval.
Clarification of width and location of easement on north
side of Lot 24.
Construction of sanitary sewer lines in accordance with
U.T.S.D. specifications.
Member Blair seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
9. LAKE MEADOW CONDOMINIUMS - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN #13, LOT 2
AYERS ACRES:
Mr. Todd Plummer, representing the owners, submitted Lake Meadow
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - November 20, 1984 - Page ten
Condominiums, Site Development Plan #13. The developer is
proposing to construct 47 condominium units, in eight buildings,
on 2.428 acres. Planner Stamey addressed visibility and traffic
flow concerns. Town Engineer Widmer expressed his concern
regarding traffic flow for emergency vehicles and the actual
"usability" of the parking spaces. Mr. Plummer stated that some
revisions were being made to the Site Plan. Upon Mr. Bill Van
Horn's request. Member Hix moved Lake Meadow Condominiums, Site
Development Plan #13 be tabled and considered at the next Plan
ning Commission Meeting being held December 18, 1984. Member
Blair seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
10. Reports;
Chairman Sager reported on the APA Conference held in Copper
Mountain.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Vickie O'Connor, Secretary