Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Planning Commission of July 7th, 2026 to order. We will now call a roll. Molly?

Chair Miller?

Present.

Chair Pro Tem Salve? Present. Commissioner Howe? Present. Commissioner Latsis?

Present.

Commissioner Saul. Present. Commissioner Wolff.

Present.

Chair Miller, we have a quorum with Commissioner Koren absent and excused.

All right, thank you. All right, good evening, everybody. Tonight's planning commission is available live in person or live through a call-in number. We are also streaming this meeting on our website, arapahoegov.com. Please note that the website broadcast is delayed 20 to 30 seconds. If you're not in this meeting room and would like to speak regarding any public hearing items, please use the call-in number. To participate live via phone, call 855-436-3656. All right, so the first item for us tonight is going to be for the approval of the minutes for June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission meeting. If there are any changes for the minutes, please include those changes in your motion. And I will accept a motion if we have one.

Chair Miller, this is Commissioner Save. I move to approve the June 16, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you. So a motion was made by Commissioner Suave. Is there a second?

Commissioner Lattice seconds.

Thank you. So a motion was seconded by Commissioner Lattice. Any discussions? All right. Seeing none, all in favor of accepting the minutes, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you. All right. Next will be the public hearing. Next on the agenda... The public is invited to participate in the hearing this evening. The hearing items are quasi-judicial in nature. The Planning Commission must limit their consideration to the matters that are in the record, including the staff recommendations, the applicant presentation, public comment from the hearing, and those received before the hearing. Before we begin, does any member of the Commission have a conflict of interest to disclose... or to prohibit interest in the matter before the commission tonight. All right, we have none. All right, tonight we're scheduled two public hearings. The staff will introduce and provide a staff presentation following by a presentation of the applicant. After that, the Planning Commission will receive public testimony on the matter. I'd like to remind everybody that all presentations, comments, and questions are to be directed towards the Planning Commission and not to the presenters or the gallery. All right, the Planning Commission will now consider the case UASI 25-003. Lower County Attorney, please confirm that the Board has jurisdiction.

Good evening. With regard to the first matter before the Planning Commission at this time, specifically case number UASI 250003, the use by special review for the Remora Connection Pipeline, the record contains evidence consistent with requirements of Chapter 5, Section 2 of the Radcliffe County Land Development Code, indicating that notice was provided via publication, signage, and by mailing. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction to proceed with the public hearing this evening.

Thank you. All right, will the staff please introduce the first case?

Good evening. My name is Martin Lohman. I'm the Energy Program Manager for Arapahoe County. Good evening. This is a pretty short presentation about a pipeline that is... It includes natural gas and oil. DJ South Gathering LLC will be the oil component and Rocky Mountain Midstream is the gas component. As you can see here, the project originates from the Occidental Petroleum Pad, which is called the Remora Pad, and then heads north and then west along the south end of I-70, and then terminates north into Adams County. Like I said, there's a 12-inch natural gas pipeline and a six-inch oil gathering pipeline in the ditch. This, let's go to the next slide. Again, we've kind of explained what the pipeline is. The objective is to transport these products to Adams County. The USR seeks to add this to the Remora pipeline project to a pad that is in the process of being approved. is 8E24-06. We set this out for public comment. There were no public comments for this application. There were, however, one issue that was brought up by the Bennett Watkins Fire Department and a number of comments made by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The main issue with the Bennett Watkins Fire, this project originally had a water line with the gas and oil pipeline, but that was removed because there was no infrastructure for water in the area, so it couldn't possibly be built. The Bennett Watkins Fire Department wants to make sure that in the future they want to be able to discuss with the applicant that there will be access to possibly fire hydrants and access to the water in case that area needs assistance in some type of fire that would occur throughout any structure that's in the area. The Division of Engineering Services reviewed the proposal route and did not identify any conflicts but had the following recommendations. The applicant agrees to address the Division of Engineering Services comments and concerns, which is identified in the DES report. The applicant agrees to enter a license agreement as outlined in the DES document, and all pipeline easements for the project are required and must be placed prior to the construction, and all executed easements will be submitted to the county for our files. Um, now this is the, uh, wildlife CPW recommendations. Um, there are quite a few of these, but most of them deal with, um, the, uh, the habitat and high priority habitat, uh, in the area and making sure that the, uh, uh, perimeter sound walls if needed, uh, this is a pipeline, so we don't see any sound walls, but that's kind of a standard, uh, um, recommendation for CPW. Also, the northern and southern development parameters are strongly advised. Identify the big game section above to limit disruption of wildlife use and wildlife crossing areas. So all these issues will be covered in the documentation when the applicant submits their documentation for the application. So we'll be able to review those. That's how we go through the review process. A thorough understanding of what the pipeline is, the routes they take, and what vegetation, and how we're going to make sure that any disturbance will be remedied at the end of the project. As you can see, this list continues quite extensively. Incorporate native evergreen and dense shrub plantings within the landscape buffer zones. And then Arapahoe County, I just reviewed those comments that we had in the previous slide. And That is all I've got. Do you all have any questions for me at this point? It's pretty brief. Janice with the applicant will have a little bit more extensive presentation about the project itself.

Any questions for Wayne? Just one real quick question. Because you mentioned it, you brought up on your slide that the Bennett-Watkins Fire Department had concerns about water, but we're talking about the pipeline. I mean, the pipeline doesn't have water.

So they want to make sure that if in the future they decide to run a pipeline and the infrastructure remains possible, maybe they want to expand that pad to more wells. let's say the pipeline infrastructure becomes available to them, they want to make sure that Bennett-Watkins is included in those discussions.

Okay, but that's about the well pad, not about the pipeline. So we're here tonight about the pipeline.

We're just talking about the pipeline, but I wanted to give you reference that you would have a pipeline connected to pad. Correct. But the pipeline itself is only what we're discussing and the potential for a water pipeline to be installed in the future. And the most important point is that Bennett Watkins wants to be notified and make sure they're in the discussions so in case they can put in the fire hydrants and access to that water in case of an emergency.

Very good. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now we'll hear from the applicant.

Hi. All right, good evening.

My name is John Chapman with Elevation Midstream. I'm also joined here today with representation from both Williams and Elevation Midstream in attendance today. This presentation will be on the Remora Gathering Pipeline Project, UASI 25-003. So starting off project overview, this is a joint pipeline project between DJ South gathering, which is a subsidiary of elevation, midstream and Rocky mountain, midstream, a subsidiary of Williams. The project is a six inch crude oil gathering pipeline and a 12 inch natural gas pipeline. This is connecting the more pad site on Arapahoe County, and then it will be terminated at the Watkins compressor station over in Adams County. In reference to Arapahoe County, this is about two miles of underground pipe with no above-ground appurtenances. All private easements have been secured in Arapahoe County for this project. Another thing I'd like to note, we did meet with Adams County BOCC Board of County Commissioners this morning and we did receive approval on their end. So purpose and the need, uh, we are gathering product from the oxy remora pad in Arapahoe County. Um, there is in, uh, existing infrastructure at the Watkins compressor station where we will be terminating this pipeline. This will eliminate truck traffic, any traffic that would be gathering that crude oil and on the roads that will be eliminated, which in turn reduces emissions and enhances the safety without the traffic out on the roads. project location. Martin kind of touched on this. It is at the oxy remora pad. But what I want to highlight is kind of how we got to that route.

In our paperwork, it was blank as well, right? Yes. So I don't know if the slide just never appeared somewhere.

Hold on here. We've got the original PowerPoint.

It is in something. I know I saw it. Here it is right here. Yeah, but I thought we had another drawing of it showing. Yeah, it's kind of on that one, isn't it?

Oh, do you see it on there?

We have these, which it's on there. It's not real clear. Okay. I can talk you through it. It just kind of depends. Sorry. I don't know why I didn't. Let me see if I can. That's all right. I'll talk it through it. Yeah. And it exists in one picture. We have that picture there as well. Okay.

I got this on here. Well, sorry about that. There were multiple routes that we were considering when we were looking how to connect from the Remora pad over to the Watkins Compressor Station. That was starting from the Remora pad going south and then west across different parcels or going straight north across I-70 and kind of looping around. In the end, the route we chose, the primary route, was the shortest, least impactful route. and the most direct route. So that's the one that we'll be looking at this morning and our preferred primary route. And then the last thing I'd like to focus on is we pride ourselves on a safety-first culture. We comply with all the federal, state, and local requirements from a safety and compliance standpoint. And from operations, this ranges from monthly, quarterly, annual safety trainings all the way down to day-to-day job safety analysis.

Perfect timing.

Yeah.

Is that one reference? That is correct. Thanks Jason. Sorry about that.

So we can, I'll touch on this real quick. This green solid line is the most direct least impactful route that we're discussing today. These dotted lines are the alternate routes I briefly mentioned, which we are not pursuing. And then last thing I want to touch on is kind of the safety stuff I was mentioning. This ranges all the way from some annual trainings to day-to-day activities, job safety analysis, from each task that we'll be performing that day. And this doesn't just stop with construction. This will be done throughout the operation life of the pipeline. That's the presentation. Now I open up the room for questions.

Pretty good. Do we have any questions from the commission? Go right ahead.

This is Commissioner Sauvé. I saw in your presentation that you indicated that there were all the easements, all private easements have been secured. So I'm just curious, how many property owners are we talking about and there was no hassle or no objection? Okay.

Um, there were on this, on the South side, there were five, five property owners. I think in a total, there was seven, seven, uh, easements that were acquired in both Arapahoe County and Adams County.

Okay. Thank you. And then secondly, you, I thought I heard you say that you've been at the board of County commissioner meeting this morning and that they approved this project.

That is correct. We've got approval from both Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners from Adams County.

Oh, Adams. Okay, yeah, because I was saying, why are we even having this? Okay, got it.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any questions over here?

Yeah, I have a question. This is Commissioner Wolf. Sorry. So you said that this was the least impactful route, and I'm just curious how so, if you could explain that a little bit more about what you mean by least impactful.

Least impactful on the standpoint of least amount of area that's going to be disturbed when we're open cutting. This is the shortest route. When you extend the route, it's going to be impacting more property owners and more land.

Okay. And is that like taking into consideration the environmental impact as well?

That is included, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Anything else? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, so we will now hear from any members of the public who wish to testify in this matter. Do we have anybody in this room that's public? Only applicants. All right. That's fine then. Molly, is there anybody on the phone?

Commissioner Miller, yes, we have one individual on the line. And as a reminder for this individual press star three on your telephone pad if you wish to speak regarding this application. And this individual's last four digits in their phone number is 9484. Please state your name and address for the record if you and you'll have three minutes to comment.

We are now live. Hi, my name is Rebecca Tuca and I reside at 55649 East Briarwood Place in Strasburg, Colorado. And I'm speaking tonight to find out a little bit more information as my property uses the domestic well permit number 222502. And I have a 35 acre property that relies entirely on private domestic well water for our own life to make it livable, our livestock and our livelihood. So I want to make sure that since the regional groundwater moves eastward towards Strasburg, that any subsurface disruption such as chemical leaks or anything that later on down the road would cause an industrial drawdown at the Ramada site would be mitigated, would mitigate either our water table or the safety to consume our water. What I would Um, we like to know more information on, um, and I hope the commissioners look into is to make sure that all domestic wells within the project area, that the operator will also provide a baseline water quality testing before construction, drilling, fracking, and any pipeline operation, and also have an emergency rescue plan in freshwater, um, produced water or gas line leaks near the groundwater or drainage path that could reach our well, which is about 13 miles away from the site. Also, you know, that if such thing were to occur, that there's a binding legal agreement so that an operator fully financially liable for replacing our water supply, if it were to ever impact our well depth, if the project got bigger than just the pipeline or if our water quality degrades.

All right, very good. Is there anything more? Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Do we have any other callers?

There are no other callers on the line.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, if there's anybody else in the room, which I didn't see anybody come in, so I'm going to go with that we have nobody else that wishes to testify, so I'm going to go ahead and close public testimony. All right. If the applicant can come back up, and I don't know if staff can help with this a little bit. So it seemed the caller had some concerns, which might be more towards the well site versus the pipeline. So first of all, let's just address the pipeline. So can you address these water concerns she might have around the pipeline?

Absolutely, yeah. I can't speak for the well pad, but for the pipeline, we take integrity and maintenance very seriously. This starts with routine cleaning of the pipeline, prohibiting any water that's going to go in the pipeline that could cause corrosion. We do biweekly drone flights, so it'll scan over the top of our pipeline and see any leaks that could potentially be occurring. and then those would be mitigated immediately. So that is done biweekly. We have leak detection on our system to notify our control room that is monitored 24-7 if there is a leak in the system. We also, per PHMSA federal regulation, we run tools inside the pipe to scan for any metal loss or any dents or cracks that could be happening in the pipeline. And this data, we proactively go out there and repair as needed. And those are some of the mitigations and integrity we do on the pipeline.

Very good. You also remind me, is biweekly twice in a week or every other week? We do it basically twice a month. Twice a month.

Okay. I think that's biweekly.

I don't know. I was asking. I want to make sure I got that right. I get them mixed up too. All right. Very good. All right. Any other questions? Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Commissioner Latsis. So can you also just clarify, so how deep do you dig down for the pipeline? How far underground is it?

When we open cut, we do a minimum of four feet. In some places it will be deeper, especially in bores like under I-70, will be minimum of 10 feet.

Okay. So that's a pretty significant separation from your typical well. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you.

I just have one question. This is Commissioner Wolff. What is the typical life timeline for a pipe like this?

I believe we designed these for a 50-year life.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? All right. We're all good. Staff, do you wish to address the pad at all at this time, or is that going to need to be held over for something else?

Well, you want me to address that?

I don't want to open up something. We're not so – yeah.

No, the pad is, like he said, is a separate issue, but the plans that they submit cover the water quality plan, and there's a number of documents that will ensure that the wells and the groundwater samples are taken, I think, 30 days prior to the drilling or any construction that's before the pad is even drilled. So we get a pre-drilling sample of the water quality. And then we monitor that well. I think it's every, you know, they can do on-site water monitoring and then that is done for the remainder. Either we've got it set up to do six months after the wells have been drilled. So we're constantly monitoring the water quality because we know the wells are nearby. Again, these wells are cased in cement and steel so they go, they're drilled past the aquifer. That's a barrier between the aquifer and the pipeline. So there's no possibility of leaks between any existing wells that will be drilled and the water aquifers that are being drilled through. So it, the, the water quality is a key issue for us in the county and it's, it's monitored very tightly.

We're good.

Anything else?

Thank you. Jason Reynolds with Planning. I'll add one additional thing from the regulations that we do require the operator of the oil and gas pad to provide a letter notifying all property owners within one half mile radius of the proposed pad that have a water well that is listed with the Colorado Division of Water Resources and offer to sample those wells. They must receive permission from those well owners, but they are required to notify all well owners within one half mile.

Okay. Very good, thank you. All right. I guess we have no more additional questions. Anything pop up? All right, very good. Then we can, at this time, I can accept a motion on this case.

Commissioner Miller, this is Commissioner Save, and I'd like to propose a motion in the case of LDC 26-002, Development Application Manual Amendment. Wait a minute, am I on the right one? Sorry. Pardon me. This is Commissioner Save. I'm making a revision to my motion. In the case of UASI25-003, Romara Connection Project used by special review, I have reviewed all the staff report, including all exhibits and attachments, and have listened to the applicant's presentation and any public comments as presented at the hearing, and hereby move to recommend approval of the application with the following conditions one through seven.

All right, a motion was made by Commissioner Suave. Is there a second?

Commissioner Lattice seconds.

Thank you, Commissioner Lattice. Is there any last discussion? Any comments that want to be made to this at all? All right. So no further discussion. Ms. Molly, will you please conduct the roll call?

Commissioner Howell.

Aye.

Commissioner Lattice.

Aye.

Commissioner

I.

Commissioner Wolfe.

Hi.

Commissioner or chair pro tem sobbing I. Chair Miller I. And I just wanted to go back to Commissioner. How did you say I or nay?

I said I.

Okay. The motion passes 6-0 with Commissioner Coran absent and excused.

Very good. All right. So then at this time, I'd like to make a motion to take about a 15-minute recess, or we'll come back in 15 or sooner. Can I get a second? Commissioner Save seconds. Thank you very much. So we will just be at recess for a little bit. Do you want to vote on that? I'm sorry. Can we vote on that? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Thank you very much. I will remind everybody that mics are probably still hot, so... I'd like to go ahead and call us back from recess, and we can continue on. So we'll now consider case number LDC26-002, will our county attorney confirm that the board has jurisdiction?

With regard to the second matter before the Planning Commission at this time for public hearing, specifically case number LDC26-002, an amendment to the Development Application Manual, which is part of the Land Development Code to address commercial radio service provisions. The record contains evidence consistent with the requirements of Chapter 5, Section 2 of the Arapahoe County Land Development Code, indicating that notice was provided via publication. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction to proceed with the public hearing this evening.

Thank you.

Please go ahead. Sorry about that. Um, so I'm here to present the case LDC 26, 0 0 2 commercial mobile radio service, uh, which is a transition. In September of last year, we amended our code to switch from CMRS to WCF. So to align the development application manual with that, we're coming back to amend the development application manual. So in May 26th of this year, the Board of Commissioners, through a study session, brought us back to you here now. So we're seeking a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission on this amendment, which is the transition from CMRS to WCF. There is a new fee for an eligible facility request, which is a new process that was adopted in that code. So now we lay it out in this section. There's an amended fee schedule, and we're asking to proceed to the Board of Accounting Commission County commissioners for public hearing. Um, so this amendment, uh, retitles the CMRS regulations to WCF and establishes specific rules for eligible facility requests. Uh, it establishes review criteria for the eligible eligible facility requests and non eligible facility requests. It adds a new process in the dam for these EFR as they're called. It covers the fees, streamlines the submittal requirements, and it ends with an EFR determination letter. And in the end, that's what the fee is for, is to get that EFR letter. That's what you're paying for. So it adds flow diagrams, introduces a shot clock to each case, and sets fees for eligible and non-eligible facilities. This does not affect provisions of WCF and the right-of-way. Those are in a separate section of code that should not be on there. So here's an example of the flow chart for an eligible facility. REQUESTS, WE HAVE BEEN PROCESSING THESE BECAUSE THE CODE WAS ADOPTED LAST YEAR AND WE'VE BEEN GETTING THESE REQUESTS. THESE ARE JUST MINOR MODIFICATIONS THAT THERE'S SIX CRITERIA THEY HAVE TO MEET, AND IF THEY MEET THAT SIX CRITERIA, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEM. AND SO FAR, WE'VE HAD NO CASES WHERE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. But we have not been charged with a fee and that's what the idea is coming up with a fee for that and the recommended fee is $645 Here is an example of the eligible facility request form that you get and that's the six criteria under Determination criteria that have to be met in order for us to approve them. We provide them a letter after this this is for on private property it really hasn't changed uh... but this is a new flow chart for that there is a shot clock uh... there's a timing issue and the fees are remaining the same for it's just the title of it is slightly different so when we started looking at fees we went to called other jurisdictions or checked on their websites to see the fees and uh... we elected not to go with any of these we actually went with the fees that it costs for a planner and a planner tech to process this, because we kind of documented how much time it took. So we're recommending $645 to be the fee for this eligible, excuse me, EFR, I'm going to start saying. If I stumble on that one more time. And then we amended the fee schedule to include these cases, as you see here, There's a, it'll be added on to that. When you go to our website, you can click on wireless communication facilities and you can get to this regulation. Down there in the corner you see wireless communication facilities and that EFR request form pops up automatically. So with that, There are alternatives if you guys wanted us to do more, but we are recommending approval or your support of this proposed amendment to the Development Application Manual. With that, I'll take any questions you may have.

Are there any questions for staff? Go right ahead.

This commissioner saw a Ernie. I'm just curious, uh, with regard to the different fee schedules that you posted for the different counties, why so much variability? And I get that you guys calculated it according to a man hours that would be required, but I'm just curious, why is there so much variability between the different counties?

Well, I will say upfront, it was tough to get them by phone call. So I just went on the website and did the best I could. But in the end, I relied on Matt, which he said, you know, we should just rely on what we charge. And if you notice in Larimer County, they have a number that's a little more realistic. 688 70 that kind of shows that they probably did the same thing with their fees. They. They calculate based on time. I can't tell you how the other ones arrived at theirs. I do know other cities, it's quicker. They do them pretty quick. I think Denver's one of those. You can get them faster. We're doing them in about a week. And we have not had any that did not meet the criteria. So it's been just a matter of preparing the letter, which it does take a bit of time to do that.

Okay, thanks, Ernie.

Okay, go ahead.

If I could just add to what Mr. Rose had explained to you. So fees are something that are very controversial in Colorado, but they're also governed by the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or commonly known as TABOR. And if you have a fee that exceeds what it actually costs to process something, then you're going into the area of a potential tax. So when I see that kind of variation among fees, and given my just past experience with previous jurisdictions, I would speculate that some of those are priced high and maybe were not based on a study of the actual costs and the time it took to develop those and those would give me concern if I was the attorney for one of those entities. But you also often see fees that are low and that's often a decision made by municipalities to try to be competitive with jurisdictions around them, but typically it's in the context of trying to attract facilities or attract some sort of development. This isn't something that's necessary, that kind of development where like, oh, we want a whole bunch of these eligible facilities. So that's not something you typically incentivize, and with lower fees, or lower the fee based off what, to something below what you would expect to pay based on your study. But that's just some background there, so just kind of general fees. We don't want to go up higher, because then we get into what's a tax, because you're bringing in money for general revenue, and it's only supposed to pay for the processing of the application, our costs. Thank you for that.

Chair Miller, I have a question. This is Commissioner Latsis. Would it also be something potentially, you know, because I know just looking at like building permits as an example, jurisdictions based on how they choose to implement certain aspects of the codes may have more requirements and it takes them longer to review things. Do you think is that potentially part of the discrepancy between what you've determined the hours required are versus some of the other jurisdictions?

I called a few of them, and they seemed to want to get them done quicker. Because a lot of this is based on we have to get it done quicker because of the code we adopted. So there's not really a... Everybody tries to get it done as fast as they can, but I don't know how they arrived at their fees. Littleton's was surprising, very high. I got that off the website. As much as I did, I tried to call people, or I'd look on the website, and these are the fees I found. That's the one outlier that's a little, but I don't know, maybe they have... different requirements, I don't know. Okay.

So you think procedurally you're all pretty close based on state requirements?

Oh, I can tell you, yeah. It's, yeah, yeah. I think we're right on spot with ours, yeah.

Okay, great. Thank you.

All right, very good. Thank you. All right, so we can open this up to public. We have nobody in the room. Do we have anybody online?

We have no one online.

All right. Thank you. Then we're going to go ahead and close public comment.

All right. Okay. I have a, I have a question though, real quick here.

All right. So I was like looking, so reading through, um, the, the, the meeting minutes of May 26th, 2026 to the board of County commissioners, there's a list of some questions and it doesn't look like there's answers. So I thought I'd just ask, um, One of the questions here was, does staff, I guess you're saying that. Okay, so is there any foreseeable adverse consequences with anything that the county is involved with pertaining to wireless facilities? It seems to be a question, but I'm just trying to, I mean, that's on page three of three, the way I read them.

I don't have that document that you have. No, that's fine.

What's that? Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Matt.

Mr. Chair, are you reading from the meeting minutes summaries from that? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay. It just seems like there's actually a lot of questions in here. Well, not a lot. I mean, there weren't a bunch, but... A commissioner asked regarding the eligible facilities and what the community input has been. Commissioner also asked about the location of the facilities and the eligibility criteria. So I don't know if these are like ones that you're addressing in here. Mostly I think the one that stood out to me was just really the commissioner asked if there's any foreseeable adverse consequences with anything that the county is involved with pertaining to wireless facilities.

All right, so these were the minutes from that meeting in May. And I'll just say the different entities have different ways of taking minutes. So I do see that some of those comments, there were questions that were asked. It doesn't really document what the responses were from staff at that study session. And I don't know if that study session would have been recorded and be available for review. So I'm sorry I can't be more or give you any more detail about what might have been said at that meeting beyond what I see here in the minutes.

Then if I'm asking, is there any foreseeable adverse consequences with anything that the county is involved with pertaining to wireless facilities? I would say no. Thank you. We'll make that just done right there then. I won't stress out any of the other ones. All right. We have nobody to testify. We're done there. Are there any additional questions? Did you have any other comments? I do not. Very good. All right. At this time, I will accept a motion in this case.

Chair Miller, this is Commissioner Latsis. I'd like to make a motion. Go right ahead. Okay. Let's see. So in the case of LDC26-002, Development Application Manual Amendment, I have reviewed the staff report, including all exhibits and attachments, and have listened to the staff presentation and any public comment as presented at the hearing, and hereby move to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Development Application Manual as presented in the staff report, subject to following recommended conditions number one.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT Thank you. Is there a second?

Chair Miller, this is Commissioner Howe. I second the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Howe. Any other comments on this at all? Very good. All right. With no further discussion, Ms. Molling, will you please conduct the roll call vote?

Commissioner Howe.

Aye.

Commissioner Latsis.

Aye.

Commissioner Saul.

Aye.

Commissioner Wolf.

Aye.

Chair Pro Tem Salve.

Aye.

Chair Miller.

Aye.

The motion passes 6-0 on a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Curran absent and excused.

All right, thank you very much. All right, so now we'll go into just some general business items, which is the planning, commissioning, bylaws, and procedures. So this is just kind of an open discussion. Everybody received a copy of the bylaws. If you've read them, if you've got questions about them, I don't know if it's the first time you've seen them. They were redone when? You got the date on there? I think 2020. So it wasn't all that long ago, but... When I reviewed them, I just saw some things in there that seemed that they might still be outdated, but we've kind of changed how we run our meetings that kind of cleared that up. But I'm just looking at it, and like in my email, I'm just looking at how we have our officers. You know, we talk about there being a stipend, but it's not in the bylaws. So if it needs to be there, we can put it there. We can talk about term limits because the term limits aren't in there. So we really don't have term limits other than it's just suggested. Right? It's in state statute. Pardon me?

It's in state statute.

It's in the state statute.

Correct. I'll double check, but I believe it's in state statute.

Because I see on some others, I mean, I see where some people have been serving on some boards. a lot longer than that, even within our own county. So that's why I look to the county, I look to see who actually has bylaws and who doesn't. There's actually quite a few that don't. And some are really old, and some have terms, but there's people that have been on boards for, I want to say like a long time, but I think there could be employees too of the county that get put on a board and then they're left there for a while. So I guess that's all I was looking at is if we can address that. And then, because I was looking at it that if, you know, if I wish to continue after my term, I wouldn't mind having an ability to come back and serve again without being disqualified. And so that's what I'm looking to put into the bylaws. something like that. The pay, if you want to put the stipend in there, I noticed, I've looked at other bylaws that talk about no pay, but expenses can be covered. So, you know, I mean, that's why I say, that's why I was thinking, it's like, we could have a chance here to kind of mull some things over, change some things. And that's where I'm headed. So please, if anybody's got any other ideas, this is just all open.

Yeah, Matt, I was just wondering, What Randall was just suggesting about if a person would like to exceed their term limit, but is the state statute or whatever you're talking about, does that supersede what Randall's suggesting?

Yeah, I'm looking for that, but yes. So your authority with regard to bylaws as to how you operate and how you function, but the Board of County Commissioners still has a role with regards to what... how you're appointed and when you're appointed, and that's pursuant to state statutes. So I'll look that up while you have your discussion. And I'm happy to have discussions about things that you'd like to do. We just gotta make sure that it's compliant with what statutes allow and what the board has authorized as well. But your authority to create bylaws in terms of how you operate your meetings and stuff like that, that's what bylaws are for. as opposed to establishing what your terms are or what your authority is.

So, Matt, this Commissioner Latsis, which then kind of begs the question. So, you know, let's say you've completed your three terms and you're basically keeping the seat warm until a commissioner either, you know, gets elected or makes an appointment. Is that legal, then, if the state statute says you've got three terms and things?

My recollection of state statutes is that it allows for that extension until a new person is appointed, and that's what the Board of County Commissioners has – that has been their practice, consistent with that.

Okay. Second question, and this might be in their bylaws. In this, I'm going to be a little bit candid here. We had a couple of – Commissioners who were kind of removed suddenly or, you know, I would say my perception as a planning commissioner were maybe their volunteerism was not treated with maybe appropriate gratitude and they were summarily removed with not much notice. And I don't know if the BOCC's bylaws have anything about how they appoint people in how they manage that process?

MR. The BOC does not have bylaws. BOC does not have bylaws. So I really can't comment on that, whatever their practices have been. So I'm sorry. I just don't have any information on that.

It's Commissioner Howe. I have a quick question. So are we considered volunteers if we're being paid?

I would say that you are. I mean, the stipend is really designed to cover the cost of transportation and part of your time. It certainly doesn't compensate you for that actual time that you spent. So I think the

Your involvement is very much voluntary in that regard. And that's common.

I don't know any jurisdiction that actually where there's any profit to be gained by serving on a board or commission. With regards to term limits and looking that up, I know, so the state statute requires or says a term can't exceed three years. It does allow that extension while someone is being appointed, but the number of terms is actually something that would have been set by the Board of County Commissioners. So I'd have to look up that resolution. I don't know where that is located, but I can look for that as well.

Okay.

Well, to tag on to what Commissioner Latsis was saying, and Jason, maybe this is more for you as a procedural issue, that I know you sent out something for the last person that left, but maybe to have more of a period where we have a process so that we know we're not surprised and neither is the commissioner surprised, and some sort of transitional procedure?

Not to sound too repetitive, but that's managed by the Board of County Commissioner's Office. I will say, I was a planning commissioner for nine years in the city of Littleton, and they had a very clear process. Every year, applications are due on the same day. Every year the interviews occur on the same dates and the appointments all occur on March. The way the Arapahoe County is set up, so in that scenario you generally know when to expect decisions. The terms in Arapahoe County are more rolling. The appointments are when appointed. So some members of the Planning Commission were appointed in April or May, some were appointed in the autumn. So it really depends, and as Commissioner Latsis mentioned, her term has technically expired, but she's continuing to serve, and I personally appreciate you continuing to serve, but you're under no obligation to do so. And it's when the board finds someone who's willing to serve in the role of planning commissioner. They will place it on their consent agenda to approve. It's something that I will continue to ask the commissioner's office to give some lead time on because in the past sometimes I find out about the appointment by looking at the Board of County Commissioners agenda.

Jason, I appreciate that explanation. I wasn't trying to beat up on you or anything.

I totally understand your feelings, so thank you.

Another topic. And, Matt, this is for you. I know we've talked about executive session from time to time. Should a procedure regarding executive sessions be included in our bylaws since that is procedural? No.

You know, again, you have authority to dictate how you operate. And while executive sessions are regulated by state statute in terms of what can occur in executive session, as well as how many members of the body are required in order to enter executive session, you could have additional procedures if you want. But ultimately, there's not much procedure involved other than a motion to enter the executive session, some clarity as to the purpose of the executive session, even if it's to receive legal advice, there has to be something in the record to make sure that it's related to what's happening in the meeting, and then a vote. And you need a two-thirds majority, a super majority, to enter into executive session. So I don't know... We could always add something to the bylaws if you deemed it necessary. I just don't know that it necessarily would be. But it's certainly something that I want the members of the board to be aware of, or the members of the commission, rather, to be aware of. So I could see adding it for that awareness perspective.

Well, and that's what I was kind of thinking because it happens so infrequently. And yet if it does, I'd like to be able to go and look and say, oh, yeah, that's how we do it.

I was going to say, when I joined, I got this legal issues pamphlet. It's got about everything in there. It's pretty information.

It sounds like sacred, and you shouldn't let anyone see it.

Yeah.

I can tell you that in other jurisdictions where I've worked, we've done trainings and stuff like that with our planning commission, our board of adjustment, our city council, and it was a municipality. But those are extensive when they do occur because it's There's so much potentially covered to talk about how to analyze cases, how to apply approval criteria, things of that nature. But also to touch on things like executive sessions and when that can be done. And I don't know what the county's budget is to facilitate that kind of training. or to compensate for that time that that takes. I just don't know if that's in the budget at all or if I should be mentioning it. I should even be saying that. But I will say that when there are things that if there's training things you want to do too, we can always do that. And I know that that's something that can supplement what's in the bylaws and help have a refresher. So to Commissioner Saul's comment that he has an old document that's provided to him, we can put something together as well if there's something that you need, if there's topics you want to have addressed in a handbook of some sort. There's also... Publications that are available that I can track down from different entities that work on behalf of counties and even municipalities that address quasi-judicial hearings and things of that nature.

I'd be curious about our two newer, I know, Brooke, you're not that new anymore, but I'd be curious to get your feedback from the two of you with regard to Handbook, training, et cetera, where are you at with that?

Yeah, I mean, I'm new enough that I don't know what I don't know, right? And so I think I didn't receive anything coming in to have any idea, like, what am I getting into or what does this look like? Or it was just when I came to the initial meeting to see, like, how things operated. So I think some sort of handbook or information about here's the order of events and here's how things happen and, all that sort of stuff would be helpful. Yeah, we used to get a training.

Yeah, that would be very helpful. It was like a one or two hour thing.

And then Jason had done a memorandum that was really good on location and extent and state statutes and gave a lot of background information too.

Anything else?

I don't think so. I guess when I joined, I spoke with Jason, so I felt, and I leaned on my fellow commissioners, so I think, but I'm always open to more. More is more. It's more, so. But I had, like I said, a great conversation with Jason and great commissioners to lean on, and yeah. Okay.

So I'm going to guess that it sounds like we've got like two little things kind of going on. One, there is maybe a little bit of a training issue when it comes to understanding even our authority or processes of meetings. Because like, you know, I got a handbook too, so I don't know why they would be missing handbooks over here. So I had to come in for I think it was like at least four hours of training at some point. I remember doing that. So we have that, and then if I can pull it back to the bylaws just a little bit. I mean, if we read through these bylaws over the next couple months, I am not in a rush to change anything. I'm just really trying to look to solidify some thoughts and ideas on how we govern this body and how much authority we have, and the bylaws will probably dictate that. So I'm going to say that if we do have thoughts or ideas to change those, Would you two gentlemen be the people we need to submit those changes to for you to look at and say, let's tweak this, or it's already covered over here, or yes, let's throw that in there. Let's fix a bylaw issue.

Yes. Yes.

All right. So then I would suggest then we just kind of read through those bylaws. I would say read other bylaws within the county because that's how I got to looking and understanding what ours actually have. Lots of detail.

I would just say it's really only those boards or commissions that – well, I shouldn't say it. I need to be careful if I say it. Those boards and commissions that are created by state statute, that are required to have by state statute, such as the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission, those are the more formal and have authority under state statute. We're always trying to make sure that we operate within that authority. The Board of County Commissioners may create other committees and boards to do other things, and they may have bylaws, they may not. As a matter of fact, our Board of Adjustment, even though it's a statutory creation, does not currently have their own set of bylaws. So it's something that's on the work project that I know our zoning administrator is working with Jason on as well. So

Thank you.

But a lot of these things kind of, in terms of public meetings, can kind of run on their own. But it is helpful to have those bylaws and have those procedures and stuff. So we're absolutely willing to help in any way we can if there are needs you want to or things you want to address in those things or in the bylaws. I don't want you to be hesitant in that regard. And I would also say that if you ever want to have training on a topic or process or something to reach out to Jason or I and I'm happy to provide that stuff as well and do those kinds of things. I've spent long weekends with city councils doing that in the past. I never enjoyed doing it on a weekend, but that's, you know, in municipalities, and I use that example because unlike a county commissioner's, municipalities also has volunteer, you know, city council members who get a stipend that is just kind of in addition to what they're doing all day long at their regular day job. So, you know, you're in the same situation as those persons in that regard. So, you know, we'll find times to make it work if that's what we want to do.

I have one more thing. In your memo to us, you had said one of the items was consent agenda procedures and appropriate use. Can you elaborate on that?

Maybe, if I can remember.

If it's still a concern.

Oh, the consent agenda? So the way we were doing it is we were creating, so a consent agenda should be minutes of the meeting. It's pretty much all we have. So when we did, when we stacked these up and we had like three of them, We could have just done all three at one time and been done, but we had like a changeover in personnel and an understanding about whether or not you can even vote on these if you weren't there, which the answer was, yes, you can. You just have to go listen to the meeting. Right, so this should be a consent item, not a item, correct, yeah, not like an individual item to be done. And that's why I was asking about it, because to me that would be, these should be a consent item, not an actual agenda item. So we were calling them agenda items, and then we'd break them down individually. That's what I say. I mean, when I was looking at it, I was like, okay, we've got terms in there that we're not really using correctly, so we either need to adopt how we're running a meeting, or we can take consent items out, and that's fine, too. And that just cleans it up as well, because we don't need to have them. I mean... That's it. We're not approving a budget. We're not approving time off. We're not approving anything like that. So those things don't really come into play for us like a consent item normally would in a meeting for a board of directors.

Yeah, I would just say, for example, when you have multiple minutes, when you haven't had a meeting in a while, then it's the perfect kind of thing to stack those on a consent agenda, one motion to approve the items on the consent agenda. What you see with the Board of County Commissioners, you're going to have 12, 15 items on a consent agenda. And those are all designed to be things that are not controversial, that are more perfunctory in nature almost. Or just comment and just, you know, so the Board of County Commissioners might do that even with an easement they're granting or something like that because it's just not a controversial issue because it's required for a utility or something like that. So you're not going to have public comment and complaints about it. It doesn't require a public hearing. So, but if you only have one, you know, minutes from one meeting, then it'll still be minutes from a meeting to be approved.

So I would just suggest, just as our staff does, take a look at other counties and what they have for minutes, see if there's anything in there that you're like, hey, that looks pretty cool, let's bring that over. You're like, yeah, we've got way too much in our stuff already. But however that is, that's fine. I just wanted to open it up to the group. Like I say, I'm not in a hurry to do anything. We can leave it as an item. If some people want to bring it forward, by all means, just, I think all we need to do, really, is just copy me and, I would say, staff and our attorney's office, and that should be enough to get something on the agenda for our next coming meeting. You guys can add to the agenda as well. No different than what I did. We just need to notify the right people to do it. Does that make sense? Is that right, guys? Very good.

All right.

Then I will finish with number four. Number five will be announcement. Do we have any announcements from staff?

Yeah. Hi. This is Molly. We will have on August 4th a study session. And that's going to be for group homes, and that's a land development code amendment. And that's it.

All right. We're all good. We're adjourned.

The Access Live event has ended.