Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.03301987 � ,q .�.��w:.:5' R '' �7;��Yp '•• . ..._. . . .. . . .: .....,. .�- _. � . . - . � ��u,w .2�.." .. . . � : . . • ° �` �� " .r[}��' . i`'� `:� �. � �` t'�"l'�.. y,t � ��C. L � i .Y�,1 . y'. . r -�-��. �i . �� n 4 ' �! � .�:� f� h .. +�;y�, � ��� �"�'�i''�'� *,� �i , �, � t '� �"`f"'k fy�: 'Y7� ��`���Y �� { �,�� _. .3'�k- - ;,,=, , �_�:�.� �, i�#��#SpTURC�RY MRRCH 28 — 5 a-m- MeEt Scott M�Innis at terome , BOfiRD OF C4�JNTY G'OMMISSICihtERS f:..'.s. �•..`_ i, �,_ - 1 F'_ ; WGI2Y. �EtiSION �. � _:.,-r MONdRY MflP•CH 30 '`j '1:00 a•m• P��blic Hearins and ?nd t�eading ��ode F:evision F'1an �1 . � fr_ontinued). �_indy Nuuhen _,._� �:. �Yi::`? ;, 10:�0 fl•M• BFtEAK �; ,:��:�� �v -=:;`�: 11:4� RE�OLUT I UNS fttVD C�1NTRt�CT� �. j,,`{�,,., c3t._�rn Subr.livision E^�:ernption, Franr_is Krizmanich ;�:r:._j 12:00 LUNCH 6REftK ^ - � 1:30 Hirpo�t Gornmunity Warl:sl�op F'roposal, Tom Clal:� . �~��� "e`" 2=00 HirFort T_•rrninal R/� sel�ction — v+ork aession �`•°?`k; �:�view short I ist y= , Esta61 ish sta3e tivo F•roc�ss �; i;�<?i ^r.�_onclary 3�al�r_tion Crit�ria, i.f any :,�}:: �h�` 3:15 P-M• EFcERK 4 �'^:�. .Y,;, r,�,;. 3:30 C�ontinu�. HirF•nrt T�rminal dis�_+�ssion y� i� v;'4;;� 5:00 RD��OURN : ''.'� � ';� ` a � .� ,� n�. "'F � '%�'��Y,. . . j �y�h��� : � �'' 4 ��'. 7 L � �D� �� ;� .� ,�nj . � ,_._�.. .,-...a��,. „ •,�LL;: ..::{ ` : �� . : .. .,,. ... ,. . . _ +�„ (�L .. �xY..�i`.�=�� � .� . . _� =t:{4',fY�:, . i��..,.;.�_,.5:. • 't:1��:�_'i:...N-. . . r�;;;�_,r„�::_ . � , _ , '�r.o. + ' ' , � .s�;; . .�' � ' �u'S:�`.:?, . . . . � w�r�S;!�'' - � . . . � . ''.��.�C"x�;a,'a.���, . . � �sr'i1-�1° � � � ;��,�r•;;' :,����:�,' '°�2�i�i , t� 4`•'�'�t, � `{*`,p,.r.�� .����� � � .• .r•,_:. ,,, _�„�. � r��,'�-< .,. .., _. . . . ., .._ ,. " ( '`,,yt{i �r j�s �y.���M s��t '�� h�a� � .'�� . M• . :t;�' �� rT s4 ' ., ey� t�� y .S'4��"'"y�S�J,'��''�,�}i��.^�ri�fi�'k��� � '���+StJ� .. �` p •'��' ,t � ; 54�t a..s�1ty�� � 3 .-. r�':_.��;��w��`,�.h 3��PM7.�.(cc�� ..>�`a�N��1����� r. ..'��"s� .'�tt�;Y� :�y�a�.. ��`��i��8't'�{ �`���:p n� .t� . G,�s';;a"- .. , Approved 04-27-87.BOC ^ �7I3�f���ltitY�l�li��€AR1t3��€lf1l�€#1�Rl��1�1[l€�1I��f1����1CA€�E��€35���€��0�1�iY�H������ PITKIN COUNTY ' HOARD OF COUNTSC COrIl�SISSIONERS MINUTES ` •; - SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 30 1987 ,� v , PRESENT: GEORGE MADSEN, COLETTE PENNE, TOM BLARE, BOB CHILD, AND ,;,�',,':, `- FRED CROWLEY _ _�' �€��€ffik€1€1[�€�Ai€��3�MR��€�€��l[��16�������€�4��[�il[��ffi�ffi�€��€��ffi�E1f�lI1���S[��Il���� ?�'%, George Madsen opened the meetinq at 9:10. J`�� •t;,,..,' : There was a brieP discussion reqarding the sequence and timing of �'n;•:�y..' the afternoon's agenda. •`�,�;'i ,.: T PIIBLIC HEARING � SECOND READING (CONT.1 OF CODE REVISION PACKAGE `° #1 - Cindv Houben (9:15AM) •! Peggy Seeger and Jim WiZson £rom the Building Department were in attendance. Peter Guy, Chairman of the P&Z Commission, was also there. Cindy Houben explained that the major revisions for today's meeting concerned a) a tightened timeline for review schedules, and b) procedures for properties obviously lying outside a 1041 hazard. The neca review schedule appeared on Page 6, (3) of the , resolution. Page 8 of the resolution had the "minor review" revisions. � Houben expressed some concern that a drawback of the new procedure may be that the applicant is not as informed of what is t required, as the procedure has been made more informal. � Penne felt that the Planning OfPice could and should be able to ' outline the necessary procedures for an applicant, to avoid an �t.-_ "incremental" review process. wherein some requirements might ;;; take the applicant by surprise. Penne expressed her confidence ' in the Planning Staff to be able to handle this in a fair and � ; appropriate fashion. :��. Alan Richman explained that his department's internal timing for � { such procedures will have to be coordinated in such a way that the applicant's deadlines and meeting dates can be handled - ^ ;��., efficiently, with the goal being to get the applicant through the "�'��� .:.�_4�-:., process within a couple weeks. He promised to set up parallel F{��`,� administrative procedures to match the Board's timeline (E'{�\![ +�: `'^*':�.%�1+'.:. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 MARCH 30TH, 1987 � �:�,. , � �a;' i ,� f, i � � ���. . . _ _ . : , . - . , _ �; . , .:,<;;-`-. . � ._;,;. , , ,,<�.:.,,.:::. _ <�� �.;. :=;' `.R ` ` � %�` : ` , .. ,�. . . ., . ... �F t ,. � ��i���'� ��'�+������'a��}���'� �� ''`�' ��4.. r� ,x . 'w y x. ,� x�'�. ;�+,�� �3 * � ��� Ga ��������k..vi.���*_�.r�`���t�?`''�:�t :� ���xr'��:i�:ax��.` .��� ' _ :?�:�i�4���.'k��...7.5� _. requirements for reviews. Bob Child mentioned the importance of a careful log or record procedure, even though the process is being made less formal. Penne brought up a question regarding §5-400.2 on Page 2. The `�""''' � Planning staff, after some discussion, agreed to clarify the �F�.� � language of that section. On Page 5 (3}, Penne questioned up the $5,000 exemption issue. ,' _ With some discussion, including comments from Tom Smith, County ` � Attorney, it was decided to leave the exemption as is. Fred Crowley expressed his feeling that there were "too many �'.` people in the loop." Might it not be possible to simplify the ,:.• , irocess? For instance if Rand Cote makes a recommendation, �` sn't if possible to leave the m tter at that? Once the experts ��.• have made their recommendation, why do we need more of a review �'. i••�,` -�. � procedure? � � Crowley was more than willing to shift the responsibility to the { staff of the Building Department, or the Zoning Department, for these decisions. i . Tom Smith felt that a review process of some sort was necessary, ; especially where some debate or disagreement was involved. l Houben responded, in part, that the Planning Department often felt that more requirements should be made of applicants than those mandated Randy Cate, for instance. � This topic was discussed in some depth, with many of the Board . � members eacpressing their feelings that the experts should not be given the direct authority for these decisions. Most of the j board felt that the experts' opinions should be taken into consideration, but that the County must retain the authority to � review and decide these questions for its applicants. � Smith felt that the Building Department should be making only non-discretionarv decisions. Mitigating hazards, he felt, was i � the duty of the Planning Department and/or the P&Z Commission. �1 Crowley solicited Peggy Seeger's opinion regarding the new revisions to the review process. Seeger said that she was unconvinced that the new procedures '�� ::: would be any faster or more efficient for the applicant. She ` ' '�- expressed concern that an applicant would have to wait for two 60 � , day review periods, for instance, according to the new revision. �`;J ,r,."; . �,;: : With some further discussion, it was agreed that the procedures ' : � ,,� were simplified for many applicants. Those whose building ;; -.�iy: �:� x:. •�^ �„� �-- BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 MARCH 30TH, 1987 ' �'�:: :e +� �+ I' _ -"Qr -.- . . .. . . . . , - -_. �1�'� .. .. �...- ,. i ,,,_ � . _ . .. . . , . - y�.� ...., -. . ._ . . . . .. .. . - . . -..:1�. , . . . . �'�:t,�:` ' _ � . _ _ r ,;l;. , �Y�: _.'~�.'�Y:�::�?,��'i - l.+ �L°:..�-i . ;_�; _ ,` s 3r -;�" .� 1,�'f .... . _ . . :. .. _. ... .. . . �}�k'� t . � ��N�aJ�'r . . ' -.'€EA}5w y,e�.y. 1 U5,�7+�b1�'� t � y'�`�z� i �.fpi��i � � ' � + �. � rti�'f��9 a�'{�r�� ��id'i�l�` ,�,�r�,��X����� '}jrj 5 y�.;�c A�1a yA��� ���(j�}.�� a}1,��l. t�l �y , � '�!�r ��'��i�1� w.r,' ..e7W��. '¢�l, d 1 . ei.aR•+3:"C .fYa��I�M�fY�'�i�fLyN .�1�����F�serk��4yut. �::�w._> 'j.'._..1. �� b�.�..__... ��_ '7� tY . . envelopes (and "development areas," i.e. road accesses to the envelope, etc.) did not encounter hazards could skip the 1041 . review process, and submit only to this "minor review." `i. .-` The inadequacy of the County maps was again discussed. Crowley =� - was concerned that the Building Department should have the best I<�;:-�'_� possible maps, in order to determine the hazard areas. Penne said that she would like to see the resolutions presented ��� '. with the Planning Office�s memo, to avoid two two-week periods of waiting by the applicant. :j Blake mentioned that the procedure used to be implemented in that way, until the Northstar matter was reversed. Tom Smith mentioned that in the very controversial applications, this would �.:� : not be appropriate. - ��: ' Penne didn't disagree, but suggested that on the simple, non- �� " controversial applications, this procedure would be much more ;`' ` .. • desirable, as it affects the waiting period for the applicant. i =:i Penne asked, regarding Page 6 (3) (ii) of the resolution, if the `� 60 day period for the P&Z action couldn't be reduced to 30 days. � � ft. � Richman responded that the time would be diPPicult to shorten, i• ,� considering legal noticing requirements, Code regulations, etc. � ,;� Jim Curtis clarified that the BOCC has been taken out of the � review process, except as a Board of Appeals, for the P&Z. Thus, ; the P&Z review becomes a "one-step" process. Few applicants � ; would experience the double 60 day review period, unless they ! were appealing a decision of the P&Z. � ;� � The discussion regarding the reliance on expert opinion was � rekindled. During the discussion, Madsen stated firmly that the experts' opinions should not be given an undue weight. He cited ' some examples wherein the opinions may not have been completely � reliable. He also pointed out the liability of the County, � regarding the decisions it made in such matters. t �� There was some discussion that a reduction on disclaimers and '•� � "hedging�' by the experts, in making their written : recommendations, might alleviate some oP the County's burden .�; , regarding responsibility for the health and safety regarding the applicants' building envelopes. � .`: These experts should, according to an opinion expressed at the meeting, be backing their opinions with their professional � standing and insurance, including for example, the typical Errors and Omissions insurance. In this event, the County would not �;i� +-: ' bear the responsibility for an improper decision to allow ' 4a; . development, where the County was making a reasonable reliance on ;�'��''�';iT�- �"..`.;�'. BOARD OF COIIN'PY COMMISSIONERS 3 MARCH 30TH, 1987 ,''.�,�,� �,_ = .r. �_� �-: �. ��;t.t"_�TS�t. .,.. . . . . � .. . . . . • . � . � -- � s. �i .. • . --'- . _v,_,i= • ( -.:r�;�.=,,.�..�,•:+ ' ' . ;'S:_��� , . � .'�j,'_F- _ ' ,��. __ ` � —� �---�� "�`� . .._. � �,�� . ... a x-•� C1 f R ,� � � � N . .r ' ��o I ..�4 �S'��7��� Y��r 1�_�*3L���'}�������.��{ 1;`t'�1„�� . _,r_ .�r M. { �ht<.� �1�t.{ "•�,,7`.�,... w�� �2��'yr�{ry'}"4+!]'t�i�'�' �a;�?�'1'x,br.,x�.fF��sj��i�i"� � .�a . ... �'1p t y��. ,� .�+ t , - � . '�� ',� � i��'i���'�:�i�n:�, r .2. _ '�f" .. . ,. .. ' . �� "� .i..rt+';� ,. � _ . � �.... .. '���Y.3S�, ._ the data from the experts. Jim Curtis suggested that the procedure could be further . simplified by separating the "building envelope�� from other " development, such as a driveway. He felt that alI were agreed ��`� � that the building envelope should be reviewed, but that the 1041 �;'��°, hazards were intended to protect the people living on the r property, and that a driveway perhaps should not throw an l '' " applicant into 1041 review, in and o£ itself. „� There was a spirited discussion regarding the handling of roads and driveways, including the distinctions between the two. s; I f. .. Crowley pointed out that many of these concerns should not apply -�:�� to a single family house. A subdivision would naturally have to �' ' get approval for roads to and from the development. on the other 4' . hand, a single family house applicant should be able to put in a y . ,,� road, with as little review process as possible. F''. .:�� :`� �. . Guy mentioned that one man's drive, with further development, -:,-� becomes a road. :-:� After some further discussion, it was agreed that the "threshold" "1 for roads and driveways would be relaxed. ,,y# At 10:20AM, the Board agreed, with help from Tom Smith, on -`}�';� language for Page 5, adding an item (4) to the exemptions, covering roads and driveways. Roads and driveways, except when �,� proposed in geologic or floodplain hazard areas, are exempted from review. �_�{ Bob Child had a correction for Page l0 of the resolution, noting • a discrepancy of dates in paragraph 2. �'� ,s:3 A definition for County road #19 was again discussed. _��� It was agreed that the proposed changes take BOCC effectively _.a� "out of the loop" in most cases, and pull P&Z out of the loop in LLsJ:� perhaps 50� of the app2ications, which was agreeable to jus about ,, everyone. �;� Blake suggested that the revisions be implemented, and reviewed in one year. �:� It was suggested that the Code could be written in such a way as to establish standards for these various hazards, and thresholds that would put a property into review. It was generally agreed j that this kind of standard would be desirable. Tom Smith �:.-.: suqgested that the Board adopt the changes as they are today, and � . ,. � the staff would watch for the possibility of establishing Code standards for most of these hazard issues. �`" 1 �,. ;��«<.: .'�Y y' -::.� BOARD OF COiTNTY COrIIgSSIONERS 4 MA12CH 30TH, 1987 =' r` �: �� :..� ' c.., e.���' .. . . . � . ` . .� � . . . . � ... . ;F.._ _ . . . . . _ '" ' t ..'�;' � :�(`" ' :.t�' .:�.i:' ' ' . .-•?�;• _ « i. ` � �` � ; : +���..�� . . . . ,. . _... � t' ,."t' . ' . � w e �.* �°^� �a�: ti '��' . 4 �. �f���;���c'c� �,�����,��,�^1.��������yJ"Yt�f3� 1 ��.�k�a� ��,���,:.�,� �7f�.��_f, � c � 4,w '��,E,`,�'K�� �} ��{��i�.:,.�'' �,����k"+�.�,, + . ,. '� .�...`�.,:a ��:_,'`�4���.�,���°�������,.���; ��� . . �,�`� . _ � . '.. ° `Y' .�'•,r«;� _ . Fred Crowley brought up a discussion regarding Page 9(d) (2) . Joe Edwards, spoke against the mid-review designation of an additional hazard, as did Gideon Raufman. (Both are local attorneys) . ;i;,.: ;'•' . After a good deal of Board discussion of this Special Procedures , issue, it was agreed to delete the phrase "during application �`' " review process." _,.� At 11:o0AM, Cindy Houben focused attention on the Employee - Housing section of the package. Page 18 had major revisions since the last reading. Also, the BOCC has been taken out of the i; � review process, leaving the Housing Authority as the final �. `'"' review. i�' :'•;; 1> Houben mentioned that Penne had asked that the applicant be - spared the double expense of having two appraisals for the -;'.1'�i property, (one at general submission, and one for final :�_� approval). Houben sai.d that she felt certain she could come up -•.� with the appropriate language to cover this. It may be possible .,..t_,� to settle for an "Opinion of Value," rather than an appraisal, which would be less costly for the applicant. '�`>:� Concerning the section covering the 75� of allowable density "'� (Paqes 18 & 19) , Alan Richman said that section (4) should also ?�?�� have a strikeover (cross-outj for the paragraph up until the word "purchase," which would begin the paragraph. Density reduction � J,;:� and employee housing should be treated as '�apples and oranges.�� ` x:,j Richman pointed out that he had argued against this language some 1 years ago with the Board, but a decision was made at that time to ;,_._.� retain the language. This Board had no objection to its ``� deletion. i;'`°� Responding to a question of Crowley�s, Richman mentioned that the Housing Master PZan will be coming mid-year. It was mentioned -�: that there would be considerable opportunity at that time for '�t:� further BoCC input regarding employee housing. .---:� ` �j Carolyn Raufman asked if the Board couldn't act on the package -::`j today, as she was concerned about how the revisions affect her proposed residential addition project, and the 30% exemption in ` '� the new package would benefit her situation. � ,. .� Tom Blake moved that the Board appXOVe the resolution with the i changes discussed at today�s meeting. Fred Crowley seconds. .i Cindy Fiouben asked that the motion include an OK for the Chairman ��-_��, , to sign for the Board, without additional Board review. The �' .4f�'' i motion was amended to include the approval of the Chairman's ; e�` " signing the resolution for the Board. F 3 �%` � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 MARCH 30TH, 1987 �" '�' � f , "=:� ;:�•'� . + ' '�;. _ . C. . .. . .. . .. �- . - . . . . _' t } .. � ' . . . . . . � . . . . :�r!C:: � . , 1:,'�: s . i v",1; �'.t';�: i(�:��i . :e h i. , ':;�'; ` s r - �,3� . , , _.._ .. . .. . .._..._._ � L'tr T;. , ,� . . - l ' � �}'*�l,`yhm.+r� �U�K�' ,�'r ' " �,liit..+� .,,� � �:�(r � t`� ������_.�'��5� �{' `` ��'Ya=r j" � �..t�. 4F�`,..�'� �'.''t �::�T.'�.' , w `q1 , , t� ���' .i��y'�u��^R r'rr�.Kc� � �asy .rx' � , � �� i'!. . . . : .� . . ��.�� ._ .. * �N.'�. �.. �� ����i��h 4��`"�� 1 ... F�� �. f F } � }. M y�. Madsen invited the public to make any further or final comments, � prior to closing the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Pat Dobie asked a question regarding caretaker units, as affected f by Page 20{c) . He suggested that the Board allow caretaker `"�; units, constructed and operated under the requirements of the . - Housing Authority, to apply towards satisfaction of the � requirements of the employee housing provisions of the Code. �, , Tom Smith expressed concern that employee housing, required as - part of the subdivision or GMP process, would go to increasing the density of the property, irrespective of zoning. :�: ; L• =�;;�;,, The Public Hearing was closed at 11:15AM. Bob Child asked that �:� = ' the matter, if approved by vote, be acted on immediately, for the e.:'_.� benefit of the people in attendance at the meeting, who had been s _ waiting so long for an action by the Board. Staff assured Child � `` �"�� that the matter could be ready for signature almost immediately •''�a� (the next day was mentioned). A vote on the motion �ras taken. - _`'i AIFMC. =.t �'';:'� A short break was taken. � - r^Ay At 11:35, Madsen reconvened the meeting. "• `'yr :`x,r;�� SUBDIVISION EXE[4PTION - STERN/ZIFF - Francis Krizmanich {11:35AP4) � Colette Penne moved approval. Bob Child seconds. AIFMC �f `� At 11:45, the special meeting was adjourned, and the balance of the agenda (airport issuesj for the afternoon handled as a work ,;.l,� session. :;',;� Respectfully submitted, �''� , / �;� � •-- , �J �-=' David Highland l-+� Deputy County Clerk ;; i . � , .:.�� �,:> ._� � : � jty': �. ..� �� 4 .'.i H� ';;-� BOARD OF COUNTY COMM.'LSSIONERS 6 MPiRCi3 30TH, 1987 ��,�' _i�~� �. ^.I � ;a�."�� , y� y,.�. 4. . :�,,... .. .... .:-'.. . ' ..... .- -...._... -,.:.:: . _�. ��.. . ,.._ . -�'` i,:- ' . -.:. ... ... �.��. ... . .... ... . _ �... . . . . tf �..ra.. . ..._ � -.� . �.�_. .. ..,`. ._j,!�3"�,v�i _ . ' . , r _ ' , � ,t��:; - ' . • .^�'�':,�!:.!���- . .. >�'*�.i:'q�-"y r: . ,',•,R>ntif:.�.:,`; • :�«x r"e':FS� .�!e,5 y. . . . Ni'�- i'7�?�i� `? .'',:�= ` �� . . *�'' _. . ., . _. � . . �. . � ,� . .. r; � �L ,{ y�,j+.�` �y�+r'��„p V�F, t' � 7'�< k'"� i,a �' �,'��i`j�!. . 1,. � �'' Z'� . . � '�;H i�� �•����'a.�. a '�• �'l'!• •� �,1: a,d ra�'�,�i . �°���, � ,�'.��1�����:y�.� 't , _ _�` .�, �- z��+�#� ,� ,�f,_, �. _�:�� �i��-`` ' x� . � . BURR� C�F f:UUNTY r�rMMiSSI4NE�S Gr ����I�E kEr_.i�Lf�R MEETING Fr:ErlGri ;.,_ ';!i; - MOhIC�RY� 23 FPRII.. 1587 (.'!.^ . � LRND USE �'�'`• . �:`- 5:00 a.m. First readin3 of arn��ndment ��acka3? :��•, i_indy Haul��_n - _,,,t 10:•?O H.M- FiRERf: y f-: ` 10:45 Publ ir HEarin� - f-,'e3ion 12 F'evul vin3 L_oan� R��pl ir_ai ion for �: . i F�.inds- Jol�n Hess C1/2 I-�r? � '� '°����1 11-15 Hurrter Crr_el: ��OI1CIOfi71111Uh1 PIa4- Cindy Noul�en � min. �;;. ��2:`:,+J Y �. �, 11=20 Reso{utions and r-ontracts ,;N�� Lazy l� F ina I PI at. Cindy Hu�.ib�n 1041 F:?g��lation/f_:ode Riir._ndrn�nt� L�indy Hr�ub�_n `":f:':� Residr_,ntial r.;i��ta =;y>t��rn Devr-loFrnent HF�pli�_ations from _Ii�nF 1 � � to Ci�cember 1: Hlan F;ichrnan ;`�'i'.,� F,esol�_iti.on rr._aF•��ointing E:ob Pietraak to P 2: Z �-� ":��-:� 11:3F, Holmes '3ubdivisiun F_:<:Vrn�•tion Lot I_in� Ftdjustm�nt- Francis , s;�j K.rizmanich 11� to 4� rnin. '�$�:� �"`i; 12:00 UJNCH BP.EflK -'-:j ._�:'i RDMINISTFtATIUN ''-�'''�., 1:30 .P-m- F'�_ibl ic C:omrn�nt � j--�� 1�45 BC�G�:/Mana3�r �:ornrn��nts 'T�;�� 2=00 RESCILUTI�]NS HNL� �QNTRRCTS � �' �4in��tes of E:�_�Cr_: 3-�:3-;7 rnF�tin3 +'?:` a+ertion 1�1 I.iplTfi Grant application F'�solution E.ruc� Rb��l 10 � rnin• C:rant liccess Easer,i�_nt to HsF•en Consolidat�ed '3anitation -i,:i �istrict.• Tum =�rnith � ivorrect :lurvty Errors in C:on=�rvation Easernc,nts granted L,y -� Jas.�ph �olin�. Tom Srnith - Hi.rport Terr�iinal 1=i/F =�election C:ontract: i3ary Esary 2:20 First RPadinv and Set for Pu61ic Hearina f!uit i=�airn de?da '?:s;:;'-.; �_orr��_tin;7 loratiun of Er�.ish Creek F,oad- Torn '?rnith � rnir�• '�,,':��:;N3:., �` �.�, �:25 i:ocJe Consultant Contra�_t �IV�ard> iilan Riclrrnan 1/2 huur 7�,: ;;� - �� :. 2=55 First keading 19=�5 �_:up�•lum�ntal f_,uclg�_t H��proF•riation� Lynn ?��^�.'�-`�,�`,.`: . `.� Ci��nloF• �• _' , ._.j 3:00 AdJUURN ' i �.. ;�:'� WORKSESSION ,.� 3:15 15��E• tiul'plem_•ntai Eud��t fipF�ro��rialion� Lynn C�unlop I Iio��r � . ...__ , � • � , _ _ -_ ���,:: . . ,^ -. 'c;�z�,a���=: ...._. � • , . ':��{4;� .: . . ^+�"': S�Cl _;��Y . `_ .:f.�y � h�y'�?;`k%s . . - . r � `-" . o .i.:, : r�,°sx::,:��� � . .,.y.y.�. . ... ��,�':.�.'�"a�..-�:::c(.1�.�� - . ��4'i•�"v.,:. . ��.�wr^.1. . . ... .� ; �: :ii;�.i.l:w . � t1���ti 1;y..�y- � _ . iA ��.�F:` � .