Okay. Okay. See, Lana. Did they get incorporated in these minutes? I did that were on all applications now or in a new venue? You mentioned that in the email. I think it's there. Well, it's about time to start. Yeah. This is one of the last. I'm not sure. She said it was last. Oh, we're ready? Yes. the one ready ready buck it is six o'clock we'll call this media to order this is regularly scheduled Monterey County Planning Commission for July 25th 2024 we all please stand for the scheduled Monterey County Planning Commission for July 25th, 2024. We all please stand for the pledge allegiance. My pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation and one God in indiv this whole with liberty and justice for all. Okay, I don't see any members audience here this evening. That may not be a totally good sign, but anyway. For those who have cell phones, please turn them off or turn them to a mute phase. I would like to, such as no public, I guess we can't thank them for being here. The Montrose County Planning Commission is advisory to the Montrose County Commissioners. All aged heard this evening will be forward to the commissioners for their final consideration. The chair will declare a quorum present. We have four regular members and one alternate this evening. You will be a regular member, okay? Okay. With that. All commission members have a copy of the minutes from the previous meeting. Are there any additions or corrections? Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a clarification on item number one orchard blossom. Maybe a question I know this was brought up previously that orchard blossom was. I thought it was stated last meeting that that was the last one under the old regs and this is saying that orchard blossom is one of the last so I just was curious as to a clarification there are we done with everything in the old regs. That was the last one. That's the last one. In terms of subdivision. In terms of minor subdivisions, yes, there's some preliminary and clients, some major subdivisions that keep getting extended, but in terms of minor subdivisions, that was the last one. Last of the minors. Okay. Okay. Is that a correction we need to make to the minutes? It also was one of the last ones. Yeah, it's okay. Okay. Okay. With that, since minutes have been reviewed of the Chair I make a motion to approve the June 27th, 2024 Planning Commission minutes as presented. I haven't made the motion. Dennis, seconded it. No, clip. Clip. Clip. Pardon? E.B. Clip. Clip. Clip. Okay. Cliff seconded it. And with that, if there's no further discussion, it's right in discussion on the motion. If there is none, we'll proceed to vote all in favor of a motion to approve the minutes from the June 27th meeting. Raise your right hand. Motion is passed unanimously. Second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second No public dishevening so we will dispense with the call to the public. And now proceed to. Item number one. Well, one thing we need to clarify. 11 o'clock rule will be enforced. If it's at point in time, we reach 11 o'clock. We'll further discuss that most reach 11 o'clock. We'll further discuss that 11 o'clock rule. OK, with that, we'll move on over. There is no old business. So onto new business, minor subdivisions. The Woodlands minor subdivision. To Woodlands minor subdivision. Kim? Thank you, David. The Woodlands minor subdivision is an application to, that was supposed to divide three locks from 55-acre porcelain. The property is located on solar road west of highly quite big. The property is located on Solar Road west of Highway Highway 2. Lots of one and two from Solar Road and lot of three will share an access to Solar Road. Water will try county and wastewater will be subject in lots of currently being made. The proposal leads all county subdivision regulations and zoning regulations. I'm happy to answer any questions. You might have. Just for clarification purposes, the easement that runs between lots of one and two would access a lot of three. Is that how that is planned? That's right, that's good. That's a lot of green. Okay. I had a couple questions, but I think they were for the applicant. Let's see where the proximity to the MED canal, I just wanted for for the applicant. Let's see where the proximity to the M&D canal, I just wanted for any water issues, CP to drainage issues. Are there any further comments, questions for staff? We could look on photography for riparian growth on there. It would show you that there's any water seeping out. If we can, can we get the GIS photo of that? Sure. I'll give you a hint anyway. It's not going to tell you definitively, but it'll give you an idea. You're just need the person to move. I got one from your searching and I. You can click on the top of the tree. Yeah, you know I don't think she has any of that just yet. I wish I had it in the cover here. I'm just looking at it. I don't see any extensive right-barried willow or growth coming out of there. I just wanted to thought water tables on it, and to. They had to have a study done on it. So they should be okay there, but they're not in the place. Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to see on the big temperature? Anything else you want to see? Well, we just wanted to see if there was any obvious expression of willows or cottonwoods along that would imply water leakage, but it looks pretty clean to me. Looks like it's all farm ground, it's all marked out, like it's farm ground. Got water to it. I'm sure that you have water for it. Yeah. There's a few of it, most of it's to the south. Can you? Most of the land there. You can see on the bottom of the screen there's a little bit to the south. Yeah, it's almost like if there's any sea bit to the other side of it. Here. Okay. And then it does occur that we did get road dedication on this piece. On solar. On solar. Yeah. Okay. And it does occur that we did get road dedication on this piece. It's me. On solar. On solar. Yeah. Okay, very fluid discussion. Questions? I know this is an applicant that's not named on the map, but somebody had an Acidosis Texas. I get Fred to come. So anyway, all right, there for the discussion. If there is none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I would move to approve the Woodlands minor subdued. It's done the findings of fact listed in paragraph three of this report. Motion is made, is there a second? Second. Okay. Dennis made the move the motion buck seconded to approve the Woodlands minor subdivision. It's very further discussion on the motion buck seconded to approve the Woodlands Minor Subdivision. It's very further discussion on the motion. There is none. We'll proceed to vote. All in favor raise your right hand. Motion is patched unanimously. We'll be forwarded to the Montrose County Commission with a favorable recommendation. with a favorable recommendation. Come down to item number two, which is the Wild Horse Ranch's minor subdivision. Okay. Wild Horse Ranch is minor subdivision as an application that proposes to die 24.9 acres into three lots. The property is located on the quarter of Ocden Road and 6,800 Road. A lot more has an existing access from Lockton and lots two, excuse me, lots two and three. Their access will be established at site development. Water is going to be with tri-towny and wastewater with septic, lots two and three from lots and currently vacant. The proposal will meet all current regulations and we'll be answering any questions that you have. Would the county require shared access on those two lots off of 68? There's great potential for that. This is a proposed minor arterial. Some more than likely they will. It's just going to be handing on site development. The public works director didn't have any comment on that. So I can't remember the distance between access points out of minor Ontario, but there's 875 feet plus 400. A part. I mean, so that's 1200 E's for the parcel. But where we can have one access, it's for long term planning. We will require one access if it's necessary. That's it, okay. So on that same turn of thought, Oggin Road comes and makes that big curve end to 6800. And I noticed when I was looking at it, there's like a really big ride away right there at the corner where all of them makes the bend. So did we get any road dedication for 6800 road? Yes, ma'am. If you take a look along lots two and three, you'll see that it's 40 feet of road dedication. So the arterial will be, will you do 80 feet? So to the west is dedication of 40 and then whatever happens to the east side of 40. Would it be another four? Okay. All right. That's pretty close to city property too, isn't it? another okay. That's pretty close to city property too. Isn't this? It is. They responded with response with no comment. Okay. It's within the growth boundary though. I was going to say it is. It is. It is. It is within the three mile. There isn't a lot of subject going on. Even though you notice the city boundaries there, there's not a lot of subject going on. Even though you notice the city boundaries there's not a lot of confellatements. Brown to ranch is just self-final. Yeah, it's further than the 400 feet, those lots that you see in the pink. OK, that would be city too. And I have a note here that this falls south and west of Openfield Drive where we did have all of the septic issues where the city had to step in. Okay, so there's brown right. So open field drive must be open field. Yeah, it must be back in that out the light here. There's Sir Hassemoth, what's in it? Yeah, keep that there. Yeah, it's clear and there it is. Oh, there it is. That's the yellow one. It's clear, what it is. That's the yellow one. It's quite a way, the way. The yellow ones on the right are county. The blue ones on the right are city. I mean, that's the way. Really? Interim issues. A bunch of the subjects have been failed because they have been back when they weren't on the unit here. So they all failed in that area. But it's super long. So some of that subdivisions on septic and some is on server interest. Okay. So in other words, if they have to city sewer is within reasonable distance. Well, this is quite a way. I was going to say, everyone, can you scroll this up now that we found open field just so we've that perspective and gone far? It's Mack and Shail right now, which I think that the sewer run down the center of Ogden Road most away. Well, it does from Brown's Ranch, but that's, I don't know, I think the sewer run down the center of Ongin Road most of the way. Well it does from Brown's Ranch but that's, I don't know, does the city typically doesn't let the county hook onto that, do they? What's that? With the sewer from Brown's Ranch running down Ogden, they wouldn't allow county properties to have it. No, because we would annex it. They would annex it. Yeah, and keep in mind too, those blocks of it in. No. Because we would have to add it. They would annex it. Yeah, and keep in mind too, those lots of it are better combined. They're small, they're one acre lots. The one we're talking about here, of Clodton in 60, 800 is their significant allure large. Oh yeah, they got a lot to run. Oh, six, four, eight, four. Bill Big, we choose. Okay. Further questions or discussion among commission members? Okay, Linda. Okay. If there's no further questions or discussion, the chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve the wild horse ranch's minor subdivision. MI 24-013. Based on the findings of fact, listed in paragraph three of this report. Okay. I'll second. Motion is made by Lanarkin, seconded by Dennis Murphy. To approve the wild horse, ranch's minor subdivision. So a further discussion on the motion. If there is none, we'll proceed to vote. All in favor, raise your right hand. Most as patched unanimously. We'll be forwarded to the Montrose County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. I do need to back up here a minute. We have a new or different county attorney with us this evening. Marty Whitmore with the secivity. How much do you have any anything to add this evening? I do. Congratulations on the World Record Shortest Nightingale Fish and Meat. We have a little mascarpone. 20 minutes. Okay, second place, maybe. So we are going to set up a Zoom call. We have the consultant. It's going to be joining us virtually. And we'll be discussing the master plan a little bit. I'll walk through. Oh, I need to log in. Get a good one. Get a ready-night can log in. Or is it ready now? Just quick timeline. So we're looking to, I was on a call last week with the consultants and we're talking about when we'll have this, the final draft presented to you. They're proposing to present it to you on the 22nd of August the next one commission meeting I told I and I double checked I said that means we have to have it all the way done by the first August which is a week from today And they said I think we can get the turnaround done We sent them on your comments a couple weeks ago. So everything that was received for the last draft, they're fixing that. So they said, depending on how this meeting goes tonight, if we only have the changes to nodes, especially you stuff, things like that, they're confident that you can get it fixed up by Thursday. And if it's done by Thursday, that gives you the planning to wish on a ton of flexibility to... Here. Just, sorry. I'm going to start with the second. It's to adopt in August if you're confident with it to continue to September for adoption if you're still working to massage some things out. And the work time obviously adds in October so we even potentially continue to October. So that gives us three planning commission meetings to work with, so you got some flexibility there. But I think tonight with the discussion with Alicia is going to join us here. I kind of... Is that all working? We're going to set that all up here, but I kind of wanted to open it up to you all. If we want to wait for the consultant, maybe we do that first. Before we start talking about it. Just a couple of process questions I have are all the public comments from all the meetings and whatever incorporated already? Yes. Okay, that's all done. And today we're going to be talking about what comments we heard from the last set of meetings. Okay. As you're deciding, a couple of, most of the big ones were related to nodes, especially uses of general and renewables. So I figured those were going to be the hot topics that we were talking about. Anyway, so I'll bring up a couple of the comments that we heard. So we don't have to go back to public for anything. Exactly. Okay. Okay. Good. No. We actually have three responses to the online survey in terms of comment. We had five or six of the handouts written comments and then obviously your comments as well. Staff, Kim and I had a bunch of comments for cleanup things and we had one dedicated citizen and a ton of cleanup things that were very helpful. But all in all, we have a list of those things. When the final draft comes out, I will verify that each of those things have been addressed. And if that's the case, the consultants address all the public comment up to this point. Good. And when we have time tonight to discuss amongst ourselves, like some of the issues? Yeah, yeah, that's what today is for. Okay. Today is for discussing what you don't like about the plan, what not necessarily don't like or what you have questions about, what does this mean? How does this play out? If it's adopted like this, and if we don't like out it plays out how to be changed. So it plays out how we wish it to. And a lot of that I think deals with nodes, special uses. And those things. OK. Okay. Is this the meeting? This is the right one. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to put it in the water. I'm going to go to bed. I'm going to go to bed. Chat life? It's been a long time. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to go to bed. I had to week they had a leaking brake line so it was like a two-hour cell in the tarp night. Oh gosh. And then coming back last night in Denver they had a hydraulic line they had to pull the fix so another right so both coming and going and coming it was like you know you the things to do more maintenance. At least we got wasn't canceled like they had like Yeah, we were watching that like over the weekend, but that all the airlines cleared up And don't think because they didn't have the new software Chippin didn't have the new software and they're all screwed up. They're still screwed up They were showing on the news they had a room bigger than this full of badges that Toby's complaining. But people are somewhere, but they don't know where they're at. God, what a mess. We'll put this as we're following our boat. Oh, I can't see that. That'd be something. It's a big whale country here today. The whale season, it just has to be there. And my son goes out with his college because he has some affiliation with it. He's seen three or four different species. The time he's been out. So next time I might just go out going well. See the little watching and birding. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's cool. Maybe the meeting won't be very long. You know what? Somebody else is running this because I couldn't. That somebody else is running this because I couldn't. I call my kids when we're doing zooms. I like them so much. It works good, but you got a bunch of good. I have to go to the hospital. I can get a sign yet if somebody, if I work for a district or something. I can get on and they can go to the hospital. Oh, I've used it a lot. I mean, like with that watershed partner. For five years. Oh, I've used it a lot. I mean, like with that watershed partner. Yeah, right. For five years. Four years. But we're using COVID and we're great. Because we're all over the place. Two of us were here in Ridgeway. And one, our political persons in Christchurch. And two good stuff with the blue pen. So it's nice. I mean, we could all see each other and be talking then. Yeah, it's nice. I mean, we could all see each other and be talking then. Yeah, it's nice to go in person if you can. So tell me, is this part of the meeting? Sorry, what was that? Is this part of the regular meeting? Yeah. It is? Yeah, we're meeting. We do it soon almost every month with my two brothers and sisters. Hello. We saw my brother one way around. Yeah. It wasn't my son that he came out. I hadn't seen him in five years. I saw my older brother. Thank's on my computer, actually. Why do I have to do this? Well, now he's on the show for a meeting about Monday May. I have to remember why. You were in the middle of the exercise all over my brother. I hadn't seen him since 2007. That was a script. That's good. But we do as we do as soon as all the time. So we see each other. We know what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about. We knew what we were talking about Oh, just kidding like that. Can you guys talk over there? Cliff, can you say something? Testing. Testing, one, two, three. Testing, one, two, three, four. Hello. I registered as a box, I think, that's it. Is that the microphone? Yeah. Yeah, this is the mic. Where are the speakers for these? I wonder if you put that near one of those speakers. Oh. That'd be better. Hello. Hello. Can you hear us okay? That's perfect. Can you hear us okay? Please be muted. All right, give us one sec. What do you guys want to talk? Testing testing testing. Yeah, I'm supposed to sign again. I know. I'm like, I can't stand it. You want to sit down and stand? Can you hear it? The dog pound. Can you hear Dennis when he says this? Testing. Testing. Yes. Okay. It's... Do I spot it? He's switching the black. Like you're not in the box now. Okay Okay, thanks for joining us, Alicia. Yes, of course. We're here with the planning commission and planning staff. We just finished a couple items on the planning commission agenda. We're just starting to get into the master plan. Thank you. I guess we'll turn it back to you David and then planning commission to discuss your thoughts on where we are with the master plan and yeah, things you want to discuss. Okay. So we'll bring it back to the planning commission. Did you have some concerns, Lina? Some input you would like to... I have shared most of my thoughts with Townmitch before he sent comments last week. I think most of what I have is more like the discussion with the planning commission and not so much with the consultant. The only thing that I noticed when I went through and read again, I went back and I looked at the master plan survey that was done. And I noticed that back in the, yes, Appendix A, the Public Engagement Summary, it doesn't correlate or correspond. It's like the questions in the survey are off. They don't match up, I guess, is what I want to say. It's like one and one match, two and two match, and then all of a sudden, there's like three, four, five, and it's like the questions on the survey don't match what's in the master plan. And I don't have any questions from the original question number five in the original survey showing up as question four in this or six or seven or something. It's like the comments got expanded in some cases in the draft of the master plan, which throws it out of kilter with the original survey. Now, I don't know if that's important or not, but I did notice there was also a couple of the questions that were left out. So I didn't know how important it was for consistency, say, to have the survey match the appendix A to the responses and how appendix A is presented in response to the questions from the survey. And then should you know why that might have happened? I know some adjusting had to be done to capture public comment in this document as opposed to a 6,000 page appendix of all the public comment we actually got. I don't know if that was part of it. Yeah, our public comment for that first survey was pretty extensive. We have 800 responses. So we opted to sort of summarize the responses. It sounds like the questions are actually missing from the original survey that appendix isn't reflecting, you know, one for one, two for two on down the list. So it could be that we missed one. And that's what I'm kind of wondering off to go back and check that, you know, one in the survey is one in the summer, two is two. And on down the line, I would look at it for many months. So I don't know if there's another explanation for why we would not have included a question. I think the intent was to include everything. Do you know that Atlanta, do you know, you were able to figure out which was the one that got put off? Okay, so where I first noticed, it's on page, I have a draft that was left of the master plant page 79 starting with question three. So if force, it's like it's out of order. So in question three originally, you could do three answers. in question three originally you could do three answers. Improved, gotten worse or stayed the same. So in the draft, and also shows that. Improved becomes question four and then question five is the gotten worse response so it just it throws things out of it. Is that what you're seeing? So question three has improved down here. Got more out and worse. They did the same thing. Okay, so then if you go to the bottom of that page, question four now, doesn't correspond to question four in the survey, question four is now the improved section. Your answer to improve, like the comments section of number three. And then question five is actually question four. No, question five is still part of three. Is still part of three. And then question seven is actually question four. I think. So that's how it works. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah, it seems like the numbering might be off. Well, the question's four through six look to be sub-questions of three instead of three. Okay. That's, yeah. Excellent. Yeah, I'm just getting my stuff pulled up and documenting this as we're talking through it. And that kind of continues, Clare on through page 82, where it's question number seven. And I didn't even see that question on the survey. Where has the change happened in Montrose County? I don't have a survey from, so I still have a question. Can you remember that question? Yeah, I can go through and check that numbering. And if we've got subquestions numbered in sequential order with the main questions, we can fix that pretty easily. Yeah. We have all of the summary data pulled from that online survey, which is through the technology. So it's going to be in order. We must have missed something in pulling that into the index. Yeah. Okay. Well, I could, what I'd like to do or see or discuss, I haven't seen the document with the public comments in it and I'd like to hear from the consultant as to where they feel the biggest conflicts are. Like you got comments from the public that contradict each other or they conflict with one another and how do we resolve those? Like we talk nodes and special use permits, some people might be for it, some might against it. How did that look from a public comment standpoint? That's what I'd like, I haven't seen a document or reviewed it since all that was put into it. Good point. You just summarize that really quick. That's public comments from the recent survey that we did at the closure to where the public was revealing the draft plan and you're talking about the notes specifically. Well, any of the issues that we had conflicting answers from the public on how we resolve that. Including the first phase of public comment. Yeah, any of the public comment. If it's conflicting with one, you know, if you had one group saying one thing and another group saying another, how do we put some, how do we resolve that in the master plan? As well. Yeah, that's a big question too. Because I think from the stakeholder interviews to current, all of the public comment we've received in that timeframe, we have had some differences of opinion and wanted more emphasis in different parts of the county, like the West End, and may are particularly seemed like there was two sort of sets of opinions there. Throughout the process we keep trying to sort of harken back to those things and gather additional public feedback. Some of the issues remain the same that the West End would like more attention on particular things like the growth of their community and how water is preserved in order to spur on development and support development. That's just one aspect of that. I think in time as you can jump in here we took a kind of higher level approach to a lot of this just being more of a partner in some of those efforts rather than taking on the brunt of some of that work. We want to certainly partner with those different communities and agencies that help with development and help with the things that the West and Mid-Perticular and other parts of the county need to further their planning initiatives and that looks a little different in different places in the county. Conjunction specific. Yeah one of the examples of one of the examples of taking the higher level approach was the bypass is one of the hot topics of probably what you're talking about where some people say yes what are we doing why do we not already have one right and some people are saying that's crazy we don't have that kind of money and maintenance. So the way we approached it was we put a goal in there to conduct a study a feasibility study of a bypass that connects north of town to south of town. It's very general and what's just our high level in that it doesn't say Put a bypass here. It's conducted study to see what kind of relief it would offer. How much it would cost to build How much would cost yearly to maintain and then with that study We could we could talk about is it worth it? Is it not worth it that that's the best place for it? OK. Another one, a lot of the public input wasn't super specific in terms of, so we didn't have a lot of controversy. Persuading. Most of it was related to controversy was an argument part got built by my house. I didn't like it. So I think coming back to nodes and the special use permit map, most of if any disagreement was a part of the planning question, if you remember the buffer zone for the special use permit map, we discussed that and had a few different viewpoints and the way obviously it was all that was have two different buffers on an extreme discouragement area and then a little less extreme discouragement area for the intervals in that right here without being able to shoot it. Another one being nodes. I know that's something and Lanna, I don't know if that's one of things you want to discuss without the consultant. I thought that'd be good to have Alicia here. So she's the one capturing nodes in the plan. I thought it'd be good for her to hear from you all your feelings and thoughts on notes how if what we have in here is yes what you're looking for if not and then Alicia could also answer to some of the design behind what they have in here. Okay. All right. I have that section in front of me if you want to jump to that at this point. Okay. So I have one quick question. I hope this is not your quick. Maybe not. If it's not quick, that's cool. One of the nodes that changed from the current plan or at least the 2019 draft that you had talked about was to remove the uncompagogy intersection as a note. So it would no longer be a note. Did I capture that correctly? Is that what you all remember? Talking about Pagogy Road. Unconpagogy Road is the one with the Morgan Churches on the corner. And then the South East corner they applied for a commercial reason. It got denied. So as a staff and the planning commission, my understanding was the planning commission want to move that from the news. Is that correct or are you expecting to keep it there? I think our discussion we had, we were going to keep it there, was some issues about the west side of the road that doesn't have any intersection. What do we do there? And would the only parcel available be that parcel we denied? Because the church is on the north side. I think it has to do and maybe I'll turn it back to you later. Your questions on those and have a leisure jump in as well. But, for you know, in that term, in that intersection, if we go with what we currently have, which is a quarter mile, it would incorporate a lot more area than just that three acre sliver. But also, there is some right of way. I'll just pull it up here. Quarter mile. Wow. Trust me. It's like what? I saw the, the uncompagrated. There is a right away here that gets you onto the front and through if you look on the map. So this is the church, this is that corner that I cannot deny. There is, there will be an intersection here. Oh, went to the other. A formal intersection as opposed to coming down to go in the spring's row. So I would assume how nodes are currently stipulated that this would be included, that this would be included, and even part of this one would be included. That's off the front of your road, not off the highway, right? These are off the front of your road. Yes. Anyway, Lenny, you were going to say something. I'll just jump in with all the notes that I've got as far as the commercial notes. So what really struck me as I started reading through all of this, I'm on page 40 and the very first thing that jumped out at me was that second paragraph that talked about the node size and that maybe there would be different sizes for different places. My brain just kind of jumped at that point because I don't ever remember this planning commission having any discussions about changing the size of commercial nodes at any location. So when I continued to work through this and then I got back to Appendix B, which is page 112, and I started looking at these examples or maps, and they're showing a quarter mile radius for these commercial nodes That came as a big shock to me and I I don't know if I was asleep in a meeting or if this is a change I think you can speak to the quarter mile. I think the difference in node size came from the The whole reorganized rewrite of the plan. And that part of that was spurred by, hey, we had this node here, and then we had this commercial thing that is applicable to node, but it got it denied. So now we don't know what nodes are. So this is an attempt to, because nodes are not defined at hardly at all in the current plan. They're not 500. That is a precedent that has been set, but they're not really defined. So this is an attempt to clarify it so that we don't have this medulus thing, what is it know, what isn't a node. So it's an attempt to... I think that was probably our fault in the old master plan that we did talk about node size. We talked like six acres per corner, no more. And we never incorporated that into the master plan, but we did discuss that pretty extensively back mid teens, I think. Yeah, I think it was 2018, 2019. Yeah. I think the fact that it probably was dig. I think I've got the notes. It was never incorporated into the document. Right, that's right. That's right. It's never been officially defined. So this is an attempt to carry that. Or we could end it. Ending side. And it has been, I mean there are parts that are in our sections which have six, eight years on each corner that have been approved. There are other parts that act ten acres on each corner. There are other parts that have three. So that's where the different locations, different issues, different challenges comes in the play. Okay. I guess just for my standpoint, my opinion, a quarter mile radius is way too big. I have never envisioned our commercial notes to encompass that much land mass. That's a 1,320 foot radius, which is substantial. So that's one of the things that really struck me that I felt like the planning commission needed to discuss this before this becomes part of our master plan because it's not the vision that I have ever had in working through the 2010, 2019, I think our discussions. So what would be a good, what would be a good number to put in there? I don't mind the radius idea but the 1320 foot radius, that's 2600 foot diameter, that's you know half mile. Could we go down to an eighth mile? That'd be 700 feet. Six acres square is what is it? I don't have my calculator on me. It's something like five or six hundred feet square. Remember we did that corner a lot on trout? It was 600 feet roughly. So that would give you roughly a 600 foot radius, which would be half of the quarter mile or a little less. Well, I just, for me, I'm a visual person. So I was trying to think about out in the county, and you get your road sections and quarter mile sections. And I'm thinking, that's a quarter mile, and I'm thinking, that's quarter mile and I'm thinking that's way too much and then to do a radius you got a half mile area. So we're somewhere neighborhood of five to six hundred feet out of the trout road. Right. Yeah. See six sixty would be an eight-mile mile to multiply 500 by 5 to 25,000 divided by 52. It might help to talk about, and at least feel free to jump in to talk about where the court of mile came from. It might help to think about what the purpose of the news on. Okay. As a commission, if you come up with what's the purpose, then maybe we can work through well. This has to be good. I think simply that the nodes as we discussed are the locations we would consider future commercial re-zones and develop. Essentially, as opposed to everything being developed exactly certain exactly limited to those intersections basically their intersections where the graphics going to be intensified But I mean we there's another map originally that we had looked at because there was some other nodes, different locations. And I thought there was a point where that got worked through. So I'm just curious about that because we're working off of the map that really shows an off-thick B and pipe that B and one on 348. I think it is. That's a little different than the math that we originally working with. The second thing to tell us is Connor that he keeps asking is the quarter mile. So a quarter mile in planning jargon is a comfortable distance for the average person to walk in a more dense area. So if we're looking at commercial or retail development around that intersection, that would be a comfortable, you know, distance for someone to walk. And when we're talking about density, it's used a lot in different planning efforts to bring density to a location. And the measurement for that is the central point is the middle of the intersection. So it's not quarter mile, the highway. It's a quarter mile out on a radius from that center point. So it's not a half a mile if you're looking at it, the road to the center line, the quarter here, quarter there, it's a little less than that. And then maybe the third thing is, we could do more analysis on the nodes. And there was a lot of that before about how far to take that in the comp plan process. And so leading back to the original question, one of the first questions, which is, how are we dealing with things that are of two different opinions? The higher level aspect of for this particular matter is to have a recommendation to study these things further. And so that is one of the goals and actions in the master plan. And this section that Coach Helmets is showing is further considerations for that future study. Because for example, if you have a document in front of you, you can look at the nodes and you can see there's agricultural zoning, there's commercial zoning, and there's retail zoning and any given location. And if we look at the minimum lot size, we could actually kind of pencil out what that size looks like for future results. So for anticipating an agriculture zone and a commercial zone, lying adjacent to one another near the intersection and future commercial there, can we cut that agriculture zone down into that minimum lot size, which would be in the press, possibly a little smaller? And what does that look like in terms of its relationship to density around that intersection? So that kind of hits on three different perspectives. It gives you the definition of why we went with a quarter mile. We can certainly take that circular shape off of the mass if that's helpful. Another consideration we thought about was whether to have an irregular shape around the intersection to outline the parcels that are directly impacted, because those are likely the ones to be redeveloped. If we're really trying to focus on that intersection. That's a little bit of process. I think the other idea we talked about was not yeah like not having that servo but having some guiding principles instead where flexibility. Yeah a little bit like flexibility between the intersections. I like that. Well, obviously one of the guiding principles is the easiest one off the top of my head. The easiest one off the top of my head would be a commercial property has to access of secondary access to kinet access directly under the highway. So anyway, it had gotten principles like that, which to a delicious point would naturally shrink the north and south distances along the highway, but could potentially widen the eastern west ones along, for say along the highway, but could potentially widen the eastern west ones along, for say along the trout row, or have a winery. It's probably about a quarter mile off the highway. It would kind of oval it out east and west as opposed to along the highway, which sounds like it's a big area. Well, and I think along that same line, if you push it out, I would not be opposed to putting a maximum how far out. Sure, that's what that's with. Yeah, we would have to paint that picture in that paragraph, like guys do. I like that idea that, to have the flexibility, the circle, I'm just wondering, most of the parcels out there are not circular, they're rectangular, rhomboid or something. And what happens if that, the circumference cuts something in half or you're going to have these weird pieces? And that's what Alicia and her team had that idea, either one change the employer into an oval And that's what I, and that's what Alicia and her team had that idea of either either one changing or into an oval or just following property lines as they were going to. I don't, I personally don't love any lines on a map because that means this side had as more opportunity on this side, but you're going to have that at some point whether it's guiding principles or online on the map. The other element that I was a little bit concerned about was as I flipped through the samples of the nodes that were shown, there are nodes that are being shown that were not on the old maps. They've added amber, banner, and harnation. They were from the meeting. We had with Steve White back in 18 or 18. Okay. See, somebody's remembering, but I don't have those indicated on the old draft that I've got. So, somewhere along the way. So what is on the old map and that was from the meeting that we just had earlier this year. Yeah. We went through all those notes that came to look at that meeting in 2019 and went through each of the notes and the ones that are shown on here. I think I have to double check. I think they're all. I at was just I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page with that because by adding those it's like almost every intersection becomes a commercial note and then mostly to the north right right which I think has been the intent of the right. We want to see more commercial out there than to the south. And I did not see a note indicated for peak green. Yeah, well, we can check. Like question. Sorry, three, three, four, three, four, three, four, three, four, four, three, four, eight, yeah, that one was three, four, eight, yeah, that one was three, four, eight, four, was three four eight. Three four eight. So we're going to get that. They caught. They're going to get away out. That's way out. They caught that one. They caught that it was missing and they got it changed. Okay. We'll get it out of it. And then on the South Valley one on page 118, I have a question that uncompogry is not shown. Again, that was my recollection of that planning commission meeting. If I completely missed that, I just need to add something. My recollection was we discussed that in light of the fact that we denied that parcel and I think we did feel that we wanted to keep it in. I thought so too. And he was asked specifically if he could reduce it to the 500 or 600 foot limit. And he didn't want to. Right. Right. When we were here in that case, yeah, that's correct. You ever know that was not spelled out? It was what something we discussed and we've always used, but it wasn't spelled out in the master plan. So. Okay, Alicia, that one's on me and you're able to have a note at the program. And then the other two that I have in the South Valley were black canyon and simmer on. And I did not see a sample mountain for for those two notes as well. I'll have to check, but I think how we put it for east of town was we would encourage it everywhere east of town between here and the county line, but it could be wrong. I thought we'd defined it somehow because a lot of the going up zero in that is not very conducive for development. But I can't remember. The way I remembered it was the ones that are not conducive to development, which is for every development. Okay. That all already encouraged it there. But I could do one. I do remember talking about that recently. I'll get back with you on that one. Is that something that I captured correctly that we're encouraging most of east of town or just simmer on and just? No, I think that's fairly accurate because we talked about that was I remember being different than the other ones that it was more white spread. So yeah. Is that fair everyone else? So it's really not a node it's a reach of. More than a quarter. Yeah. And I think then the last thing I have on this topic back again to page 40 in this draft that I have, there's a suburban residential designation in the commercial note and I think that's wrong and that's one of the ones I pointed out. That's one of the most we had that we sent to Alicia. Okay. So that's probably been fixed. I guess for Alicia's sake then to move forward with this, what's the sentiment on how we want to define these notes? It sounds like you like the idea of doing more of a paragraph describing and points describing guiding principles. I like that idea because I think it gives us flexibility to say, yeah, you're nae and I mean, it's not cast and stone and I don't know. I just like the concept of having a series of conditions or things that we would consider that are not cast in stone. To me that's really how planning should be. It shouldn't be, you know, hard set like that. We could imply the total area or something like that. But I think we need the flexibility in there to to prove or disapprove depending on the conditions that are there. So we talked is everyone in agreement that commercial partnership acts us directly onto the highway? Correct. not directly onto the highway. Throne of Drove or County Road. Yeah. Okay. What about distance along the, do we, is a quarter mile, maybe good for a long County road, but along a highway, it'd be a little less half that or something. So we, yeah, the other quarter mile is that, um, both sides of the highway? Or is it quarter mile? This is all just discussion. What? What? Yeah, it would be it would radiate out. Well, the center point was what right started it. Basically basically it's four acres. Quarter miles, forty acres. Radius. Of course. In the area of a quarter mile by quarter mile this would be a circle anyway yeah like you said though these aren't going to be in circles right right I again just reiterating I think a quarter mile from that center point in any direction to me is too big. And all the notes are just south of town or I think all notes. The way that I look at this after reading through this document, it seems that a lot of the input is very valuable about retaining our quality of life, retaining our rural values, trying to keep this county somewhat looking like it has and not losing our identity. So to me, I would not wish to see commercial nodes turn into what I call strip malls. We're like Alicia saying, you know, the walkability a quarter of a mile. I don't see anybody. What if we cut it half to an eighth of a mile. That's what it would be. So the same way. The only concern I've got there is if we have, town's growing, the whole area is growing like a weed. And with that, you've got to have commercial industrial and development. We might have to repeat this because that was. If we have a fairly sizable thing come in like, I don't want to equate to like Home Depot or a big box store up near Olathe, they're probably exceed that quarter mile or be near that quarter mile. You go down to small and you're going to eliminate them from developing in the county, basically. That's why I like these guidelines. If we could structure the guidelines somehow where we have some flexibility in- By learning in progress. Hope did we lose her? Yeah, I give a statement once again. But anyway, I like that concept. If we can come up with a set of criteria that we can evaluate each corner or intersection on. It would have limits in there. And then, you know, if it was better, it would always also be able to meet the needs of someone that needed something larger. Well, we could say if it was one proposal, like one company or one thing coming in that's a little bigger. Yeah. And we don't want a whole bunch of little stores in there. No, but you know that would be a criteria. Yeah. You know we could consider one big, go a little bigger. They're the kind of criteria. I like that concept. It would be like a series of guidelines for us to evaluate every intersection and every proposal and say, well you don't fit the criteria at all. Or you do or don't. It gives us some flexibility in building it. And we could put a small sort of have a range of size in there and, you know, define that a little better to rubber stamp everything at a quarter mile. I agree that may not fit our needs. Yeah. To me, that creates a look that I don't feel represents a control count. There may be a spotter too where we need something a little long and maybe not so deep and maybe we can kind of like the flexibility in having that. And I calculated that incorrectly if it's a if it's a third it's quarter mile radius the circle that's 131 acres the circle is 131 acres that's pretty good size yeah can you hear us yeah okay we're back we're live we're live we're back so I agree with what Cliff and Dennis are saying. I just want to make sure that whatever that wording is, however we approach that we've got enough teeth in it that it doesn't come back to bite us. I don't want to see that happen. Well, I think what Dennis just said, if like a mega big company comes in, and maybe they need a massive amount of a parking lot or a giant building, maybe to manufacture something. But I don't think what we want to see is a circle K next to a flower shop next to a laundromat and a... So a good, would a guy reference what says something like this, capturing things, agricultural uses should be preserved along corridors at these commercial nodes. Typically, commercial development does not extend beyond x-speed of an intersection, unless something. The unless could be, the example we were talking about is if one applicant who was proposing a facility that quated to like a box store or something that's big and long. That's nice. The tricky part is most of the time we're listening to, most of the time we're applying this in the rezone. It's really on the rezone. It's not like you would be. Right, that's true. That's true to rezone. Yeah. They would apply it, especially used in our mind. Yeah. That would have, that's right, because we're rezone. It could be anything. Are we leaving ourselves to open if we use a descriptive word like typically would not exceed 700 days? That is the wording I used as typically. Well, okay, we, I could like to sleep on this a little bit. Think about maybe some stuff we can come up with collectively, an N-regroup in the next few weeks or something and discuss it. Would that work? I don't know. I just haven't had enough time here. I'm not really good sometimes on the fly. Is it possible to be able to submit some some some guardrails? Yeah, that's I've worked on it. We could we could try wordsmithing this week and send it out to you guys via email and yeah. And that's respond via email. Yeah, yeah, that word. Do you feel like you have? What do you think, Alicia? Do you feel like you capture kind of what they're feeling and what they're thoughts on? Yeah, I was gonna suggest what you just said is just to where it's meant some stuff, the guiding principles, put that that together. And then I think maybe my team can just look at some of your minimum, but how are you afraid it? Whether it's a minimum, lot size or a maximum lot size standards for some of those uses or zones we're anticipating? And that might help kind of guide more clearly what that size should look like. And then the question that I keep thinking in my head is do the sizes differ between the nodes. And I know just from remembering the nodes, what they look like with the parcel, somewhere long, you know, they're all commercial and they're really long, somewhere really tiny. And I think that will be kind of a determining factor too. Yeah, so some of those, some of those reasounds were took place before 2010, so before the nodes existed and the nodes were then brought into play to prevent that in the future. So the nodes, I think the purpose of the nodes is to capture where we're encouraging future reasons to commercial future commercial growth. If there's commercial growth outside that zone already, I don't think that should affect the known maybe the greatest. I mean, if there's current commercial development outside the node already, I don't think that needs to reshape the node. No. Exit because existing commercial development will just remain where the node is really pointing at where the future is going. Right. Where are you targeting it to go? Yeah. Yeah, I think at almost all those nodes accept solar up until the year or two ago. There was some commercial there already. Okay, so some guiding principles is that access, distance, we're going to sleep on that and come up with a good distance next week hopefully in the coming weeks. Ag being ag aesthetic remaining of high quality where if you're grabbing on the highway you don't want strip we might be on the lights and it's a little blow up guys. What else water's more getting principles to these nodes that you're... That would be... What happens if we rezone a piece of commercial and it butts up against another piece of commercial? I mean, I assume the individual could purchase the other piece and do big commercial in there theoretically. Okay. Are you saying like there's a commercial piece right at the corner of the intersection? The neighbor has a commercial reason and the neighbor indexed it as like a flat plan of development? We. We I thought we put some language in the old plan or maybe in the notes that we had in the 2000 teens about the extension like you can't have, you know, one parcel and then add onto that along the highway. Once you do a lot on the corner, was what we talked about. Once you do one lot, whatever size you can't do anymore. Like this one, for example, once you do this one. That was originally 20 acres and we told them six. And that's roughly, it's like five and a half or six and a half or something But yeah, yes Steve wouldn't have a house there. Yeah, very I'd be like a lows or a home deep hours The other home So also St. property owner kind of plays into that right? If it's the same property you just try to get property owners rezoning their properties that are adjacent to one another. There's another one that's a little different that kind of plays into what you're talking about. North. But one up north here they proposed to reason the whole property which is obviously the same property owner. That's the outlining. The planning commission's condition was that it was reduced but it's still the same property but limited it to five or six acres again here. Is this kind of what you're talking about? Yeah yeah that yeah or an extension, but yeah Well We I think our position and again, I don't know if I was in writing or not, but what we talked about is that once you had a parcel Resone to commercial on a on an intersection corner. We would not consider any more So this brother got this done He's not coming back two years, he could, but he's... It wouldn't be favorable to a planning commission. He comes back two years later and requests to extend and reason the rest of the talk. I think on this when it was internal. Wasn't it, it was, it was surrounded already. Wasn't it by commercial? No, this is... It's got to be rolled on one side and a highway on the other. I'm talking about this piece here, like he can't come back to years from now to extend this, because... Oh right. Next to commercial already, we should approve this. Right, no. What we didn't want was the leap frog thing where you just keep you keep adding on and you're adding obviously What they're what they're I think what we're trying to capture is once one parcel is re-zoned The potential for that now for adjacent parcels to then be reason because now those aren't spot zones because they're adjacent to commercial already some guiding principle to prevent that which which having a maximum a typical maximum distance would help with that yeah yeah did I hear something that in this case that there's a time a year or two years limit they can't do that or I don't think that's now I think it's more or just these are the nodes it's not these are the nodes and then we're not like going on right we're going to keep adding on to it well yeah it's like well we're not're not spot-down because we're adding one. There's one next to us. Before you know it, you got, you know, 58. I think the distance help would help with that. Yeah. Okay, distance aesthetic of eggs, secondary There are your roads. Differenting between North 50 and South 550. Well, we did talk in our meetings about being a little more liberal with commercialization north of town. A different distance for north of town as opposed to. I wouldn't be, because I mean you have the LP plant and all that up there now and it's The view shed in my opinion is more important to the South of town than it is up there so it's Not that I want to see it get completely developed, but we can be a little more lenient with it And I think didn't we have a setback or something in there a distance from the highway for a while that was bigger like an overlay? So it's high. Yeah, but on North I think it was further back if I remember. I don't think we have one on the North. Okay, it might not be. Or maybe East. Not for it was just the... We talked about going to the river road from the highway and I don't remember how we structured that in our plan if we ever did it's probably just in notes that that whole area would be considered because that's where the LP plan is right now it goes from river road to the highway. But it does sit down. What I would not like to see done would be to the east side of the highway that direction. You've got that whole, you know, really nice view of Grand Mesa and everything. And I would hate to see that taken away. Right. So the west side would be, yeah. So we'll think of numbers that could work for the North. Probably a little bigger than numbers for the South in terms of distance. And I agree with Dennis. I know we've got some setback language somewhere in our documents. I remember talking River Road. Would you say setback? I mean, camp. Camp. Building heights and protecting the view ships. I know it's in. Well, we definitely have that South of town and east of town. But I don't know. North of town. There's nothing north of town. But we did talk about it. I remember talking from the highway to River Road, at least on the west side. I can't remember the extent of it, but we did. But still for building. What's in building? I think it was more for commercial, if I remember right. Oh, sorry. OK, I think I know what you're talking about. So north of Amber, I think it is. North of Amber all along the highway. It might be just north of a lathe. I think north of a lathe. Right. If that whole corridor is designated for commercial industrial. OK. Well, that was it. On both sides, or just a west side. OK. Land is safe. OK. Yeah. OK. That's probably, yeah. That's what I was thinking about. Any other Alicia, can you think of any other guiding principles that we could perhaps incorporate based on overtaken behavior? I think we're down to those three or four that we thought. Well, if you start those, then we get them. It'll get our juices flowing and we'll come up with some. All our jobs and stuff Monday and get those over to all of us here. Okay. If you think of anything to Alicia, let me know. Yeah, I'll think of it. I mean, I was going to work on this a little too and I'll probably get some more ideas going. Do we have access to the plan to date that the latest and greatest? Not sure. How do we get that? I believe I believe we're waiting for this discussion. Okay. And make okay. Okay. All of is that true? I'm. Well, yeah, I. I. The last version we gave you was the one with all the graphics in it, and then tell it you sent me a list of comments by page number, so I've been working through those about 75% of the way through. So I don't think we get another one until this. Okay, so we'll just wait and get the. That word? Yeah, in time. I'll show you the rest of these comments, Alicia and then all of those. These things and the stuff from a couple of weeks ago. Good work. Okay, this is my end quote. David, you have any thoughts? Are you in agreement with kind of what we're talking about here? With what's been discussed here? Yeah, I am. What kind of like Dennis? Kind of like Dennis. It's probably need to maybe hand the plan in front of us or something to look at. But I'm with Dennis. It's probably doing a little bit better with a little time to look at this. The other comments that we got were related to renewables. Most of it was to be favorable to renewables. I feel like the special use map speaks to new, and we have some goals that speak pretty generally to renewables, but it gives some guiding principles to us. Are you all happy with that? Are you wanting to see more language for against renewables? Do you need to include, I don't know if there's anywhere in there where we specifically go through what the mills are. What? We got a comment a couple of weeks ago about geothermal has to be in the plan more. And I said, I don't know that it does. It fits under the mills. And we don't have a great, we're not a real high quality zone. There's a small portion on which I would count that. You're a ray would have some, but. I guess I'm not sure what I reviewed. I'm not sure I looked at the one with the graphics in it. Was that the one we used for the meetings in Montrose and so forth? The version I'm getting mixed up on what version? Version where I have. So this, so I have up on the screen what we have in terms of goals and actions. Prioritize locations for renewable energy generation facilities on previously disturbed or degraded lands such as Brownfields of Antimond and Sets Aglan. Or Aglands with low productivity to minimize impacts on S'm not sure which categorization I assume in our CS, do they rate farm land by low medium high? How would that be assessed? I think the way I read that is a farmer who wants to continue farming, that struggling comes in and says, I wanna keep farming this land, but I can make a little bit of money if I put some of this land into agribal takes or solar. Anyway, that's the way I read it. I don't know if there's an exact definition for... Well, low productivity. is an exact definition for low productivity. Yeah, the only concern is are we eliminating our highly productive farmland from having renewables on it. There may be some farmers that... No, I don't think we are. This is saying we're prioritizing. Priority, okay. And I think the one below it talks about adding some additional wiggle room and we need to work with that. But, and we had a statement in there at one time about being close to existing lines and substations. Yeah, so, the full organization position should be prioritized in proximity to transmission. Okay, I think that's a good one. Yeah. And then also priorit prioritize where they're incorporating ag uses into purposes. Yeah, that really limits right there that limits where you can put it. Well, it encourages them close to infrastructure, which is where developers want to go. Right, it's a lot less costly. Yeah. Well, yeah, this is very directive to the planning question to the board. Right. Right. Do we really need to say we've got a low-pro-tip it? In it? Do we need that phrase? I think it might be able to be better worded, but I don't know that I've got those words in my head right now. I have to think about that. I think the reason it's in there is with respect to Ag and Ag producers who potentially need an alternative way to income To keep farming. What Towne is saying is it's a way of prioritizing it doesn't necessarily mean somebody with higher productivity land can't do it. Yeah. So it doesn't eliminate them. That was my concern. He said it doesn't do that. So okay. I'm good. And to me it says with low productivity that kind of to me that says that's where this commission is thinking it needs to go. Where is that? What do you call in low-product? That's what I want to know. You know that Mack is shale, that we all hate the dobes. If you water it a certain way it can be. It's like a gut record setting corn production on 20 bushels or something to the acre. So that's like really high productivity land But most people would look at that and say look so I'm just wondering how you determine this low versus medium and higher the owners or the leases whose farm unit could say it has not produced. I'm not I'm not farm in it so it's not producing any. That's that's a way to look at it. If I might if I could add here we have the map for the special use permit which has prime farm land on it and prime farm land is based on the soil types that are there. And it is a layer that we gathered from the county GIS. So we didn't define high, medium, low in terms of land quality. But we do have this prime farm land layer based off of soil types. Yeah, that's the, I think that's the NRCS classification. Yeah, okay. For soils. Yep. One of the comments that I made to tellmage when I gave in my comments, the maps that are here in the draft plan that are within the paper, those maps are just really, really difficult to read. Townmitch and I talked about that, and I don't know if there is some way, whether it is a separate page on a slightly larger scale or I don't know, I don't have the answers, but I was really disappointed with the map quality, the ability to read the maps throughout the document. And if there's any way to improve the visual scale of the maps, it would be most helpful. Yeah, we can do a couple of things. We can work with the sizing to see if we can get them larger and maybe make them more of a page size. The Montrose is long, and you know, pages vertical. So it would fit better if we turned the page that you may not prefer that. We can also make separate PESs that can either be in the appendix or available online for a separate download, which is what you have with your previous master plan. We do all those things or one of those things. What did we end up doing with the planning areas? Do we still have those in the current version, the mayor? Yeah, those are in the current version. We in the existing plan, I think the mapping is by planning areas, isn't it? Yeah, it's all in the back and it's all like by some. Yeah, it's on big sheets. I think the intent of this was to have the specialties from a map there in the section that speaks especially using that foot. Right. But if you want to put it in the kind of context, we could do that too. I'm just thinking, even if it was a follow-up page behind if we do are you talking printed? I am talking printed if you're talking printed, plan a week and print you a special page and see it we'll scope it I'm just saying for somebody setting down trying to read and absorb this and you hit this page or any of the pages that have the maps on them. They are virtually useless. Yeah, you could do it a lot by 17 and they're useless. You guys have an current master plan. You can't tell the general area. So you really need a 24 by 36 to see on a printed thing or GIS. But yeah, but do you have something that's zoomable? You can zoom in a little better. We've asked that comment on to Alicia. Yeah, and I know that's just that is a I think it's important. I think it's important for somebody to be able to pick up this document and not have to bounce around to a computer or go somewhere else. If there is some way to improve the readability of the maps, I think it would be really nice. really nice. Hey, man. Well, I'm thinking about it. This is off base a little bit, but with the, what did we do a while back this up? We heard the zoning where we have it linkable. Is this going to have that to where somebody using it online can click and go to page? I don't know how clickable this is. I'm just thinking from here. Do you like the people of contents? Yeah, if you click stuff... Yeah, it will be...it should be clickable. Okay, because that's... We get...I've talked to the public and I think that's helpful to them. Yeah, already. Oh, did you do it? I want to talk to the read to you. Oh, cool. All right, we're there. All right question answered. Yeah, no that's good. That's from a public use standpoint that's that's pretty helpful. All right goes. Yeah. Cool. Within the document there's not as much clickable. It is not as much need as zoning right. It was tosses you back and forth from standards that you used to. But say what kind of things. Right, yeah, that's, yep. I agree. So while we're on the topic here of the special uses map, I just wanted to talk out loud here for a minute, that first sentence, special uses such as solar farms, clamping sites, and RV parks are growing in Montrose County. So to me, we're talking about all those special uses and then we're showing a map that is going to restrict those special uses to within whatever we decided. A mile or a half mile buffer. Outside of those buffers. I'm trying to relate in my mind if somebody comes up with a glamping site, clear out close to Dave Wood. It's not near any of these roads. What do we do? Well the buffers and that's one of the things I want to start to buy. I feel like the way I enjoy the buffers and we might need to beef up the language to make it clear. To me the buffer is two prompt one. We talk about the buffer being a buffer where we don't want renewables or we don't want power generation facilities to protect a new corridor. But at the same time the buffer, a lot of the commercial nodes are within that buffer so some commercial uses would encourage in that one. Right? So to me that's how the buffer works is some uses, yes we want. And I think some language and I could clarify which types of uses should be encouraged in it. And which cuts and uses should purge out of it would be useful. The tricky thing with our B-marks, I like how the plan is it really doesn't differentiate is do you wanna go camping on the highway or do you wanna go camping on a table of road? And a table of road's not a great example because it's within the wild, a lot of table of road's within the wild part has a very, so we would not encourage it anyway, we'd be discouraged out there. But let's somewhere out in Buckhorn Road up in the hills, what do we want to encourage it there? And I guess that's what I'm when I read the descriptive of what we're considering as a special use. And then I think about how we talked about that buffer area. It felt like it was in conflict. When I described that how we encouraged some in the buffer, some outside of the buffer, is that what you envisioned or am I way off? No, because I think that's what was tripping me up. When I got you and what about you, Dennis? I'm okay with it. Did it? What do you think? Yeah, point. A bug? Cliff? Yep. Okay. What do you think? Yeah, I'm fine. You bug? Clive? Yep. Okay. Then Alicia, maybe we both can workshop, workshop, like a description of that. That makes sense to you. Yeah. It might be tricky to draw a line between what's encouraged. I think really the only thing we're talking about is power generation facilities would be outside of and most of the other stuff we would encourage inside of it. But we also have to be careful to allow for an RV park or a small campground in an area that's not close to those buffers. So, well, at least I action ward shop that one too. Well, we might get more along Highway 550 like Steve and you got, there's RV park right on the high. He's like 20 feet from the pavement. Yeah. I'm not sure I'd want to camp there with trucks below and there are films that may all might want. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can couple more on pages 37 and 38, these land use districts. And again, this was a conversation. I just wanted to have to me, this was like a new, a new, 37 and 38 land use districts. And I know, tell me, you and I talked about it. When I read this my first train of thought was it's a zone. And then we talked and these are not zones but I don't know exactly what these are if they're not. I was going for consistency between documents, you know, like our zoning and the master plan. I kind of felt like they should talk to each other. So I wasn't quite sure how to interpret a land use district versus a zone. Did you see that in the comments, Alicia? The changes, the designation. And I think that's designed to differentiate, but these are more for future and use designations as opposed to current on the districts. Okay. Do we need to say that? Discribe the difference between a designation and a district. Do we need to say that? Discribe the difference between a designation in a district. We could add a little paragraph under land use designations and say below or describe potential future land use designations that are encouraged. The way I view these is where we're going to promote these activities in these districts. Yeah, in the future. Yeah, we're promoting. Yeah, yeah. We're not regulating it. We're not rezoning. We're just, if you know, builder comes in and, you know, we want to try to steer them into the right one, if we can. And that was my concern. Good example. You've got a builder or a homeowner or something reads the master plan and he's like all of a sudden, well, what am I zoned? Am I, you know, am I zoned or am I in the district? Or what am I? I felt it left the door open for confusion. And you guys work with it? I know all the time and probably it's real clear to you, but I'm thinking the average person out there trying to figure out where we're going in the next 20-30 years. You just want a longer document, don't you? I do not. I would love to show up at the house. That's a good point. These are to me like the long range goals of chunks of ground. I think some sort of a sentence below this. That makes sense. How will they be identified? Maybe that might help for like, sort of an overlay? These are on the protection range. You see the map just where they are. So this map here. And Kim, good segue because moving right on to page 41, then there's all these overlay designations, which are new. Not real new, but I don't know as we've ever had a forest. Those aren't new. These aren't the current planning. The forest service in holding overlay? We've got one of those. They have not been created for the zoning regulations. Okay. The idea of having these in here in the 2010 plan was to evaluate putting them in. And obviously it's 2024 and they haven't that put in yet. Okay, because I remembered airport. Yeah, because this is supposed to project that. I'm in the river. How far? I've been at that. 20 years. I did not remember this one. But I'm just saying again. If there's one that's no longer a play call, we need to remove. No, I think those all. I think we get it. Yeah, I think they're all appropriate. Yeah, it's kind of a guidance to the zoning rights to say, hey, when you're, when you're This is a good section to guide staff and the board. I think that's all I have. I think everything else was just the grammar and stuff that you and I talked about. was just the grammar and stuff that you and I talked about. Okay. Yeah. So timeline wise now just so I know. Alicia, we talked about the timeline being a of changes getting into the final draft by the first but next week seems kind of tight. I put your thoughts on that. We have some work done. Does that include the planning commission weighing in on the guidance for the notes because that's gonna take I could get you something next week but I don't know if we'll have a decision. All right. In this case it might be best to shoot for a final plan around that time of end of August and then presented for final adoption September 26. How does that sound to the U.S.? Is that a possible with the solution? Yeah, I'd like a little extra time. Just some with the room. That give a month for you to review it before the September meeting and then you could potentially adopt it there but also if you don't still have the next October. If we had to, yeah, so we got room on either side of it. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay. When's the moratorium get lifted on? It's a, for some reason, the 21st or the 5th are coming on side. We'll make either one of them. We'll make... We're going to be in touch a lot this weekend. I can add that information on when the actual date was. And I know it is probably a bit of a burden, but when it comes down to looking at it for the final year or nay and reviewing. We'll certainly have printed out. I would. I would. I want something I can make notes on. We will we won't ask you to adopt something. I'll have to put gallon jugs of ink above my printer. Yeah. Yeah. Do you have any other things you want to touch? We have a budget. No, that was really helpful to hear the dialogue on the notes. And I'm looking forward to seeing where that goes. I think that's a really neat piece of the master plan that's been added in that this time around. Also, going back to your question on the timeline, originally we were talking about doing public meetings to present and roll out the final draft. are going to do in public meetings to present, to roll out the final draft. We decided to go on against that for two reasons. One, nothing's really changing between when we just had the draft and now, but we will have a document that outlines what has changed. And two, the timeline kind of doesn't gives us a lot of options to follow. I assume we would somehow notify the public that it's final and they could access it. We'll do yeah, we'll do big social media blasts, mailing blasts. Okay. We'll do all that. We just want to have the physical meeting and the physical open houses like we did the other two phases. I think based on the attendance at the last open house it good words underwhelmed. Underwhelmed but it means we're in a good place. It's not like we have thousands of pitchforks in that. I think we've done really good with the public contact through this whole process and I don't want to drop the ball at the end and I don't want people to come back and say, well I didn't know about it. I didn't know this. People will say that. I know, they will. You can tell them when they say that, we sent a postcard. That's it. Exactly. Exactly. You can lead a worse to water but you can't make it. Yep. Okay. All right. Good work, good work, Alicia and your team. Thank you for helping us with this. Thank you, Alicia and your team. Thank you for helping us with this. Thank you, Alicia. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, too. Thank you. Finally, try to help me. I have a name for it. All right. Are they in Washington or where's our office? Here else is in Washington. Washington. Do we need to record anything else with this? I guess we got that recording. I job, it's on my date in the oil. Other than that. Interesting to see the cell tower got approved. Okay. Okay. Yeah. You got any items, how much? Sorry, I missed last month's meeting. Good job. It's on my date in the oil. Other than that. Interesting to see the cell tower got approved. Okay Well, other than that. Tristan, you see the cell tower got approved? Yeah. Yeah. That's, I hear they're controversial all over the place. They are. I flew with a guy last night and he was like, right now. But yeah, it is what it is. Yeah, the extended to set back. Yeah, the fall zone, so it wouldn't fall on somebody's sidewalk or something. If it ever came. Boy, I wouldn't fall in the open space for the Melbourne. Yeah, it'll better not fall at all. It's just better stay up there. Work. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Jay, further business before this meeting? No. No sir. If there is none, well adjourned. I show you all. All right. The plan is mission that is one of the unsung heroes.