I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I the Garfield County Planning Commission to order please And Becky may we have a roll call please Here Here Here here Here here All right You have a quorum Yeah, yeah, it's so thrilled We do That's good Thank you I'm going to leave the kitchen Everybody should have a last night We're starting them on the agenda this evening is a public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan 2030. This is a continued public hearing and we have met over the last number of months in a public hearing format taking public comment and working through the documents. Last Friday we received the, basically the 11 by 17 version of the changes that we had reviewed through as a planning commission through that October 28th day. And then what we received on Monday was the final copy and details of the comprehensive plan and then staff has submitted to us yesterday the Review document you all should receive this outside of your through your reminder that basically is a red line The discussion that that is Allen and Mr. Winston and I had in regards to that issue of the stylistic changes, if you will, in grammatical changes, whereas it's opposed into a separate document for the fact that it is our change of the planning commission that not reviewed over and had discussions about. So if you're wondering why that document is separate, I was in my recommendation from that end just to make sure that things that we had had discussions about were in, the three-ring binder and things that staff had recommended in regards to grammatical changes in the like were in a separate document. So where we stand this evening is, we stand this evening at the position of accepting a motion for approval of the document. And then upon that motion and second being successful, then we would move into a discussion about potential amendments to the document, make whatever recommendations you have in regards to amendments to the document and then at that point, here's part of the concern that's been brought up by legal staff and I'll let you all speak on this as well. From Ms. Gagnon and Mr. DeFord standpoint, on making sure that upon adoption of this document that we end up before we make adoption and certification we end up with a document that is black, with a document that is black, not a document that is redlined. So the long and the short of this conversation, I know you all know where this is leading to, so I might go ahead. Real pleased with this particular discussion. We have a meeting set for a week from tonight. We have our standard November 10 meeting. If we are able to work through the document this evening, get approval of a document, that would allow us to get the blackline final document from staff, hopefully on Monday next week, and then have the ability at that point then to come in for a final vote of certification and approval on Wednesday. Ultimately that would be a come in and take the vote at that point. We have other agenda items, of course, on the Northern or 10 agenda, but I would anticipate that would be the first item out of the box. Is this kind of sound like what everybody wants to do? Like this information was brought to us to see me about what this document needs to look like prior to adoption. So I apologize for not having that discussion last week with everyone. So Chairman, so the expectation for the action tonight would be agreement with the documents with amended as worked out tonight. That we would certify on Monday. Wednesday. Or Wednesday, sorry. Right. Just so you can show it off. In other words, what type of motion would actually, and well, let's talk a little bit about that process as well. What I'm anticipating is we have a motion on the table and then we will move to a man and then we would actually hold the final vote. We would continue this public hearing until November 10 and then hold that final vote until November 10. Okay. So you're expecting a continuance of whatever process we're engaged in at the time. To finalization on ESCRA. Mr. DeFord, Ms. Gagnon. Yeah, I think that's correct. The exception of that would be if we are able to have a motion to accept a specific draft, be it the red line draft or the black line draft that's in front of you tonight without amendments. Then we would have a document. You mean tonight? Tonight? Yes. Yeah. The other option is to have that motion, but if you're going to make changes to that document, we need the opportunity to re-graft it and bring it back to you and confirm that the language that staff has in it is what you anticipate. Yes, so those are our two options. Sorry if it says three options. The red line graph, black line graph, or continuance with because of changes. That's true. Fair enough? But they would have to be in order to do that tonight, we have to have a motion to adopt a document without changes. Exactly. Yes, one of these two documents without changes. The red line graph is giving, we talked before about the red line graph, and that we have to be able to finalize. Okay, so only if we can adopt the black line tonight. Okay, so the red line under any conditions falls into a continuous? Yes. That is correct. What the red line does again, just to reiterate, the red line deals solely with grammatical issues and style and are not substantive changes. But again, I appreciate staff putting those together so they're separate and distinct from what we have discussed before. That way we know what we're voting on and what we're doing. Floor is open for a motion if there's one to be had. That way we have something discussed, Jack. And mother clarification. And so the process for adoption of my guess is that our best bet is to deal with the red line draft, because that's the one that's most corrected in terms of grammatical style and so forth. I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but that's my assumption. So the process in which we're going to basically be dealing with that will be chapter by chapter, line by line, motion, people engage. Do we have a process that you have in mind? What I would anticipate it is, as I assume everyone is reviewed the red line and that we would have a motion for any relevant amendments. So if you have an amendment within the red line, as for instance, you know, I don't like the fact that we changed that word from 10, I would like to see it 11, whatever it is, and we would see an amendment on those individual line. So the motion would be a motion to accept the red line draft open for amendment. It's always open for amendment. The proper motion would be high move that the Garfield County Planning Commission approve the Garfield County Conference of plan 2030 with the black line in front of us or this red line document. And note that document, there would be a second, floor would be open for discussion, and then amendments could be brought forward. Clarification on that, who are our, who are our associate members of CD? I know, I know. So Lawrence, associate and who else? I am as well. OK, General. I'm Michael. OK. As you all know, you're welcome to be involved in the discussion. You're just not able to make the motion or second or provide motion for amendments. Now, if you go over to one of the other members and say, well, you may condemn and inform me on this, that's certainly part of the discussion. But you know, understand it's got to come to us. When we... We got no money. You don't have a going different taxi. A whole dollar? Wow. Any other boat that couldn't count a foot, that's it. And the entire dollar, we tried the recordation of the vote when it comes to that some lighter November than 10. Recordation of the vote will of course be upon seven and then what I will do is I will ask for a vote, or if you will, an affirmation from the three associate members, whether they agree with it or disagree with it. And again, you are welcome not to be recorded on that. You can choose what you want to do because that's not an official vote. So you, as associates, you can make that decision. One key here is, is that however, when we're here this evening and we're working on this issue, we've got to make sure that whoever's here this evening is here on November 10th. This is very important. So if there's an issue with a 10 it's from no room at 10. Can we kind of talk about that now? Does anyone have issues with the no room at 10? That's very important. Anyone have an issues with no room at 10? ten and tenets. Okay. I'm assuming then. Don't assume. You still work on your beer. I'm sorry. Planning and zoning commission. I have a planning commission meeting together. Yeah. I have a planning commission meeting. That's far done. What about here? I'm just term I'm ready to make a motion. We'll remember 10 then. Sounds like we have the ability to get that job. Okay. All right. The floor is open. I'm ready. Make a motion that the Garfield County Planning Commission adopt comprehensive plan 2030 to November 3rd 2010 staff recommendation red line version. Second we have a motion then a second in order for the in order for the motion to be incorporated entirely, need to incorporate in exhibits A through S's and S's. Is that correct, Ms. Allen? That is correct. And I'm going to pass these between the motion and the second door. So in fact, can we run it quick? Yeah, I'll read. I've introduced A through G exhibits to open door. I'm sorry, on this 18th, H, H through Anne were introduced on September 22nd. The new exhibits being introduced this evening, which is November 3rd, or 7-0, which is the summary of the written comments revised on October 28th. The exhibit P, which is the conference of 23rd, did it date in the third? The appendicesis dated the number third as well as the subit Q. Exhibit R is the confidence of plan 23, the staff recommendation stated in the number third. And lastly, exhibit S, which is the relied drive-on condition, 2010-02, concerned with the adoption and certification in regard to the current comprehensive plan 2030. Thank you, Ms. Allen. Greg, there's your motion incorporating, because if it's A through S, it's in the sand, into the river. Yes, it does. Those are accepted by motionor. Accepted by second. Accepted by the second door. We have a motion and second on the floor, and the floor is open for discussion. We have a motion and second on the floor and the floor is open for discussion. I find the page. I'm going to put the map page to future land use there. Wherever I'm going to, what page am I going to find to either? That's on. Well, which drawing on the red line? Yes, it's where you're going to go in red line. 21. I was right here. That's close. I just wanted to close enough for. Change in residential development. Okay. There much study on this outside of this commission and here myself following up going through it. I'm a mind to let the IGA's take care of the two acre cluster zoning and leave the two acre. cluster zoning and leave the two acre underlying zoning as it exists currently in Garfield County. I'll say it again on the first part of the IGA's on the two. Let the IGA's take care of clusters on the outsides of town. Everybody's got their own, every little town has their own idea of what they want to do. The IGA is going to rule that anyway. What we're doing in the spirit of influence or next to it. Leave our two-acre under Lyon's only. Status quo as it is today. And then let the IGA carry the weight. I mean I've heard that that's going to carry the weight of this plan anyway. Let each town and the county and their IGA make that circle around their town look the way they want. Not us. Our regulation I do believe says that needs to be an easement when we cluster it, or in some kind of a holding mechanism. I don't believe that you can put your septic tank on open space. I'm not comfortable with that. Let the IGA take care of it and leave the underlying zone anymore. I guess I would ask for if we're going to discuss this change that what I ask for the wording of an amendment So we could discuss that I'm not a manning. I'm just throwing out for discussion Okay, my discussion is to take out then my amendment would say take out the two to six leave the two acre underline zoning what the IGA carrier Simple, but this is not just setting zone to a car underline zoning with the IGA carrier. Simple. But this is not just setting zone. I'm not discussing zoning. I'm talking right here, change of residential development densities, talking density, then I guess. Okay. We call it stand. We've always called it to a car underline zoning, call it to a car underline densities out in care. Call it what you will, let the IGA support it. Leave it the way it is today. Cheryl, are you really looking to make an amendment on page 25 under residential meeting line? Well, 21 calls it for it, that's the same place. You can make it. Actually, 21 page 25. Yeah, 21 one just says twenty five. Twenty five. Resenture medium. However, take the one. Do you first it two to six out and leave it to and let the IGA carry it? Set a motion. Motion to amend. That's what you do. Motion to amend. Okay. I have motion to amend. That's what you've been. Motion to amend. Okay. Motion to amend is very second. Second. We have a motion. Second. Floor is open for discussion on the motion to amend. Mr. Chair, I have to support this motion because I brought this up at some point in the past and I felt long and hard about it and one of the arguments that was made is that there has to be compromised with the towns And I'm all for that. But I believe that compromise rather than be done beforehand, should be done with the elected officials who create the IGA as opposed to changing. And given what we have today away prior to those negotiations, I believe the elected officials, let me back up. We have illustrated in this comp plan that the IDAs are an absolutely imperative part of this thing, quoting weight. I'm all for that. I believe the elected officials, if the urgency is truly within the county to do such, step forward and get to work on these things. But rather than circumventing my fiduciary responsibility to the county residents of which I feel I have, I believe that those elected officials, when they negotiate with the town, should be able to negotiate as I see fit. On top of it, I don't believe that we, as an advisory board, have the experience to say that that's the best thing to do within the county. So I recommend it stays as is and if the commissioners elect to work out agreements with those individual communities I'm all for it and I believe that's their role to do such. As a real tour in the community I I have them some studies, and it is not supported in my investigation and conjunction with others in my organization to support that these clustering scenarios or lack of desire for a two-acre for having cluster with the open space carries a higher value exists. I have information in my opinion that supports that but bottom line to me, I was not sold by our professionals who brought the information to us as to what the clustering value was. It has been an opportunity for those to use within our community for quite some time. to use within our community for quite some time, very rarely used. If the commissioners elect within the boundaries of those communities that we've worked with, so Newcastle, etc., elect to negotiate and provide that, I'm all for it. But for me, within the comp plan, I can't stand behind what we've done here. Okay. All right. Further comment? And again, everyone's obviously able to speak on this. So please do. Greg. I think though, the part I don't quite understand that you're speaking to Bob, is that I do not believe that this IGA boundary, which will be the urban growth boundaries, will in any way encompass anything to do outside that area. So on the one hand, you're saying that we should have an IGA, but those IGA are only going to deal with the urban growth areas. They're not going to deal with these other outlying areas. And so then, when you look at every one of these plans, they all call for significantly higher densities their urban growth area, or excuse me, lower density. And we have compromised down significantly in most instances a quarter or less than what these towns of S4. So I get back to the original point. If we're trying to encourage the towns to accept this growth and what the towns have asked for in their plan is an area of less density outside their urban growth areas. I don't see how you get there. I don't see then how you begin a good faith negotiation dialogue with the community that will accept large growth densities. But yet in return the densities that they're concerned with in the outlying areas in terms of two acre Willie Nilly stays the same. We are not taking away the right for people to put any given number of units on a piece of property. What we are doing is we're encouraging that that property be used to the same density level as it exists today only configured differently on the ground. And so I cannot for the world to me understand why we would then expect Newcastle or Silt or Rifle who have all asked for 10 to 20 or even higher densities outside the urban area. Then why would we expect them to enter into an IGA with the county, when they, when the thing that they have really pointed to over and over again, and indeed almost everyone of their comments was specific to that point. I go back to the chairmen's well spoken comments several meetings ago about finding the ability to come together, work together as a county and communities. I don't see how this facilitates it, to be honest with you Bob. Is it taking something away from someone to say, you no longer can just go out and carve up two acre tracks? The bottom line is nobody's doing it anyway. The few little two acre tracks that are out there being carved up are happening through the exemption process for the most part. And that's not going to stop. We're not affecting that. Are we trying to look to a future with a different density plan on the ground from a high altitude down to a mid-level altitude. Yes, that's what we're trying to do. And how we get there in some other regard and to come to the towns and say here is some beginning of a plan to work cooperatively. I don't know how we get there. If we make this change. Okay, through the comment, Lauren. I have a question for you, Dawn. Legally, how would an IGA, what would that process look like? So if the IGA was siltsed, we'd like to have two to six incudency in that area. We have to come back and revise our plan. No, it would just be residing in the IGA and that sufficient. I was just talking about the process if their IGA differs from our compound. Mr. DeFord, Ms. Gaugner. Yeah, briefly, and I think both Fred and Jeff may want to comment on this too, but we just kind of chance to briefly talk about this. First of all, you have to keep in mind the urban growth area. Founders are in flexible pondering there, not a lot in forever. So you're talking about establishing densities, as part of your land use maps. You're going to have to change those maps periodically to reflect changes in your own environment. And to get to the density issues, those should be reflected in your comprehensive plan, or at least they will have to be specifically referenced in the IGA so that an individual looking at the land use map can turn at least in the IGA and determine from that what the answer to this is or the urban growth pattern. Okay, so we wouldn't have to, and then our plan would just be referenced. For the only thing I was going to add to that, the underlying densities that the plant has in front of you right now, if an IGA doesn't happen is a 2 to 6 for the most part of these areas. So that's what your plant says today. That's absent an IGA that would be negotiated for that area in your urban growth care rate. So it says that that's okay. It says that's today actually. You know, I have to say that's really important element because the IGA's certainly are not given. It's not a given. We'll get those in place in a real short time frame. It would be a while before we do that. It history tells me it'll be progressive negotiations with each other. It's not going to be a more of a group of each other. I guess it's not going to be a more of a brief each time. And to be honest, that's partially why I have the stance I have is that I believe that we maintain what we have. We're arguing I have different on this and so we'll just, we have the right to differ. That's why we have more sexes we do. We have different opinions and so it's not easy to us to meet each other up or has to be out effective a lot more. But I feel very strongly about this. And I've run it up several times. And I understand the clustering concept. I believe that it's a classroom type thing. It has improvement to me whether in my real estate career or just in our community that it holds water in my mind. It was a great concept. I believe we would have far superior proof brought to us by the experts. I wasn't convinced by it. So once again, I'm going to go back to it. I have a fiduciary responsibility in my mind and how I view that responsibility. It's to the citizens of Garfield County that have one inch over the Garfield County line in the city. That city and one inch of the County one is County And I stand by what I've presented here And I would like to agree with Bob wholeheartedly because the exemption process is not what we're using to do to acre parcels We're not using that We are doing to acre subdivisions outside of town People like it. There's something there. I've got room. I personally live in a two acre subdivisions outside of town. People like it. There's something there. I've got room. I personally live in a two acre subdivision. I have a big barn. I have an arena. I have a bulldozer. I have a backhoe. And I can't park on a dumb truck and a dumb trailer and a horse trailer. And I can't park all that on a quarter raker round. I can't park it on a half-acre. I can hide it on my two acres and the neighbors don't see it. If you're trying to stuff all that on mine it's going to look like a junk yard. Right next to Phil's junk yard and Greg's and Bob's and then we have a big open space here of weeds with a lot of junk around it. It hasn't pruned out so far in the county. In my years here, exemption process is a whole different can of worms. It works different. It's an animal of its own. It's not always on a small piece of ground. It could be a 640 acre ranch and I just want to create some little places for my kids and I'm still going to someday be able to sell off the rest of this into acre pieces or in 200 acre pieces. Till we have those IGA's and I can feel comfortable that the people of Garfield County are protected and know what's out there. Clustering hasn't seen its day in Garfield County. I don't think we're going to park shit down anyone's throat. I think we're going to get there as we expand and we get into the towns actually doing something on their outskirts. Right now they're building this way that way. This way there's no growth out of our towns. New castle is probably the closest thing to seeing actual moving out from their towns. The towns are plopping little subdivisions here and there and there in their own areas. So I just can't do it. I can't say no to it. I mean I can't say yes to that. It will have to go away to me. Okay, Jack. I had the interpretation of the, just the opposite of Bob's, is that from sitting through these many hearings, especially listening to the data that came back from the numerous public meetings, in each case, I heard that the consistent request was to keep some semblance of space or openness between urban development. And that this we actually we identified several years ago. It wasn't even, this was not even a new methodology to us, this clustering idea. We identified this as a tool that caused people that wanted to develop in a more rural setting to really evaluate a design that might meet some of the values that we've expressed and that the public told us that they were interested in. And so I find that the two to six criteria is probably the most simple, direct, easy, easily understood, and most directive tool that a developer could look at in order to provide or move him towards good development. We deal in, as we all know, with our larger developments systematically, in fact almost virtually every time with the PUD. Well in a sense this is like the itty bitty PUD. It's like causing people to really have to recognize what their land can yield for them that's valuable to a potential consumer. to really have to recognize what their land can yield for them that's valuable to a potential consumer. And it simultaneously meets the public's criteria that we heard over the last 12 months or eight months, whatever it's been, that this is a benefit. These broader lands, this broader openness in the absence of urban infill or adjacent building to urban, in the absence of that is the best method that we can come up with as human beings currently. So I think that it's inherent to this plan not only from the fact that it's as Greg points out, this is needed in order to show that we're going towards what municipalities are giving to us. But it's also just, it's not an honors tool, it's not a dictatorial element, it's simply an opportunity to express the true values that the public expressed to us and left us with a fiduciary relationship to deal with. So? The only short comment would be that most of the people I saw at all the meetings I went to worked for a town or a municipality of some kind. They were not the general public that lived in Garfield County on the outside of that line. So I feel like the information we received was skewed. Well, I'm not weird to discuss the process. I'm discussing I would like to discuss the issue. Yeah we're not discussing the process. The process is done. It's done tonight. We have a lot of public time. Okay I'm just saying I'm not going to vote for it so you can. I guess if we're going to change that then we need to go back and revise that where we were going to exempt these two to six acre folks from the affordable housing criteria. I encourage just to incorporate that and we have in various ways as an incentive to get, encourage the landowner to do clustering whatever level he did not want to do. But if we're going to say no way to the two to six then I honestly don't have a whole lot of support left for removing the incentive. I would remove the incentive for doing that in terms of the affordable housing issue. So we would go back to if you have fiber more units, you're going to have to do your 15%. Because it works across purposes. There's no point in putting an incentive out there like that. Unless there's a reason to have the incentive on the table. And if you go back to just strict two acre plots, then to my mind, we've accomplished nothing in terms of protecting the open country. And that's the whole idea of why I proposed. It was, here's an incentive for a person to do this. So if we're going to change the two to six we need to go back in and pull that out of a couple other sections in my mind. Further comment? I have one what has been here. Oh yeah. That's fine. I guess my comment would be is one of two things. I don't recall voting on it. We approved that getting rid of that. And two, if that incentives could still apply, that if someone elected to go that route, there would be the incentive to come out of the two acres in there and do what you'd suggest. Just do have the cluster in our regulation. It's there. Yeah, we haven't denied them their ability to. But that incentives could still exist if they say, the cluster in our regulation. It's there. We haven't denied them their ability to, but that incentive could still exist if they say, I'm going to lose out a affordable housing aspect, I'm going that route versus this route. For the comments on the motion to amend. Mr. Winston, a couple of technical observations. One of the questions is do you want to make a distinction between inside the I-UGA versus outside the I-UGA? Because the way it stands right now, if you change it on page 25 you're changing it everywhere. So it goes back to one for two inside the UGA's as well as outside. And if you leave it at one for two inside the UGA's then one of the potential ramifications is that the there is not as much incentive for the landowners inside the UGA to work with the communities to try and develop alternative so higher. Ultimately they will get higher densities. They may be in Tier 2 or Tier 3 in Rifle. They're moving out gradually, starting with their comprehensive plan. And I believe in Newcastle as well. So there's a sense of moving out gradually. Those on the outskirts may choose that they feel like they have no incentive to wait the Minder's well, do the one or two. So there may be some different message you're sending in terms of how you want to treat. I'm not sure how the IGA is going to address that. So I just want you to think about whether you're, whether you want to establish a different density inside the UGA's until the IGA supersedes it. The second thing is that if we change this, we'll need to spend some time with you tonight working through the document because the one per two to six ripples through several other sections and concepts in the plan. And thirdly, just to respond partially to Bob's comment is that part of the justification for the 1-2-6 is that at 1-2, we do have clustering and incentives inside the zoning and subdivision documents today, comprehensive plan, but experience has shown that there is not much incentive for clustering at one per two of the base density. Then until you get to a higher, lower density, the incentive to cluster is dramatically reduced and it generally starts at about one unit per five acres. This is where an effective incentive from the studies we showed you at the prior meeting. So that was just trying to respond to Bob. That was part of the technical side of that. For the comments on the motion to mint. Mr. Chairman. When this thought originally came up, I was opposed to it, not being familiar with the process. Since then, there are a few reasons that I'm in favor of it. And I have five reasons listed, why I cannot agree with you, Sheryl, and Bob tonight. And those are that I have seen firsthand a propagation of one and two acre lots, not being a very favorable living condition. I believe that that will be detrimental to the growth in the community. I did not see in our process a large effort to object on the part of the people who currently own properties that were discussing. The IG, the resolution or the amendment with the IGA's in my mind could actually result in less density than what we're proposing. The property of the fourth reason, I'm opposed to the amendment share, Cheryl, is that the property owners in these affected areas that we're talking about really will have no basis of knowing where their property sits now because it's in my mind very big. It's going to be up to the IGA agreements, how their densities get resolved. So I think we would be doing it to service to them. And lastly, I think that the change of this magnitude is going to require a great deal of revisions in the document that we're doing that's going to require quite a bit of thought and time. And the time limit, the time at which this is brought up is objectionable to me, fortunately. So I would not be in favor of the amendment. I appreciate it. And I've thought be in favor of the amendment. I appreciated that. And I thought through that hard, long and hard with you, just kind of, kind of, I've through it, kind of agree with you at the time. Okay. And I agree with that. I think that timing was because with this is where they told us we had to wait to come up with this. We had already beat the dead horse. Yeah. When we get to this point tonight, we can talk about two acres again. That's why it's brought up tonight because Green have not brought it up again. So, and there was one other thing I'd like to answer that you put on there, wouldn't it? What was your number three? Number three was that we could actually wind up with less than city and those areas in our country. Exactly. Exactly. What's your spine? If the IGA between the elected official not man advising and the towns come up with that, then that's what it is. But I don't have the authority or the responsibility that an elected official has. I have no constituents I just sit here. Any chair requests a couple of minutes recess please. Sorry about that. That's not what we want to do. Yeah, well, I didn't mean that. Okay, folks, can we come back to order, please? All right. My apologies. I got a little family emergency. And what I'd like to do is I've got police routed over to get things handled over in Denver and I'll follow up in the next couple hours. But this is important. I want to continue on and keep this conversation moving. I don't want to just stop the whole thought of conversation this evening because of the issue. First of all, I think your family is one for me. It is. It is. It is. If she needs to pick you up here for emotional or whatever reasons, we're all well being right. Thank you. At the next meeting, I know that and I appreciate that. So I want to kind of keep the train to thought. That girls had a hell of a lot on her plate then. It's a little wild. Yes. So thank you all for the comment on the but you tell me again once you come up with. Well, what we put in several places, you tell us. Is it in? Sorry. Sorry, the interrupt. You can reference on page 41. It's actually 7 or 8. This is in language that reference is to a small cluster in central court level. 47. Stage 41. Oh, 4 or 1. OK. Thank you. And then there was something else because I read through this again today. There's another reference to how it works across purposes. Yes. Where is that? It's an observation at the beginning of the housing section. Okay. The last bullet on page 39. No, I'm sorry it's... It's the last on 40 page 40. Yes, let's go on. And I think shown the way we came the idea was to Encourage the cost during by removing this and but the way we actually remove it will be when we start hopefully at the beginning of the year, per the chairman's recommendation on the actual code. That's where the regulation results are. I mean, I'm a little too refresher. I didn't bring my notes, I mean, my scuffle with all the notes, and I thought you guys totally saw it, and that was good, so I just know better. Further comments on the motion to amend? I'm going to give you a little statistic. Yeah. 15 properties of 1 to 3 acres in size since 2004 have sold in the lower valley versus 154 in the upper valley. On those sixes have we split down to two. For the comments on the motion to Matt. Oh, I'll comment, right? I guess I see both sides of the discussion, but I think I'm attending the favorite towards Sheryl and Bob for the simple fact that this forcing clustering, I don't think, is solving any problems. The issue of we're trying to address is the rural character, well, county, and trying to create a small open space. I don't think forcing clustering in a smaller area I think creates more problems than we're solving. Because now you've got four or five six ten fourteen houses all clung together and it's tiny little lots. You've created shared septic, shared shared well, shared access, irrigation. You've got all these speech away, now they're going to have to exist. And anytime you do that, you end up with problems. Is this just going to create more problems? I think you're going to increase the cost of that the first quarter of cost of the property, that's not going to help anything for housing. I just think it's creating more problems than we're solving. Nothing I like to make, lots per say. I would rather have say six or ten anchor lots, but that's not an option at this point. I think I would support the two anchor density because it's better than having all these little clusters with un-maintained open spaces and always in HOAs. As Cheryl pointed out, there's not a lot of these going on anyways. It seems to be a tool that is valuable to some farmers and ranchers to protect their and their investments. I think it does less harm than what we're going to create with this cluster of buy-a-long ways. Okay. For the comment? My favorite job. I'd have to be screened in the sense that I keep going back. Okay. For the comment? Much of a job I had to disagree in the sense that I keep going back to one of the initial maps that we were shown in the initial meetings. And taking a look at what Garfield County in 2030 would look like with two acre lots spread from Carvendil to Battle McMaster. And I disagree with, excuse me, but I believe in the methodology and I believe that the information that we have here in the appendix from all the surveys taken show that it is the people in this in this community value their open space and the value of the world character from my limited time on the sport I think it is, we need to do something. We need to establish a course that will correct what is inevitable. Those two make a lot spreading everywhere. Is clustering the way to do it? It may not be the best way to do it. Do we need to do something to protect what the public has told us that they value those? Absolutely. And so therefore I would suggest leaving it as it is. I believe it's a valuable tool. For the comment, I'm sorry. I just had a very difficult time sitting here thinking that we as a board sitting here have the right to tell the Garfield County residents that's what they have to do. The clustering is still available to them, so I've said enough, I do you know how I feel, I'll leave it there. Okay. For the comment. Oh, Sean. You know, I thought it was, and I'm not convinced it's not a bigger issue. I agree with, it gets back to property rights, but I've been surprised in talking to people and by the lack of turnout of people who really seem to be worried about it. That's the shocking part because I really thought it was a, I'm not your time, a serious issue. And I sat through the large landowner meeting, which is a whole different thing. And when we went to rifle, and we went to different places to talk to people, I thought this would be a huge issue. And the only time it's an issue is the guy who wants to sell his property. He doesn't want the guy next door doing it. He likes to wear all the 6 to 10, but it's not a big issue to that point. I guess it's not the issue I thought it was because I thought you'd have a ton of people here test off and I've not seen it yet. That's kind of and I'm wondering I also I'm up in Cardband L2 and the ones I talked to down here are you know I think down here. Down Valley would be a smaller narrower group you, as in the next couple nights, I have a couple agriculture related dinners I gotta go to. I'm sure that would be the prime time to hear what people really think. So far, I haven't heard it. You know, and that's kind of, I kind of, you know, a couple weeks ago, I was dead set against this. I'm kind of the point where I'll doth was some of this it's I haven't seen I thought it was bigger than it is apparently nobody they don't feel strong enough to be here so but once again like I said maybe there's something I'm not hearing and that's why I would you know rely on Cheryl and other ones from down there I'm I would I wish these other two deals were, these two next meetings I have Thursday and Friday night are going to be great sounding boards. I mean, I'm really curious to hear what comes out of it. It'll be too late, but it'll still be interesting to see it. It's a big deal or not. I guess I'm leaning towards saying that it's the 2 to 6 is I don't believe in the costuring is not so the answer or forcing people on the incentive phase. I think the incentive base is the way to be, but I guess it comes back to someone who I want to compromise. If it's not, I don't, I'm really on offense on this. This is not, this is to me, it's an audit clear cut issue. So anyone's, I didn't really answer any questions. I think that's your one of your questions about the lack of people. You're going to do what you want anyway. What difference does it make if we show up? We went to the large landowners and nobody listened to what we had to say, so I'm not coming anymore. And it's like, that's not a good answer. That's what I tell them. It's not a good answer. You should be here. You need to be here. If you've got a problem, you should be here. It doesn't make any difference. Well, large landowners need to... But that meaning, it was split. And I mean, at least in my, Robert Burry was there too. I mean, it's, you know, you had half that wanted the bell pack of man like Sardines. And you wanted the other half that wanted it back like it was in 1960. And it was, I mean, it was really split. And, you know, I mean, it was, I, it would have been hard to take a clear cut. It was no way you were going to take one direction out of that field. And it wasn't to do with who was on this end of the valley and who was on that. It was spread across the whole place. That was one thing, at least you saw the consistency. It was not your end versus our end type of thing. It was as far as, you know, that was, and that was also just a straw poll who they could get the show up. So, you know, that's the answer much for me. For the comments. The forward question. So we do this and we go to six. And I wanted to conservation easement. What is this going to do to my easement rights where I have so many buildable lots and that's what they, this is developed ground, this is what the appraisal is on, this is undeveloped ground, the appraisal is on, I get the easement value in the middle here. What's it going to do when I have now said I'm already have to leave this in an easement anyway, this cluster open space, I'm leaving this in an easement because whether we say we are then believe our regs say we are going to protect it if we cluster. We're not leaving it just as for future development. So now I have little protected clusters around are those out of my easement rights when I go to do a conservation easement. Go Redman. I've already protected it once if somebody would take that small piece. You protected it with an easement for the clustering. To do the clustering because our regulation requires already. Now what do you want to do with that? Now I want to put a conservation easement on the big piece. I've already, which is this is not still open. This is all still open space, but it's not part of my new conservation easement. What have I done to my property now that I've started calling it little clusters instead of the development right of the two-acre zoning or density that I had. I created the cluster. I took out a 10-acre piece and I put part of it in an easement if someone would take that small of an easement. And that's right, you understand that? Well, I've got, have I affected my other two acre pieces. Now that I have designated this 10 over here, that's right. There's a cluster, small pieces, and an easement. How am I affecting the density on the big piece that I have, my money maker in the middle of? I have 102 acre lots and at this price because they're developed and I have 200 acres that's as undeveloped difference in the price. There's my easement value What if I if I affected that at all with the two to six because now this is now not too anymore it's two to six. Where is it going to affect my ability? Where's it going to affect my easement values? I don't understand the question correctly but I believe what you're still preserving the right to two or one to you for two acres on that portion that's been clustered. So if you have 100 acre personal property and you're not subtracting for roads, whatever, you have one to you for two acres, which means you have 50 lots you can solve. And you can still retain that right to the bottom and the balance of the property and the other 15 acres is what goes into the easements of this. The value is still fully intact. No, the question is I have 200 acres. I have 100 developable lots. I am going to do a conservation easement. So each of these lots have a value for the conservation easement. This 200 acres undeveloped has a value as Aglant. The difference that my easement is is the number between my undeveloped Aglant and my two-acre lots. Have I affected with the two to six the value of my easement? That number in between. Am I now going to get say when the AVLT comes down and goes, well, you could, it's not worth as much because you really can only do one dwelling unit per six now instead of so am I going to affect those people that are trying to do the big easements that we really like because there's our rural character for Garfield County. I see what you're saying. The rural character of Garfield County is going to be the people who do put their land in the easements and we still have ranches. Not these 10 acre pieces with a corner that's leads. You know. But am I going to affect those people's property rights that they're only going to get six units per 100 in that group? Well, it's a property rights issue that's huge that could affect this. Well, if you have your issue and it has with the land use regulation, it can affect value. Anytime you restrict the development of property through any action you do be it zoning or density restrictions, you're going to affect the value of the property. Potentially. You know, we really need to talk to ABLT or someone like that to see what the extent of the impact would be. I can't answer that. But as I said, value can go be an increased or decreased based on your zone restriction. Yes, you cut the number of available lots, but it may be the view of someone like a conservation easelholder like ABLT, that the lots you are entitled to develop will be more valuable because of what you did. That's for their call, but you can't just say categorically, it's going to reduce that in May, that the answer is in May. But there are a lot of variables in it. There was a test case in Durango with that. It's curious. Sure. And what happened was, is that the value of the eventual idea was that he clustered along Meta, so that these guys had great views, tons of wildlife. The value of his houses, so high, you know, higher than if he had just done two-eighths. I'm backwards from you though, John. I'm saying I'm trying to do the thing. What the deal is, this is on a case by case basis, you do the valuation of a build-up scenario versus the valuation of what your baseline scenario, which is your current use. And then so you could propose your scenario, build a scenario on any manner that gives you value and it may be higher or lower depending on the one that you've done. Well we see more I think as people with no build up mentality, they don't want to build. I want it to be green grass, cows, green grass cows. I have my two acres over here. This is the value if I did decide them. I'm not going to come up with scenario because I'm not going to develop it. I just want to know what's this worth and two. What's this worth in green? So I know how much touch and you have a crazier. Yes, we have a crazier and a crazier both ways. But if I'm doing six is it going to be very different for that man that's trying to do this to You have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have a crazy, you have What are we doing to those people are we affecting a property value unconsciously that I'm not aware of I don't I Yeah, what's the higher value two acres flat or two to six? I mean I mean we've had these conversations We never did get nine months ago And we still are looking for the same same thing I've never talked to you VLT or anybody like that Maybe maybe she was here I don't remember. Mr. Winston, we've been on both sides of the question. We've been consultants to the IRS who are going back and challenging some of those claims and in general the criteria that they require us to use is was it a reasonable assumption and generally it's close to reasonable that's fine. I think your question is Cheryl is if I have a 200 acre property and I can have 100 units today two acre lots if this land use designation is applied I have a hundred units on third acre lots Cluster in one corner is still have 100 units not my question yes It is because at the end of the day it's what is the whole 200 acres worth? If I want to put a conservation easement on it, have I changed the value and I would say that That's probably possible to tell because it is related to the fact that in fact those Clustered units May have a higher may have had a higher value because they were on a permanent open space whereas two acre lots of the surrounding by two acre lots may not have this high value. All of the things being equal now is almost impossible to track the actual comparison because most properties have either views or water or proximity to growth, or any other kind of factor. So, to finish the value that somebody could get from a conservation easement under one planned use scenario versus another, I think it's pretty hard to make a judgment, but in general it seems to me that based on my own experience, that they just about wash. For the comments? First, I was only going to add that thinking about that question, I think it's an interesting question. I think it's an interesting question. I would say that you've had areas in the county that we have today that already have a range. So taking Missouri Heights, for example. That range exists at our common point now, and that's how they point the ground that has been since we will put that in place. So at least 13 years ago, I'm not going to realize it. And I know that there are also easements certainly in Missouri High School that have accommodated that question. So it does happen. It happens now that it has happened in the last 13 years. But I think I have to agree with Jeff. The research of what I've read is about the same. I think the point is, well taken, it's a very difficult thing. Even if you get ABLT in the room, I think that's probably the same answer you've got. I just don't want to deny anybody their right to get the best value for that land so that it can go into an easement. We don't want to do so much. Do I have any other questions? For the comment? Yeah, I agree with you. But I could just address, Cheryl, you mentioned that you cannot put a... You're worried about the mechanics of trying to put a septic or a leach field, an ISDS on that common space or that open space. The way the math works out basically, you're winding up generally with say a half acre, half acre lots. It's pretty doable from my experience to have a septic system of leach field and a half acre lots, especially with use of infiltrators that we have now. They produce the size, the footprint of those things quite a bit. So I see most of those things actually fitting within within the half-acre and having to go into that. I heard some explanations about it having some areas designated in case it was a failure in the open space but that's probably going to be the exception if the soils are permeable and off if they have enough good quality. Who's responsible for it once it gets put over there on the open space? That I don't know, but those are the exceptions. I don't know that yet. It's just, it's the exception rather than the rule. For the comments? Okay. I'll make your comment. for the comments? Okay, let me make a comment. I think that it's probably useful to take a look at at how we got to this point with the 2-6 acre conversation. There's not a conversation that we started out last week, nor the week before last, as you all know, we've covered this intensity during the course of this discussion. We've had public comment on this. We've had Mr. Winston and his group giving us opinions and the like on it. And this also has been a compromise. This has been a negotiation. As I've said before, I know the word compromise is a bad word to me, but the fact of the matter is, as we have communities out there that started out with a conversation of 1 to 20 per unit, 12 unit per 20 acres and 12 unit per 10 acres here. We now sit at a conversation at 1 unit per 2 to 6 acres with the cluster option. I still feel that that's the right place to be, and the right reason to do this, and that comes down to the fact that we do need to have IGEs in place. However I disagree with the motion to a man because I don't feel that IGEs are the place to put comprehensive plan details that are not included in the comprehensive plan. Details should be incorporated in the comprehensive plan and then transferred to the IGE, not the reverse. It doesn't seem to me to be a directional, that's not a choice of direction that makes any sense to me. So I will not vote for that concept. I don't think it's effective, and I don't think it's where we want to go with this. And from an economics standpoint, I'll have to say we've batted this thing around many times here about what difference does this make, what difference does it not make. I think ultimately we've come down as a group to an understanding that this one unit, one dwelling unit, a two to six acres with the cluster option. And again, bearing in mind, folks on page 25, 0% open land, one dwelling unit per six acres, 50% open land, one dwelling unit per four acres, 70% open land, 1-dwelling unit per six acres, 50% open land, 1-dwelling unit per four acres, 70% open land, 1-dwelling unit per two acres. We've worked through the math, we've worked through the details. I feel that we have good standing to work with this. I don't feel like this is some kind of grand crazy experiment. And I don't think we're nettied for going this round. So I guess I don't, I would not support the amendment. Any other, any other comment? Very none. Becky, maybe we have a roll call vote on the amendment. And this is for the seven right here, remember. Just the amendment. Just the amendment. Yes, it is.. Just the amount. Just the amount. Yeah. That's enough. I'm going back to the original motion. Just the amount. A doppelgoro? No. Bob Fullerton? Yes. Show Chandler? Yes. Greg McKenna? No. Dr. Cobra? No. Philip Fawn? No. Sean Martin? Do you want to go over? No. Phillip von? No. John Martin. No. Okay, motion to a man fails. Five, two. That makes seven. Thank you. A grand bell in the middle. Okay, every time. I'm in to motion. It feels fine too. I'm not going to go that's right. I've got to go on the got the whole there. I'm dead. I'm dead. Thanks for all the good to this group. I'm into motion. I'm into motion. Feels fine too. Sorry, I missed one of my yeses and nose on here, and I'm, oh yeah, my own. Okay, and that's where I missed it. All right. I was telling, I just forgot to put my own telling in Further amendments to the document. Here you know further minutes. Chair would recommend a motion to continue to our meeting on November 10 with instructions to staff to take the red line document, turn it into a black line document. And I guess let me hold on a second. Yeah, please. We didn't touch this document. No, no. So we had the discussion earlier that we did not touch this document or the black line document. Last of the county attorney's office again. If we were to take about this evening versus a continuance to November 10 with this red line document, with no other changes, acceptable, not acceptable. The only other change I would say is the very, the preface. I would go with the red line document. I cannot support that stuff that's written in the black line. That's it. The motion for the red line. The motion for the red line. Yes. We have the motion for the red line document. We have not changed. There is a right now, the red line document. There have been no changes made for the red line document. OK, so what? You answered the chair's question, is you still really continue to have the actual final document. We also represent you with the formal resolution. I think there's a copy of that in the binder. It would be in this form but would refer to finalized red line documents in front of you today plus all of the exhibits includes both the documentging and certification that that needs to be adopted. So we would propose that those documents are placed in front of you on the panel for adoptable form or action by the commission. Thank you, Mr. DeFord, for Clark Prime. Is he saying in lawyer terms that this red line would become black and we would vote on it? Yes, ma'am. Okay. would become black and we would vote on it. Yes, ma'am. OK. Blond. OK. Safe or not, it's blocked. This is, it's important. I agree with you. I needed to be clear. Jobable. OK, so let me get this procedure leak back to you. So we're not going to vote on this motion until we're going to continue this motion. So we're going to have two motions on the table at the same time. One for continuance and one for this. And because we have a motion to continue, that motion takes precedence over the motion that's currently on the table. That motion is going to sit until next Wednesday night to 10. And we can have two motions in place. Absolutely, because this motion has to be. It's a motion to continue. OK, it's like a motion to achieve. Right? Now, if we have a motion to continue, can that motion to continue include wording to accept only this red document, red line document, adjusted to black? Absolutely not. And that will be voted. In other words, we're not going to open the debate. We got to keep going over there. Mr. DeForeign. The Secretary has a comment that I think you should consider as a proceed to the mission tonight. Kerry. As a procedural issue, I think what you can do is to close out the leaves on the motion that it's currently pending, which is to accept this as the final comprehensive plan document. Then when you reconvene on Wednesday, the motion that will be before you is to accept the resolution with the finalized document attached as exhibit A and all the appendices. And so we can at least close the book on this issue tonight. And then, what we'll do before you is being cleaned up. This will be made black and it will be incorporated as and exhibit some resolution to people. Okay, thank you. That was not my understanding of our earlier conversation. It's a big subject. I appreciate that. Okay. So right now, I guess, well, actually don't have to make a motion. We have a motion on the table. So we have a motion on the table, and that motion is this red line document with no further amendments. So is there any further discussion on this motion? Once we complete this discussion, then we will go ahead and take a roll call vote on this document. So floor's open for discussion. Again, for many members. Of course. Hearing no further discussion from the Planning Commission, Becky, may we have a roll call vote please? And exactly what it is that's for. So she'd want to vote. Thank you, Becky. That's all right. This is our original motion that Greg made this evening. And that is to adopt the Garfield County Conference of Plan 2030. And November 3, 2010 staff recommendations with exhibits A through S attached. That is the motion that we have on tables. Everyone clear on the motion? Thank you, that's a good question. Everyone's clear on the motion. Is there any further discussion? No further discussion? Becky, may we have a roll call vote please? Is that for Gora? Yes. About pollution? No. Sheriff Chand pollution? No. Shelf-chandles? No. Very mechanic? Yes. Job-distant? Yes. Bill von? Yes. Sean Martin? Yes. Motion carries. Five, two. And the chair would accept a motion to continue this public hearing for the ultimate adoption and certification of the Blackline document for 6.30 p.m. first agenda item on the agenda for November 10, 2010. Mr. Chairman. I wonder if you may want to accelerate that to 6 o'clock. Any issues on six p.m. Thanks Fred. Okay. So if you're going to make a motion to continue, we can move to continue to six p.m. November 10. This is how I'll look at it. I would make a motion to continue to six o'm. November 10th. This public hearing. I would make motion to continue to 6 o'clock on October 10th or November 10th to adopt the resolution that contains this comprehensive plan. Okay. We have motion on table. Is there a second? Okay. We have motion and second for continuance. Is there any discussion on the issue? No further discussion on the issue. Becky may we have a roll call for please. Dr. Coral? Yes. Dr. Bullington? Yes. Cheryl Chandler? Yes. Great McKenna's? Yes. Dr. Coler? Yes. Great. Yes. Dr. Coler. Yes. The bond. Yes. John Martin. Yes. Motion carries for continuance to November 10. Thank you all for your time. See you. Thank you. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're welcome. You're If you guys would leave your coffin and minder, I will put the knee document in it and it will back out to you. Yes. Yes. Yes.