And we have a real bad habit of sitting here after the meeting and talking about things we probably should have. You need to come up real quick and turn that off. Or remind us to shout out. We already... Yep. Just run. What? It's a blessed rock and roll. Greetings everyone. This is the monthly meeting for the Montrose County Planning Commission just for the record March 27, 2025. If you're able please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. The peculiarity is to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. I just want to remind everybody if you have a phone or a noisy electronic device please silence it so we don't get interrupted. We are advisory to the Board of County Commissioners so anything we do tonight any decision we make is not final. We'll go to the County Commissioner's next meeting for their review and approval or disapproval or every way they want to make it go just for general knowledge. We will enforce the 11 o'clock rule. I typically we don't get to that point. I'll discuss it more if we get there. We do have a quorum tonight. It looks like we have everybody here present, so that's good. We had a few corrections to the February 27 minutes that everybody get a chance to look and review those. If you did and there's no discussion, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the February 27th, 20, 25 minutes as presented. Okay. Got a motion to accept. Does somebody want a second? I'll second that. Okay, Rocky. Any further discussion on the minutes from the 20th? Who's talking Rocky? Rocky that? He wasn't here. Oh, that's right. You were not here. I did read the minutes. Doesn't count. That's right. That was that was that was my correction. I should have known that. But okay, Lan, you can't vote either, by the way. If you were not at the meeting, you can't vote. All right. You're excused. Okay. So we have a motion to approve the minutes by David Seymour and why the Kinsey Seconded it any further discussion if not all in favor raise your right hand and we got unanimous because Lana and Rocky were not here and those two don't vote so we're good. We have a quorum called to the public. Is Is there anyone that wants to discuss an item that is not on the agenda? Anything. We won't deal with it tonight, but we'll listen if you want to say something. OK. I want to write the order. Line them up here, either. Right. If you didn't vote. But you you can't second ocean. That's correct I was here. Oh, she was here. You weren't here for the 11 for the 11 right I was here for the 22 She was here for the 27 right that's right. Well doesn't list 27th. Okay. Well, that's you were here, the February 27th. Okay. So on the revised set, it says, okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's the other. Okay. Yeah. We good? Yep. Okay. Where was I? I called the public. Yeah. Nobody wants to get up and talk. All right. Okay. We just want to keep it orderly. The first item on the agenda tonight is a continuance from our February meeting. The Ranger Ranchettes special use permit. Townmets, do you want to give us a little briefing on that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the special use permit to expand an existing airport off 6300 road. to reiterate the special use permit area is about 35 to 34 acres in size of the zone general agricultural. I mean it's located at 63-hundred roads south of Pearl. There are four hangers proposed and that's new hangers are considered an expansion of the airport. Nothing is proposed to be changed to the air strip, to the runway itself, only to the to add hangers for storage of aircraft. The item was continued to follow up on some potential solutions to concerns brought up by citizens. There are, I believe, five additional criteria. Six additional criteria that are added to hopefully address the concerns of the planning commission of public expressed if it's found that those can satisfactorily mitigate the planning commission may choose to approve with those conditions if it's found that they can't. We can discuss and see if there's a different possibility or potentially deny the application. So the ninth condition on there is that all lighting associated with the hangers shall infuse the standards and section five the lighting standards of the zoning regulations. The tenth condition is states that no hanger shall exceed 5,000 square feet in total and then I tried to put some language in there to clarify if it's a hanger home that the residence portion does not count towards that so it's just counting the hanger. The reason I picked 5,000 is that is a number that was thrown out the last evening if you feel like it needs to be adjusted. That's a good discussion point. Private fuel storage shall be allowed for personal use and then I put a limit on the size of those tanks and then a clarify that commercial sale of that fuel is not allowed., the size I would imagine could be up for discussion. Water trucks shall be available in case of emergency on the site. My understanding is the truck that the developer already has is 4,000 gallons, has 4,000 gallon capacity, that's why that number was chosen. And then number 13, the contact information, the owner's operas there for including our reliable phone number shall be posted at the property and maintaining good condition. And then the final one is to to dust mitigation says as needed to generally shall be true of water and roll with a smooth drum, voluntary compactor, compactor to minimize dust effects. And again, the developer has that equipment handy and the reason I put as needed is to keep it general, but to keep it... It's obligatory for the developer to keep us down and it's in everyone's best interest in that area. So, where some weeks you might have to do it every other week, and depending on the use, some weeks you might have to do it once a month or every other month. So felt that wasn't you, but obviously you could be up for discussion there, too. All public comment is in your packet. There were a number of items submitted during the pack, and obviously public comment portion was closed before the packet went went out so we couldn't do everything in there and that's all I have. I haven't answered any questions. If you have any. Anybody? Well I have a question. You know, the presentation at the previous meeting by the applicant and others with relationship to this airport talked about the amount, the idea of fuel being enough to run one more is, are we inventing something here to allow them to have as much as 2,000 gallons of fuel on this site? 500. Yeah, I believe your your calculation for 2000 is it's four hangers and would be 500. Yeah. It's a good question I think the intent is not to invent something but to limit it from becoming any sort of commercial venture. I think that was the main concern. Can't sell it. Yeah, I was the sub-sort of commercial venture. So we can certainly remove that. And I think the nature of the application is personal and private in nature and not commercial. I think the idea was to have that in there to make sure everyone's clear that it's personal and private. And his narrative states that part of the condition So yes, if you feel it's it's too much you certainly can remember that Just the at the same time There was presentation made talk about specifically about maintenance that can be done in a hanger. He says the biggest maintenance that he was aware of was to change a flat tire. Are we going to open it up to maintenance if we get a certified mechanic or something out there? No, that would be my understanding and reading of the intent of the operation is not a maintenance facility, not a commercial maintenance facility at the end of the end of your private maintenance unit. the intent of the operation is not a maintenance facility, not a commercial maintenance facility. At the end of the private maintenance and you're similar to in your garage, you can work on your car, you can let your friend over to work on your car with you. But that doesn't mean you can open it up for an auto repair shop. A home-based business, yeah. But how much maintenance does the FAA allow on a plane not at an airport or not by certified mechanic? I'm not sure. I'm not sure how to quantify that. That's FAA. I guess. That's not. I'm not sure that's hard. Before we get gone on this, I want to make sure we're procedurally correct because at the February meeting, Atlanta was present and Rocky was not so booked set in as a voting member for this deal. So we should probably keep the same mix in Atlanta. You should probably lay low on it. Is that sound OK to everybody? Yeah. OK. All right. I didn't mean to interrupt, but before we got too far down the road on that, I just wanted to make sure that just for this particular deal. Okay. Is it is it reasonable to have a special use permit for only part of the run the air strip or should the entire air strip be if we're talking about an airport or a landing facility should the whole landing facility be included in any action regarding an airport? I think that's the cleanest way to do it. Obviously that involves different property owners and those property owners from the application I understand they're not interested in expanding. It's a subdivision, basically. OK. We continued it to give the public an extra two weeks to submit written comments, which was, I think, March 15. We had them in our packet. I didn't see a whole lot of new issues coming to surface from that. Did anybody else in their review of that see any issues that would require us to deal and discuss that? I guess I'm not directly to reopen the hearing, but I'm wondering if we should differentiate between an airport and an air strip. You know, I'm not exactly in favor of fuel and maintenance at a small dirt strip like this. The applicant in their application interchangeably talks about airport and air strip And I'm wondering is there such a thing as just limiting this special use permit to an air strip and They get their fuel down here at the airport at the commercial airport Um It's a good question. So I guess the reason in our staff report reason, we refer to airport is airport is all the parts of the airport, including the air strip, including taxis, runways, hangers. That's why it's an expansion of the airport. It's not an expansion of the air strip. The strip's not changing. So the air strip being a part of the airport, I think, those are the differentions. I don't know if I'm trying to think with fuel and minimal maintenance being accessory to an airport. I don't know what ability you have to limit that. Are you saying like zero maintenance and zero fuel on the side? I'm coming back to the idea of what does the FAA allow on this particular site? Is the FAA okay with fuel and unlimited maintenance or what are they okay with since this is an FAA approved landing strip? I don't know how much of that's FAA, how much of that's local. Like I said before, we wouldn't allow commercial fuel sales. We wouldn't allow commercial maintenance on it. Whether the FAA would allow those things, I'm not sure about that. What's the, in the approval conditions, item number one, it talks about a tower what what tower we're talking about Where is that item number one under approval may be subject to falling conditions That's probably an error on my part. Just take that whole sentence out. The rest of the facility. Yeah. Leave the first sentence in. Yeah. You got that. So the revision is we're leaving the sentence and just replacing. No, just take a second sentence out. Completely removing the second sentence. So that would work or you could replace tower with facility, which is more correct. Okay. Okay. What have we done? So what are we doing? Which is... Well, we're taking tower out and putting facility in. That's... Okay, that's the final fix. We're leaving the second sentence, but removing tower and putting facility. I think what I'm saying is either of those would be fine. I think that's subject to your emotion, whatever you want. What is facility that indicates to me? It's the facilities for what the facility has special needs permits for. Just put SUP in front of it, put facility. So all it's the intent of that is this is what's getting approved, anything outside of this or any changes to what's approved would require new specialties. That was the intent of that. Right. Okay, it's outside of this specialties. I, I, to make a admission here, I drive water truck and do compacts in a road. I was wondering if wheel packing of this air strip would be equivalent to a vibratory compact. if you've got 4,000 gallons of water on a truck, if you just wheelroll it, would that be sufficient as compared to a vibratory counter-packed? I'm not sure. I don't want a good answer for that. You know, with county maintains a lot of their roads with just a wheel roller type thing. And 5,000 gallons on truck is sufficient to pack quite a bit of weight. Did the applicant agree to these? Yeah. So he's half to the wheel. Okay. As long as it works. Alright, I guess going back to that question, we did receive a few written comments between the February meeting and March 15th. I didn't see a whole lot of new issues personally, but I just want to make sure that everybody had a chance to look at those and express your findings if you feel differently. I didn't see anything too outstanding. No. I only had one question off of one of the new letters and it's a question for the applicant. Okay. Oh wait a bit, he's here. Okay. Okay. We'll wait a bit. He's here. Okay. Let me call the applicant up then and we can, if you don't mind, I'll not up your head right here. They moved on us. Yeah, they did. That's the new way. Your name and address please. 1827 B5 16300. Okay. 1403. Okay. So Dan one of the letters that we received reminded me of some of the conversation in the February meeting. And we don't get into the specifics of HOA and Covenants. But one of the letters did address that you had expressed that there are HOA Covenants for this area. And I just wanted to confirm that yes, you do have HOA or Covenants for this area and I just wanted to confirm that yes, you do have HOA or Covenants for this area. Yes, such as they are. Yes, we do. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have a line to you? Further to what was mentioned, David. What's typical tank capacity on the plane stood out there? A good question. I would say I don't honestly know. I'm going to guess on these smaller planes, probably 2040, would be my guess. Me like a pilot. I'm not a pilot. Basically, a car or a big truck. I would say similar. I mean these planes they run for a cylinder of OZ engines and they weigh about 2500 pounds fuel. So that tells me that they're not enough a modern room for a modern fuel that 20 to 50 gallons. Sure, probably. And just to clarify on the fuel, I know David's been concerned about the amounts of fuel. And of course, everybody should be. I think that balance is very generous. And I've talked to most of the homeowners most of them are still They don't really keep much people on they prefer fresh gas So they kind of buy it as they go for the most part. I don't believe there's Autocool source going on and I don't think there will be in the future Thank you I don't think that anybody wants to keep 500 gallons of adios or heroin. I think they prefer it in the very first direction. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman. Question. One, I just asked you about H.O.A. and Covenants. I was interested in your answer, but you define such as it is? Yes, no, we have recorded covenants. I guess I probably should have said that. There have been some a few difficulties getting them enforced and writing her on the covenants. But yes, we have restricted covenants, and they are recorded. And everyone that lives out there is aware of of them and we are working with them the best we can. Such as it is. Okay. We just checking. At the at the previous meeting, I guess I'm kind of hung up on fuel. But at the previous meeting it was talked about the amount of fuel that would be on site and then one of the written comments that we received it talked about the amount of fuel that would run along more. Now, are we going to, are we going for the larger amount of fuel or are we going to make these plans come to the airport to fuel up? I'm sure you're not using just standard gasoline. Is it special fuel that? It's just a little higher off-tane. I think it's basically gasoline, but it years 100 octane. They call it out. Yeah, it's just a higher off higher octane. I think that comment might have come from one of the pilots out there. If I remember that comment, but no, I don't think that's accurate to say that the amount of fuel would run a bond motor. I would say I can compare it more to a automobile, probably. To help this planning commission with that issue, you said it's a generous amount per hangar. What do you think if we wanted to reduce that to something would be a maybe- I was going to say maybe not so generous but more realistic what they'd use and keep fresh. It's a good point you made. If unless they're flying a lot, you know, having 100 gallons or 50 gallons is probably enough. Yeah, I would say 100. Personally, if we were going to reduce that amount, I would say 200 would be a good number. The 500 looks good because that's a pretty standard fuel tank that you can buy or rent but you know they have smaller ones so I would say 200 gallons. One that's addressed one thing with you David I know you talk about the water truck and the roller and whatnot just to be clear that this new drum roller is available and I'd like to do an initial cleanup of the air strip and you can incorporate that into it that I agree. I think once we've got a shape to crown and everything is like it needs to be then I think just keeping the moisture in the ground and the operation of the water truck itself. I think mainly just keeping it moist and keeping the moisture in the ground is all we really need. Yeah, I don't anticipate the smooth drum roll. So I didn't round out there all the time, it's not necessary. Well, we have a, it's in the condition that a smooth drum vibrator compactor would be used. I wonder, could we say, or a, how do you word the other one a wheel vehicle or something like that? I'm not in the dust compare a road compaction. What do you call that? The wheel if they put smooth drum vibrator compactor or wheel roll? Wheel roll without what you call it. Okay. That's his driving on it, right? Yeah. That's technical trouble. Yeah. Okay. Is that work? Yeah. Okay. It gives you option. Anybody else, any issues, questions? Thank you. You're good. Yeah, for now. Okay. I guess there are any questions amongst that you want to continue with to see if we need to reopen the hearing or not. I think we've got most of the issues taken care of here. We'll just have two changes to two of the conditions when emotions may keep note of that. So if there's no further discussion amongst us, the hearing was closed prior to this, I I'm not going to reopen it. I don't see the need to. I'll entertain a motion. And keep in mind again, Lana and Rocky, you have to sit out of it. Yeah. Okay. Why do I have to sit out? Oh, you were here. He was, he was the only one. Okay. I'm getting March 11th and February 22. That's right. If I was younger, I'd probably would have caught that. All right. Well, before we consider emotion, I'd like to suggest a fuel on hand. You know, if it's stuff, the octane level goes away over time. If it ages too much, I'd like to suggest maybe a hundred gallons on hand for that main two airplane trips. If it's got a 40 gallon tank, well, a hundred gallons of given two trips, that would keep the free old fresh. Just give them the option to have up to 200. I don't know that they will all have 200. At the price of out gas? Yeah, the price of out gas. and we've come from 500 to 200 I don't know that they will all have 200. The price of Aghaz. Yeah the price of Aghaz and we've come from 500 to 200 so I guess I don't have a problem with that. Okay. Okay so two corrections on it. Yep. Okay. Motion. Mr. Chair. I move to recommend approval of the Ranger Ranch Head Special Use Permit. S- Okay. Motion. Mr. Chair. I move to recommend approval of the Ranger Ranch Head Special Use Permit SU-24-005 to the Board of County Commissioner based on the following findings of fact and subject to the following conditions of approval as shown in this report. One through 14. We have two minor changes in item number one. The word tower is replaced by the word facilities and in item 14 the smooth drum vibratory compactor is now changed to a wheel roller or in addition to. Okay, and we're reducing the gallons of gas from 500 to 200. Yep. Okay, in number 11, reducing gallons to 200. Okay. So three minor changes. Right. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Okay. And David seconds it. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor raise your right hand. Looks like we have unanimous approval so that will be recommended to the County commissioners. Do we have a date for when that hearing would be? 16th of April. Okay. All right. Onward. Let me see. We're right here too. We want to amend the agenda again and move zoning regulations to the end or we'll just take it. I think what's not, let's see where we go with it. I think we're, we've been through that so many times. I'm getting really dove. Let's just get on with the show. So. Yeah. Item number two is the zoning regulations amendment for the renewable energy standards, massage therapy, and natural medicine business. Townage. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the, uh, needs no introduction, but it's only regulations amendment for power generation facilities, as well as the South Florida Business and Natural Medicine Business. So, the item was continued from the March 11th. I believe it was March 11th meetingth meeting with some following a good discussion from the Planning Commission and some suggested changes. So going through those suggested changes, we, it was proposed to not differentiate between small scale solar and the rest of the small scale facilities so that it has all been replaced. Small scale solar facilities have all been replaced with small scale renewable energy facilities. And then that was also adjusted in the definitions as was clarified how the megawatts are calculated. And then under regulations under on the third page there, we added a clarifier that minimum setbacks applicable to the zoning district must be met regardless of agreements made with adjacent properties being the ability to reduce setbacks if agreeable to adjacent property owner. We, it was discussed that we'd prefer those dulled encroach on the 10 foot typical setback in the ag district or whatever setback is applicable. And then in that paragraph C or influence was added we recognize with the height of a wind energy facility it's possible that the wind energy facility would affect a property that's not adjacent, That's two properties over. So we wanted to make sure we were including those properties in consideration. We clarified, we cleaned up a couple things. Some paragraphs said may, paragraphs at Shell so we we Cleaned those up and then we cleaned up some places it said develop or some places it said owner some places an applicant operator So we just again for clarity all of those mean odor operator means is the reward for that. Excuse me. Next page, we added some content that needs to be on the sign and information on the lighting of the sign. If there's any issues at night, it should be well lit, but it should be well lit with the down-grid to light. We added the language in for the drainage. I believe this was Dennis's comment include surface water hydrology to be considered in the standards. Then on the next page, we clarified maintenance. I removed the C there. It looks like I removed it up there but... Yeah, I can still see it. It's a double D. You need to take a D out, I think. Okay, there's one that says how ongoing maintenance. Okay, so it's out of there. Okay, so there what what used to be the old C was how ongoing maintenance of facility and property will be provided. That's already required in the a little lower on. So that was dupe. I took that out. I added the weed management addition to it, clarify what the weed management plan should include and some consultation with the weed commission, the much-candy weed commission, and developing that mitigation plan. Clarified photographs of the site prior to any disturbance to be clear on what to clarify the expectations. Moving out a couple pages on water system. I think it's number nine. I added in the phrase, if not, and the property has water rights, a detailed explanation of how the use of those water rights will be addressed. Shall be described. I know this was a concern about the planning commission. So just describing what's happening to the water on the property. And then here's where maintenance of facilities already required. So I just included it in here description, including the maintenance roads, equipment landscaping, buffering utilities and other aspects of the facility. And this is all to clarify, this is the application materials, so this is us telling them the minimum is to include your maintenance plan. If we need more information from them, we can acquire that. But this gives them an idea of what we're expecting in the maintenance plan. Fire mitigation added that the happened to show consult with the launches can emergency manager. And again, provide documentation along with the local fire department. And then moving on, I believe that is it for power generation and then we added, yeah in securities that's the same idea we replaced developer with owner operator, same in the abandonment and removal. And then the only other change is proposed to wear massage therapy businesses we're allowed to be added as used by right in the general business district. And again, to clarify, this is legitimate massage therapy. That's the difference here. Yeah. I think that's all I got. Obviously just went through, basically just went through what has changed since last week. Okay. And did we, remind me if we did we close the the public hearing on this on the other case, it's still open. Okay. And did we, remind me if we, did we close the public hearing on this, on the other side? It's still open, okay. Any comments or questions? Let me just start by saying what I said at the last meeting, how long have we been at this about two years? Yeah. It's gone to the commissioners and backed us. And I'm sure the technology's probably changed in those two years. It's going to require changes to it. And I we're never going to be perfect with this because it's going to be the technology's changing so fast. My personal opinion is the March 11th meeting we spent quite a bit of time and everybody I thought pretty much exhausted the comments they had. And they weren't all accepted but they were at least voiced. I'm not sure how much we where we could ring out of this. I don't want to spend tons of time changing things. we probably if we change we're changing anything now, we're probably changing stuff we already changed. So it's some getting dizzy with it sort of. I want to remind people too, this was an interesting fact, looking at the master plan the other day, the survey in the back. The company, the consultant who wrote the master plan, did serve public surveys in West End West End Eastside Mayor. And on page 83, 73% of the survey respondents were in favor of development of future power generation facilities, primarily renewables. So there's a lot of support for this in the county. Again, we're never going to be perfect with this because of the nature of the beast. It's morphin' all the time. And my recommendation is we don't spend a ton of time rehashing and going into stuff. Let's get it back to the commissioners and let them massage it and see where they come out on it. So we can discuss it a little bit, but 11 o'clock rule. All in for say. Anyway, that's my two cents on it. So as you say, the hearing is still open. We are still open, but not for public yet. I don't say. Between us, the public is not no more public comment. Public house never closed. It was never closed. The hearing is still open. OK. It's up to us whether for me, whether we actually entertain it or not. It depends on where we come out on it. If we feel comfortable with it, do we want to hear more? I'm sure there are people that may want to comment, but do we want to keep changing this. I'm good. Yeah, it's, uh... I only have, I'll play a handful of comments and some corrections for the document. Okay. Go for it. Go for it? Yeah. Ready? Yeah. Okay. So, I will jump in. Basically over to the second page that starts B with the definitions. and down on number four, I know this was a discussion at the March 11th meeting where it says measured in AC. I was wondering if that needs to be clarified because when I initially read this and I was scanning, AC to be means acres. Alternating current. Alternating current, I understand that. We were educated at the last meeting that the solar panels generate DC. Right. And it's got to be in burger, something in there. I get that part. I'm just saying for general reading purposes, a lot of our documents for the county, AC stands for acres. So just put alternating current in instead of AC? Instead of the abbreviated? Then put AC in parenthesis. What are, okay. The second part of that question is, and I don't know if anybody can answer for me, but how much energy does one acre of solar panels generate? What's the equation there? What? When we look at this in acres, so what? I think it's five megawatt. It's about 5 acres per megawatt. 5 acres per 1 megawatt. But today's technology. But tomorrow's technology is going to be too. I think the Garda Mesa one comes out to like 4. one megawatt for four point. They're pretty efficient. Okay. I just in my own mind because of what Dennis opened the last meeting with talking about how hard this commission has really worked to you know retain our quality of life protect other viewers. In my mind, I was trying to equate how much ground we're going to cover in order to generate one megawatt. So five acres per one megawatt. Well, it's getting more efficient. It is getting more efficient. But for all intents and purposes at this point. Okay. Five acres from the sun shines. Yeah. Around here that's quite often. Unfortunately, more clouds. Okay. Over to the next page in applicability. the last sentence, the standards in this section do not apply to the on-site energy facilities. So I have a question here and this is like we can move through it quickly, but what regulations do the alternate energy definitions? What regulations did those installations have? Do they have absolutely? We don't have any regulations for it. The state has obviously they have to be hooked up so they need an electric permit for that. But the county has absolutely no regulation for an alternate energy, alternate offset. under location. I just had a question who monitors those negotiated agreements will they be reported or power those monitored we would need to get confirmation we would need to see confirmation from a decent property owner so that would be with staff with verify that. Does that end up on a plat for a future buyer or anything? I don't know that it would. There's no plat typically associated with the special use permit. That's why I was wondering if they were recorded. It would be in the special use permit. More than heart. Okay. Under number three, Glare Dust Light and Noise. That very last line, this is just one of those where it says applicant and needs to be the owner operator. I think that one just got missed. Number six decommissioning plan. Letter D. And I don't remember did it get discussed if there would be a timeline on that for the county to get the commission. I don't remember did it get discussed if there would be a timeline on that for the county to get notified, say like within 30 days or something? I don't know if that's been discussed. How do you see that operationally impacting you if there's a new owner? I mean, do you need to get notified right away or? Yeah, with it being especially useful, but what you need to know over and over is and how to contact them to make sure that the conditions if if the facility is approved, obviously the conditions are so would that be open for an addition there to include all of this within? I'm throwing that one out. I'm just asking if that seems reasonable. Number seven, it says if applicable to a mental or mineral rights owner, when would it not be applicable? If the if the mineral rights aren't severed. Okay. And then moving on to maintenance of facility. I'm not sure, I don't know if this was just a correction when you were changing. I don't know if letter D needs to be number 13 instead of letter D because over on the next page we've got number 14. I think that's just a like a typo cleanup. I wasn't sure how you intended the flow to go there, but we are missing a number 13. Well, 13 is a fire mitigation plan. 14 is that? Yeah, I run through 14. Okay, it looks a little different. I think when it got converted to PDF, it looks a little different. I'll make sure that's... yeah, I'll make sure that's going properly. I see what you're saying between what I see up there and what I see on my screen. Okay. I got you. Because Cliff is seeing something different than what I have. So we should all have the same version. Okay. All right. Under abandonment and removal in number two, that second half of that paragraph, I think this was one of my comments and I just felt like that this was in conflict with the the applications and the narrative that would be over on, of course, my page is page 7 under 6C, the detailed plan for removal of all the facilities. And yet, in this one, we're saying, oh, wait, we don't have to.. So I felt like we had two things in conflict with each other. I, the way I see it is it's not in conflict, but it's recognizing that a lot can change in the life span of a solar energy facility. If this thing's up for 40 years, something could change between what was proposed to be decommissioned in 2027 versus 2067, you may be able to use some of that. So this offers some flexibility if it's agreeable between the owner and whatever the new facility, whatever it's going to turn into, and the board finds that it's safe and good that they can allow it to stay. Yeah. I think that's all the comments that I have other than going back to the alternate onsite, one of the photos that I sent for the prior meeting really tries to show my concern about those alternate on-site energy systems. Absolute lack of maintenance. This particular installation had six foot tall kosha weeds that their property, neighbors property and even today those dried coastal weeds are still there and posing at least what I consider a very serious fire hazard and that's why I'm concerned about not having any regulations for those particular installations. That would be outside of this though, really. Wouldn't it be a separate set of regulations, mate? Well, or do we need what I'm saying, if it is a renewable energy facility installation, and with no oversight and no regulations, the installation was installed very close to fence lines. They can't get in to maintain it and has now created a hazard for at least four additional property owners. So I just wanted to make sure that I brought that out. Okay. Okay, that's all I have. All right. Does anybody else have any comments or questions? The public hearing is still open. Is there anybody here that has not had a chance to speak at one of the previous meetings? I see some folks here that I know did speak and I don't want to start the whole process. Is there something new that somebody that hasn't spoke can get up and that's important? Is there a question? Thank you. Thank you. I missed the end emergency missile missed the last meeting, so I apologize. Jim had a 16.79550 little life up. My question's related to the requirement of, we find here, 500 foot. I call this setback separation between substations on the facilities, on the renewal facilities, and residential structures. So my question would be for probably tellage. Under public utility facilities, an electric substation would be a lot. Does it have a 500 foot setback requirement from residential structures? Because I know of a lot of substations that aren't that far away. I don't believe it does. So I'd like to recommend that you make that setback requirement consistent with the public utility facility because any substation that associated with the renewable energy facility would be under that requirement. Does that make sense? Do we have a number for that? There is nothing? No, I would have said here that the whatever zone district is in those standards. Okay. Do you see this as an issue with what we have that the change is recommending? It is slightly different being especially use permit, slightly different public utility facility? I think if the planning commission sees it, an issue we certainly could look at adjusting that or removing it. Comments. I don't know enough about the details of that to really comment on it. If I could, the logic with me, if you can have a substation that has, let's just say solar. No solar next to it. And it doesn't, it's not restricted by this 500-foot requirement then why is it so stationed associated with the facility? Yeah, subjected to that. Dying. requirement then why is it so station associated? Yeah subject. I understand what you're saying. I just don't know the ramifications of the 500. We just put more restrictions in our. It was more restrictions on these facilities. Where did the 500 foot come from? How would you remember that? I believe it is a typical number that we've seen in other jurisdictions. Okay. Who may have that for their public utility facilities and their just mentioned it? Okay. I guess I personally don't see any need to change it at this point unless we'll just leave it as five hundred percent. But thanks for your input. Okay. If I go for your consideration, it would be the same logic for the buffering on dust light in the layer where you have 1320 feet. But if I the buffing utility facilities, don't have any corner of it. I'm just curious why it's here. I'm just going to say that we are extremely concerned about the impact that these facilities might impose on surrounding property. That's a quarter of a mile. Actually, in our discussions, if I remember right, it was a lot more than that for a while some of us got it down to 313 to 1. So anyway. Again these are I think a good first shot and if things have become a problem we can amend this. That's a good thing about these regulations. Anybody else that didn't speak? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing then. So it's back to us. Is there any further discussion on issues here by consulting legal counsel? All right. But we haven't changed the service,'s see. Is it just legal counsel? I have an opinion. Or do they need an opinion here? Oh, well, I guess we can ask. The legal counsel's reviewed these and has any comments. They have been reviewed by our office and our office is in agreement that they're compliant with all necessary laws. Okay. I personally wasn't the one that did it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Just to clarify, I think we can look at the 500 feet to make sure that's not a,'s just not maybe arbitrary number the quarter mile I Don't necessarily agree with because Where the quarter mile is comparing power generation facilities with power generation So it's not treating solar any different than other power generation So it's it's different than public utility facility because that's a different use somewhere to come it's different standards for a single family home versus a duplex or a multi-family home. So among uses you're gonna have different mitigation requirements. So the 500 fee I agree we could take a look at because that does kind of a discrepancy but the quarter mile is not that system. Okay, so if emotion is made tonight, let's make that review condition on these that Hill Town will do review the 500 foot to see if it can be reduced. Is there any further discussion? Any questions? I guess I would maybe just like to address on thing one then after having been made aware of the sizing of the small scale renewable energy facility. those are used by right that means we could actually have up to 25 acres covered by a renewable energy installation and that could that could that could be installed as a use by right. And I think that's an awfully large area to be impacting without having consideration for an installation of that size. And to clarify, that's not saying we don't have any consideration. It's putting the standard on staff for you as opposed to public hearing. And that was direction from the Board of County Commissioners is how we wrote that. OK. I think the intent was to help if a farmer wanted to put 25 acres of solar, if that can subsidize their farm to keep farming. Let's make that easier for them. Right. That's at least minimize the process of doing staff levels opposed to public hearing. And I just I revert back to what was said earlier, my concerns then become for adjacent landowners, our quality of life, our protection of U-sheds, all those things that the master plan and this commission has fought so hard for such a long time. I just, I really am not comfortable allowing those as used by right. And understood and I didn't mean to say that to try to convince you I just wanted to offer some insight to why it's like this. Okay anybody else have any questions for Calmed to stay nothing. Okay, well, I'll entertain the motion. I'll make the motion. You're going to have to put in the 500 feet. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the proposed amendment to the Montrose County zoning regulations based on the findings of fact listed in paragraph six of their report with the addition of the 500 foot substation setback review and possible reduction. Everybody get that? Okay, we have a motion to approve. There Who is there a second? Cliff seconds it. Okay, we have a motion to approve. There was there a second. A second. Cliff seconds it. Okay, we have a motion to approve in a second. Any further discussion on the regulations? If not, all in favor raise your hand. All opposed. Looks like we have unanimous approval. So there'll be sent to the back to the county commissioners. We're playing like volleyball with this thing. Anyway, all right. All right item number three is another public hearing. It's the Servante's reason and this is going to be a public hearing. I probably have to read the statement. Okay. The commission is appointed and serves and is a advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners. Applications listed on the agenda will be heard in the order they are listed. For each application on the agenda I will open the public, then state the applicant's name and purpose of the application. Next the staff report will be given. After the staff report, all persons will be given an opportunity to make their statements. We will hear from the applicant first, then we will hear comments from the public. Commission members may ask questions during any of the presentation presentations. And after all public comments have been heard, I will close the public hearing portion of the meeting and a discussion period will follow during which the commission members may make further comments or ask questions. Please identify yourself for the record by stating your name, address, and interest in the application. Statement should be brief and non-repetitious. Any exhibits, photographs, or examples presented at this meeting shall be retained by the staff as part of the file record unless specifically exempted by the chairman. Could we add a couple conditions conditions there? Conditions to the time limit and stuff. Yeah. I was going to do that before. Yeah. There will be a three minute except for the applicant. If the applicant wants to speak. But anybody who comes up after the applicant, you're limited to three minutes. So I would encourage you to be as concise as possible. And don't repeat the same thing to somebody before you, we said that we hear it once, we hear it. So we don't need to hear it ten times or five times. So with that, I'll go back to the town. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a proposal to resolve a parcel parcel of land from the General Agricultural Zone District and General Commercial Zone District. The property is outlined in the white and black on your screen. It's 17697IW 550. It's 2.77 acres in size. It's located across from the boardwalk shops there. There's a cemetery to the south of the site. Tri-County Water has a storage area just to the north of it. So kind of just as you're coming out of town on the right side of the road. The Land Use Element of the Master Plan It doesn area for Agro residential, the nearest commercial, that there are, it being on the highway, there are commercial nodes along this highway. The nearest one is at Racine Road, which is about 1900 feet from the property. The master plan states that typically commercial industrial uses are aligned within 600 feet of the intersection. The request is not in conformance with the projected land use element of the plan, but does contribute to some of the values and goals of other parts of the plan like supporting local businesses and incentivizing those local businesses and creating jobs. The properties adjacent to the North, West and South are all general agricultural and the properties across across the road are general business. We haven't heard any comments from the public opposed to the proposal. I've outlined each of the criteria for approval as you're considering it and some commentary on each of those. I think the main thing that comes down to is if it is in conformance of the master plan or not. the applicants are I think it should be known that the applicants are looking to move a current business they already have there that would not be allowed in the general business district. You would have to be commercial or industrial, so that's why they're proposing commercial. But I think it's important to consider the zoning itself, because regardless of the intent of the owner, the current owner, if it's reasoned to commercially that it could be any other use allowed on the general conversion. It's just within the urban growth boundary? Yes. It would be. Yeah, the urban growth boundary goes down to the boundary you see. OK. And the city reviewed this? The city did not have comments on this one. Okay. They you can see city limits are the kind of the Easter colors there the green and blue. Okay. This is the battery of city limits there. So the general business district on the east side of the highway is it? Was it actually zoned or is it grandfathered in? It's zoned general business. It's It's known that was it grandfather quite a while. It's zone general business. It'll be right there. It's known that was it grandfather, Dan, is that or was it actually zoned at at one time? Are you wondering if it was like when the county started with Zoni, if that's what happened or if they re-zoned? I'm not sure the history of that property. I would assume they were originally zoned with that when the county county started so. Those businesses have been there quite some time. Okay. Guess one of the issues I've got with this is we've been we discussed that infinitum the node concept and the master plan and that's really the hard rule that we've got through this zone. The only thing that might be a little is that they're so close to the city there. I mean, what is that about a quarter mile from the city boundary? So at some point they're going to get gobbled up. But my concern is if this zone were to be approved, it's going to set a precedent on the rest of that highway for Zoning to occur outside of these nodes and we were we've discussed this at great length doing the master plan a year ago and I I think we have to tread very cautiously on things like this. I think we have already made one Other decision to deny Yeah, based on the fact it was not it. The concerns or comments about the economic vitality of the county is true but that's true everywhere. You know if you have a business so it doesn't mean we want them everywhere. It just means that you do need business to have a successful community. So anyway, that's just where I'm kind of viewing it from. Anybody else want to? No, I agree. I mean, when we did the master plan, that's why we set that up there. To limit that. Yep. Can you please speak more into my phone? Can't hear. Can you hear me? We'll give it a shot. Is that better? Can you get down? All right. All right. So do we want to, if nobody's got any concerns or questions to her to her town? If not, is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. Do you want to go up to the microphone and state your name and address? I'm going to reach the microphone. It's movable. My name is Gerardo Fernandez. My other is 1697 or whatever it means. I don't remember. I just moved it in. It's not important. 1797? 1697. We just went up over these. We have our shop and all their space. And since to like the neighbors are irritated about the traffic of the truck. We thank God we success in business. We buy that property because have enough land to build a shop. It's not high risk, it's not fire and that building or any toxic materials I can say. So I think what we see to approve because on the left side of the north side we have the Trigger County behind it is like geologic business thing there and the south we have the cemetery on front is on the broke wall. It's an an an enter to the highway, I want to say, maybe 200 feet on the north side, they leave it open to the highway. So I hear this is like 1900 feet. It's 1900 feet from Rayine Road, which is in the master plan where we have identified the only place in this vicinity where we would consider a Rizzo. This is outside of that. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I said, because it's an open space, they leave it on open, enter to the highway on the north side and it's about 200 feet or maybe less. Okay. Okay. And like I said, as not, we know what to do in toxic materials or it's not a lot of traffic issues, one truck is delivery every day, but I don't know what up we can do to these success. Well one of the concerns we have as a commission is if you look at our zoning regulations, every zone district has a use table, the allowable uses. And if we were to rezone this parcel, it could open it up for any use on that table. You could sell it and somebody can come in and do something completely different. So what you say you're going to do with it is kind of important to us, but we have to look beyond that and be concerned about that. So just to let you know. Yeah. Like I said, because I think it's business around, I think the cemetery just have new owners. And they want to build it something nice. We've fixed the entries. Actually, the M.A. they call us because they want us to be part of... Iisman? I mean, line St. Dines, for Internet, I don't know. For Elevate Fibers? Yes, Fibers. For Fibers and all of that. I think that's my guess. I live in Tokyo. I mean, I understand if you decide to don't but I mean I don't know what else to do because every building here I call some buildings are available but the owner's never answer or they interesting in sale and and all the ones are broken in sky prices. I'm not coming for a 1.5 million dollars in Belgium to be honest with you guys and I just want to success on business. So I charity, I just help to that. Okay. It's like I said. Okay, thank you. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? No. Okay, thank you. All right. I don't have anybody on the list that wants to speak. Is there anybody that does want to speak? In this regard. Okay. Well, then I'll close the hearing then. So it's back into the commission for discussion if we need it. Questions? It's not all entertain a motion. It was part of my input in the discussion I agree wholeheartedly with Dennis that rezoning Mr. Commercial would set up a precedent. I don't think we want to go there. And this application also talks about Tricounty has a piece of ground here, and the cemetery has a piece of ground. I don't feel comfortable with just lining up a commercial zone right here. You know, we've got the nodes, and I know that race scene, there's the node at Trop Road, that property is for sale, been for sale for quite a while. There's property available that is zoned as commercial. I don't feel comfortable moving in here and somewhat say spot zoning. Great. And the other issue is the city boundary is not that far away. I don't is there any plans for the city to annex further south that you know it's probably going to be it. She's made a little little while I know obviously you can see where the city boundary is but they don't have sewer closed oh you've got to have the sewer is a really limiting factor in that area yep yep okay till it could be a while for that but that's how it goes, I guess. Okay. Any other comments, concerns? All right, how about motion? Mr. Chairman, I would move to recommend denial as Savannah's rezoned from general agriculture to general commercial to the Board of County Commission, based on the findings of fact in paragraph 6. It was on in five. If you'll recall, I don't create recommendations anymore, so you'd have to fill in the blank of the residence behind the dinner. Set a precedent and buy the master plan. The I would feel like we're setting a precedent by a spot zoning commercial. And therefore I would recommend Denonno. Second. OK, Cliff seconds it. David. Okay, so we have a motion to deny by David and the second by Cliff any further discussion on the motion. If not, all in favor of the motion raise your hand. Looks like we have a unanimous decision to deny it. That will go to the county commissioners on the same date. What was that? 16th of April? The original one. Yeah, the county commissioners will hear it. But we'll recommend to them denial. Okay. The commercial the trout road on the southwest east corner of trout road there is a parcel of commercial per sale. Three locks. Three locks. I'm trout room. Three locks. of trout roaders of parcel of commercial per sale. Relax. I'm trout roaders. Who? Relax. Well, there isn't there a commercial parcel in front of that subdivision too. Is that right there? There's three commercial lots. It's a orange-tee pointer. Yeah, right by Stee La. You could probably show that on the map real quick if we could also show Okay, go in and see town All right onward Number four for the night is the Cole Creek Estates to preliminary plan. It's an application to resupply lots in seven. The Coal Creek Valley estates filing number one. The applicant proposes to divide six acres into four lots. Each lot will be between one and one and a half acres in size. The property is located on 5, and Anverness Court. Access to each of the proposed lots will be from 5800. Huttable water will be with Tri-County and septic is with waste waters with septic. The land use element of the master client doesn't make this area's agricultural, rural, residential. The applicant has submitted site characteristics analysis to provide data to show that the land is viable or septic, and that it'll meet the standards of the Port of Health regulations. Typically, in a major subdivision, the construction of roads, the new construction of roads are required. There's already a new internal road there on 5800 road and on in-reness from the original subdivision The public works department has agreed to utilize the construction drawings from the original subdivision There will if there's any further subdivision of any of the surrounding lots, they will require an enhancement of those new and rural roads in addition to new ways that will access any new subdivisions. Science has been posted. The adjoining neighbors have been notified. We did receive a few comments that were in your packet. And just a couple that I placed in front of you that were received since your packet has been mail to you. The proposal meets county regulations and I'm happy to answer any questions, anybody? Okay. Is this part of that pepper garden? Oh, I've seen so many questions. Pepper garden just sounds like that. It's all in the basement, no, no. Okay. We'll go ahead. What? Oh, I kind of think I'd like to hear from the applicant. Okay. Does anybody have any questions or staff? Not at this time. Not right now. Not at this time. Okay. Is the applicant here? here. 10 of the growth 63836 on the road. So this obviously was a subdivision I think 2007 is when they tried to do it. We purchased it last year late October Obviously, you know where you can see where those two lots are all the infrastructure is to there to add that in On what we're doing with this is obviously we're just trying to revamp it The lots on the west those two those two lots are going to stay the same. These lots were good to split up again. So that's where this is. We're kind of going to do this in phases. We're not exactly sure how big we're going to go throughout the whole subdivision. We're just going to kind of do it at phases and see what the market needs and how all that goes. You know, we're not all set to do an acre of half lots on the whole thing. We're not all set to do in three acre lots, but that's kind of where we're headed with it. It works good for us. The infrastructure is already there and we're just trying to read that. Makes out a lot of it. How many lots would you have a total build out? Well, that's the thing is like there's really not a number, you know, about the summer between 30 and 38. With depending on size. Depending on size, you know, on how easements work out. And you know, like obviously there's a bunch of ground there that is not developed. So, you know, if we're're bringing more utilities in. We're gonna have to bring utilities from the east, that east-terrant road. So, you know, anywhere from, you know, 30 to 38 blocks is kind of what we're having up here. Go, Anna. No comment. Is this... the go on no comment is this is this parcel is it farmed at all or is this just making ground at this time no it's being farmed If I remember right that road has been in quite a while. Yeah, that road was put in in 2007. Seven, that's the original, yeah. So it's, you know, and it's, yes, it, you know, David, it has been used as far for since away from your own eye. You know, we didn't talk about revamping that existing road, you know, crack ceiling, stuff like that, because it's just been sitting there since 1807. But that's, you know, that's all we really have to do is just kind of crack ceiling, you know,, big chip and seal it, so you know, make it look nice again. And all the infrastructures and power, water, gas, I mean it, and all the utilities, all the dry utilities actually go past, like where the road stops, because it kind of goes in and then it turns left and coldness acts right there, and where it stops going south, the utilities continue for, I don't know, I don't't know probably 400 to 500 feet of the dry utilities. Okay. Any more questions to the applicant? We might call you back if we need you. Thanks. Okay. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak to this? Three minutes? Oh my God. I just wanna just clarify that he has spoken about other parcels. This is just this subdivision, right? We can't look beyond that. That's correct. Yeah, I should have mentioned that. I have exhibits and I gave a tall nature a drone drive. Okay. I have two so it'll probably be easier if I just go down the line and give you one and then come back and give you the second one. Okay. That worked. That's a big picture. Thanks, sir. You're welcome. I'm much done. You know? No, well, no, look, when he starts talking. I don't know. I wouldn't be afraid. I'm not to say that. Thank you. Mr. S to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. I'm going to go to the next meeting. who are joining me in opposition to this subdivision. I live right next to the 85 acre farm that was sold to a real estate developer in October of 2024. The six acre subdivision request you have before you tonight is part of that farm, that 85 acres. I filed comments last week with the Montrose County Planning Department stating the legal reasons why the application should be denied. And I understand my comments were distributed to you last week. I'd like to direct your attention to exhibit A. This is an aerial photo that shows the portion of the co-create valley that is bordered by 58.50 IDF hillside and Jasmine Rose. This area is approximately 935 acres. The red outline shows the 85-acre farm. The blue outline shows the six acres and the subdivision application. The real estate developer not only wants to subdivide the six acres, they told the county planning staff that they planned to subdivide the 85 acres into 56 parcels. We heard earlier tonight that it may be as high as 38. The math on that, after accounting for roads and infrastructure, is about one acre per parcel. I'd like to direct your attention to exhibit B. Exhibit B shows what one acre parcels would look like on that 85 acres of farmland. You can see that a subdivision containing one acre parcels is totally income growing with this 905 acres of farmland. You can also see that there are not any subdivisions in this section of Col Creek Valley. This subdivision application must be reviewed within the context of its location which is a valley with substantial and significant agricultural activities. As stated in the REGs, the REGs in General Ag A, which this is, that zoning district, it says that the intent is to provide for the conduct of agricultural activities. It says in the purpose statement, we cannot ignore that. That informs the rest of the regulations. As a result of that, this violates the zoning regulations. Not only that, you referenced the urban growth boundary before. That's the three mile end boundary outside of the city of Montrose. This is outside of that three mile boundary, and I've put that in my comments as well. And I've heard you talk a lot tonight about the County Master Plan. And I asked you to find out that the intent of that County Master Plan Oh, the five pages of excerpts that include the about protecting and preserving ag if this subdivision is allowed that will violate the County Master of Planning therefore please deny this application. Okay thank you. Does anyone else want to speak? Is that My name is a recently key I 1073 3 3 5 6 D Road and my home sits above this area and Just week, I was in here for another Board of County Commissioners meeting because a developer put in a very large structure upon our mesa that looks really more like a motel. And I am really concerned about how the planning department is defining a single family home. I moved to that area so that I could take advantage of being in the rural area and all of my neighbors up there feel the same way. We did not move out in the country so that we could be in the midst of the subdivision. And just because that subdivision was started to be created in 2007, it doesn't need to be finished, and that land has been formed. And I think it's unfortunate that farmers too frequently feel they have to sell their land for their retirement but that's a whole other issue and that doesn't make this right. That doesn't make this right so I very strongly urge you to one planning department think about what is the definition of a single family home and preserve this agricultural area. That's why we live there. And that's what Montrose County is about. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'll just say between the zoning regulations and the master plan, we have spent countless hours dealing with the loss of Ag land and you'll see it in the master plan a lot because we do have concerns about it. But there's a lot of issues with it and one was just mentioned about the age of a farmer in this valley, you're looking, they're pushing 70 years old and the kids don't want to farm. And the farmer wants to retire, so he's selling his land off. We don't want to be in the business of dictating to anybody what they can and can't do with their land within reason, so we're trying to stay away from that. We do in the master plan support conservation easements of land, which is there's been a few of those and they're picking up in other areas on the western slope. We do encourage growth within the urban growth boundary. We haven't really worked, done a whole lot of homework on how we're gonna encourage that. I've got some ideas on that. But the bottom line is if somebody comes in and buys a parcel of land, whether it's ag or weeds or whatever, and they're in compliance with our zoning regulations, we do not have grounds to deny it. It's that simple. If there's a way we can stop it or talk them into it, I guess that's okay. But to this point, if it's in compliance with the zoning regulations, we have to really take a hard look. If we deny it it we have to have findings of fact as to why we're denying it. And you have to realize we can't just say well it's people out there don't want it or it's in the view. I moved into a subdivision west of Spring Creek years ago because I had a great view of the San Juan's. I was in there six months of my neighbor put a 35-foot high garage up. It's legal. It happens. The one good thing with this, I like the one acre, one and a half acre lots rather than the nine acre lots. That takes a lot less ag land. Looking at the positive side of this, you know, you hate to see it, but we're We're all concerned about that, I guess, as a point I'm trying at the positive side of this. That's, you know, you hate to see it, but we're all concerned about that. I guess it's the point I'm trying to make, but the county's not in a position to tell a farmer what he can and can't do right now. If they sell their land for a gravel, or some, well, the gravel would need a special use permit. Some get denied and some get approved. But yeah, if a farmer wants to sell his land, he can sell it. Right. I'd like to see it go conservation easement, but that typically won't give him the money he might need to retire. That's a good tax break, but if a farmer has been dependent on that land and planned on retiring by selling it is the county inefficient position to say no you can't sell it. So anyway that's kind of where we're coming I'm coming from on this I don't know if anybody else has comments in that regard. I agree. Okay. I know. You know, we went back with the last issue talking about a precedent setting of a rezoning. To me, this is also an example of precedent setting. We don't have a subdivision in this area. There may be one on top of Grand Mesa or on top of High Mesa. But we don't have a subdivision as such in this area. If we approve something like this and set the precedent, all those lots out there is, I can't see it, is the master plan also talks about the preservation of Lakeland and the preservation of the rural lifestyle and that type of thing. This schematic here of only lots is such a precedent and I don't care for the precedent and it does take out such a precedent of removing farmland from farming. There are property rights and person can sell out to whoever they want to, but there is a public interest and I believe this does not serve the public interest to set the precedent for that kind of subdevation in this area. Anybody else? I can. I can. I don't know. Okay. So, I agree with Dennis' comments. I agree with David's comments. I would do those comments. I have greater concern. I realize, Kim, as you pointed out tonight, we're looking at two lots here. That's all that is in our purview tonight. So within that, I have some serious concerns when I was doing my pre-work. I dug into my county records. Thank you so much for supplying all the GIS stuff. I have greater concerns. Right now tonight, I don't think I could rule on this because I feel like there are some possible, significant errors within the county records because and where I'm going Kim in your description you say lots six and seven okay so I'm like trying to work through the GIS and I'm looking at all the the little parcel numbers and everything so when I got into this it was very confusing because this property is bounced from owner to different owner to a developer to a reliter, back to private owners. It was a little bit difficult to follow but in some of the descriptions R, R00 0, 0, 214, 26. When you look at the description, you want to really do the end of that. It says that that is lots, 2 and 6. that lot 7 is over on 1428. So I guess based on what I was seeing right now tonight, I'm not sure that the information that either you were given or that the buyer was given And I'm not sure at what point I tried to go back and And Kim I know your notes tell us that this was a major subdivision from back in 2007 That's before we even did the first master plan. And as Dennis pointed out earlier, this is part of that pepper's garden. And you're saying this one is not. Pepper's garden is south of Jasmine. Oh, oh, really? No, it's way over by Col creeks, cool, then. That's it. Okay. Anyway, based on what research I could do, I was not feeling confident that we have the right lots and what's already has been subdivided once. So, are we resuptividing? I was really uncomfortable once I did my pre-work. So, Tommach has the existing flat for the major subdivision. Okay. Filing number one. And so, let me help you with that. Okay. Six and seven are what's being requested to be resuptivated. Okay. And then, a lot A's in the rear to the east. And then the other one and two are to the west of that. And no one's looking at one, lots one and two, or eight at this time, it's just lot six and seven. So to me, they appear fairly consistent with what information is in the analysis and what the applicant is requesting. Okay, but I'm happy to answer your questions to help clarify that. Okay, and I'm not questioning this particular plat or whatever, the lot 6 and 7. That's fine, but once you dig into the county records, when you actually look at the records of what was bought and sold back in 2011 and 2014, and the your descriptions down in the bottom, and they start referencing those R, R numbers. Is there account numbers? Those lots, it says includes lots, two and six. Anyway, can I help you? Okay, so those are account numbers given by the assessor. People possibly have bought and sold those and they're under the, they could have been under the same account number at some point. And that changes just like when this gets resubdivided, potentially the account numbers are going to change. Certainly the parcel numbers are going to change. And that was my concern is are we resubdividing stuff that's already been subdividing and do we have accurate information? And I guess that's where I'm concerned and that's where I, I mean I kept going as deep as I could back to 2006 on the tax records and everything I could find. that the tax records look very funky on this whole piece of property. I mean, there was so many questions that I could not make heads or tails of on this. And I just, I was just extremely uncomfortable. I understand. I'm not sure how it relates to the resubdivision, but we do to full work up on each of the parcels given information by GIS and yeah I wasn't really questioning yeah no of course this deep I don't really know how to use question other than I can't really say the the subdivision the existing subdivision for Cole Creek Valley states filing number one hasn't changed parcel sizes, it may have changed hands. I don't know how they were managed by those individual owners and what their financial circumstances were, but filing number one of this approved Cole Creek Valley, major subdivision has it changed since 2007. OK. So that's all. That's all. Yeah. I want to shift gears now. So 2007, this is the filing one. So at that point in time, is that when the roads and everything were authorized? That's correct. That's a requirement for a major subdivision. Okay, and so On that Filing number one for Coltrick Valley the states How many how much of that is included in what we're seeing tonight? Or how much more is there, I guess, is my- There's no existing preliminary plan outside of what you see right here. So, so that- So if there ever was a preliminary plan it has expired. Okay. And it would get over. And it they would have to go through this process again. Again. Okay. So the sketch plan that took place back in the you know back then, um, a preliminary plan and they never moved forward. I can only imagine why during that time, but, right, yeah. But this is, so. Okay. So some of the concerns then that have been voiced could potentially be mitigated by the fact that any further development would have to be subject to today's current regulations and zoning and the master plan and everything that we would do for any other new subdivision at this point in time. That's correct. And it will, if there's a further subdivision, so the existing road that's there from the top of the oven is approval. It's going to be more, I mean, I can't answer for public works, but my understanding would be more than just improving the road. It's going to be widening the road. It's going to, there's going to need to be a comprehensive access plan and road development through construction drawings for any type of a preliminary plan. And that will include the out there onto Ida through 5800. So it's called County State Road Standards? Yeah, today, to today's standards, not 2007 standards. So, okay.. So and anything then that would have been approved back in 2007 would have to be re-looked at under today's standards for infrastructure, roads, fire flow, as the reseptivision. This one, as is this one. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions of staff? Any further questions between the commission? If not, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would move to deny the Coltric Estates to preliminary plan based on the following findings of fact. And I refer to the master plan and our intent to keep agriculture land in agriculture and the preservation of the rural lifestyle. Second. Okay, we have a motion to deny the application by David and his second by Cliff. Any further discussion on that? All right. All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed. So it passes four to one. We'll recommend the County Commissioner Denial based on the master plan and the Aglan loss. I'll go to the Board of County Commissioners on this 16th of April. Okay, number five. Kishamaya Minor Subdivision. Looks like Kim, you're working overtime tonight. This minor subdivision is a proposal to the by 35 acres into three lots. Subdivision property is located on Miguel Road. Lots of two and three are going to share access onto Miguel Road, right just excuse me, and right away has been dedicated to the long Miguel Road. I miss the running part of what we've discussed this evening. Water is going to be provided by Tri-County, Water District, and Waste Water by Septic, and lots two and three are currently vacant or propose lots to and for in the vacant. The proposal does meet all county regulations and it's time to answer any questions. Let me have a quick straight forward, I don't have any notes on here. Kim, how close are they to the Cedar Creek that comes down by there? It looks on the small map. I can see it looks close, but on the blowup, I don't. It's hard to. How much has that on the screen there? Oh, there it is. It goes right through it. Okay. So there's a lot of acreage to the north that they can construct septic outside of that flood zone that on all three lots and they all have the adequate frontage the 200 plus Okay, that's off a windy up there in the morning I don't think they need to have them do everything. Right, you're baked down. Right, the black onion and do you have anything you want to say? No? Okay. You don't have to get up. We just want to give you the opportunity. I didn't have anything. No, I didn't have a whole idea. That was all I had. Okay, the applicant here, do you have anything you want to say? No? Okay. You don't have to get up. We just want to say? No? OK. You don't have to get up. We just want to give you the opportunity, so. OK. Back to us. I have a question for the applicant. Oh, I guess you have to get up. It's his fault. I don't know. Curie, Kishiyama, 69925 from the Gail Road. Four trucks. Okay. Okay. Carrie, Kishiyama, 6.9925, McGail Road. More troops? Is this farm ground? Is this irrigated farm ground? It is. Yes. Pardon? It is. Is it irrigated? Yes. So, uh, Cedar Creek goes through part of this. Is there any issue with the flood plain or any issue with flash floods? Is that type of thing here? They wouldn't be able to put this up to where we was talking about that that. They have a lot of these, the creek is down here. So all these portions of these lives are buildable outside of that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Back to us. Any further discussion? If not, I will entertain the motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the Kishiyama minor subdivision based on the volumes of Bob. Based on the findings of fact listed in paragraph three of this report. Okay. Lynamate emotion to approve and David seconds it. Any further discussion on the motion. If not, I'll raise your hand all in favor. Looks like it passes unanimously. That will be recommended to the commission as I assume on the 16th again. Animously. That will be recommended to the commission as I assume on the 16th again. So. before we adjourn, I just want to, the couple meetings ago I brought up. We have a master plan that's new and there's a lot of action items in there that are recommended. And one of them is what are we going to do with this growth in the urban growth boundary? I was looking through the zoning districts when we have that plant the planned unit development or the planned development which gives you a higher density and all that kind of stuff as there are a way we could somehow encourage that in the growth boundary to get I mean when people want to subdivide on we need need to come up with something more than we have now because we're all concerned about this ag land thing but we never really do much about it and I'm just trying to dig into the bottom of the barrel. It's not necessary that we don't do anything about it. It's not that the solution is complicated and difficult. So the solution of of a planned development that's probably not the best solution because it doesn't necessarily add for increased density, it adds for cluster development. Right. But that type of thing can still be achieved with a general residential zone. Planning in a development is typically when you're combining commercial industrial, ag, and residential uses. In this case, if you're talking just residential, the residential district in my opinion achieves that higher density. It's a matter of land value, home value being able to offset the cost of putting in sewer, which judging by the market and how things are going to just hasn't got there yet. Sewer districts, during the sewer lines just aren't being expanded. The question of, it's interesting to me that the ag residential fight always gets brought up during a subdivision. A subdivision, Kim's application of the Coal Creek is a perfect example of how the subdivision is not taking land out of Ag. That subdivision has existed for thousands of years, and it's been Ag the entire time, so it's not the subdivision. It hasn't been far. It has been far. Yeah, it's the owner of the land choosing to do something different. That's also around this district. Right. In this case since 2007 the older has decided to continue a use that is allowed in the in that Ag district which is Ag. If it were sold to different over they could have built homes on there. Even if it was on a sailorship they could have built homes on there. So the question is the use of it. It's the zoning sign of it. It's not the subdivision sign at all. It's the zoning sign. Because the same thing could happen if that resubmission goes through, these concerned propitors could buy those and then just use a frag. And then It all sell. They're still ag So the question is it's from the zoning side and where where the rubber hits the road It's telling it's it's rezoning or doing some sort of overlay district that limits the minimum lawn size to 35x acres That's what you're a county semago county County does. Or limit the uses to just ag uses. Right now an ag, it's ag and her residential uses. Your mouth right there is what that's the reason that it hasn't happened. You're telling a farmer. If you're telling a farmer that their land is less value, you can't sell your land. It's not going to go over. So it's ultimately, that's where my mind keeps coming. I'm not saying there's no other solutions, but that's the more typical solution is just a blanket overlay district that says that somehow differentiates egg only allows egg and doesn't allow any residences. And then blanket rezoning other people's properties, which if we were to do that, I would assume we want like a sign-up sheet for people to say, I want a sign-up for that. I love Ag, I want to do that. Everybody wants something. And in that case, we'll see two or three farmers sign up. And cool, if that's what happens. But I guess we're relying on the master plan for our findings of fact. And that's really not a regulatory document. They're going to come back. I agree with that. Well, they're going to come back with a sub division or the sub division regulations. And that's really what they spent time and money to buy it and do all their work on it, follow on all the regs, and then we deny it because the master plan, which is nonregulatory, and we've done that in the past a few times, but I'd like to see us try to minimize that if we can because I don't, when it gets to the commissioners, they probably will not honor that. I wouldn't when it gets to the commissioners like they probably will not Honor that I wouldn't think I mean because it's not Whatever speaking of that what happened to the red veil tower did that get red bill tower got approved last week Get it really interesting in that same location same location that show to 120 feet tall. Now it's better than nothing I get. That was the same sort of deal. We used the master planets and again in the master planet it's got a whole section on scenic byways and it recommends to create an overlay district on the scenic byways but we don't have it yet because we haven't done't done it. So it's, I guess my point task. Well, it is a big task, but we have a master plan with some good ideas in it, but unless we convert some of those statements in there into the regulations, it's, we really can't hang our hat on this stuff. That's my that's my concerns And I there's no easy solution to it. I mean we've been around around on this but Certainly our solutions by agree no easy one to the cell tower stuff there We have some stuff in the works that will prevent some of that potentially What's not saying it's gonna make everyone happy? That is not what we're going to have. Never. Never. Never. Never. What did anybody from the scenic byway board show up? Yes. Did they have concerns with it? They had concerns with it. The rest of the seat I did, the rest of the seat I wanted, the cell tower seat I wanted the cell tower going because that's yeah they're kind of like a little appendages yeah it's kind of a it's like it's the seating byway council from what I understand there's the main one is in the seat I'd office in Denver but each byway has its own board I have a buddy on the west out one so yeah anyway okay, well, I don't know I'm it's just we have that master plan with all these good ideas And I'd like to see us not let it go 10 years and not do anything with it so Maybe if we have a short agenda some month we can just put a discussion at the end of the meeting to talk about some stuff and I wouldn't encourage. I love the, as you could probably tell in the last five minutes I'm passionate about the ag and especially in Montrose County how that affects everyone because it affects everyone. So I think we could, that's probably, if I'm understanding you all correctly, I think that's probably the biggest discussion point that you probably want. So I would focus on a future agenda. I would focus the discussion on that. And then maybe if there's something else you feel free to send that by way. That's your transportation. Trust British could be another one. Well, as I said, there's a lot in that master plan and I would encourage everybody to look through there and pick out your pet peeves and let's talk about them. That's what it's for. Because we shouldn't really be relying on the master plan over our zoning regulation. That's my concern and I'm'm compelled to kind of, but it's not really the right way to do business. So dilemma, I guess, one of many. All right, we had enough. Anything? I have just a question. And I don't know if you can answer. It was with the change of the board or last year or whatever are the payments to the planning commission for our monthly service continuing. Yes. That's not changing, yeah. It is. Okay. Hey, double link. Wait a minute.. That's it. That's local. We're already below it. So if you had a question about it, I'm out of hand, just wondering. I'm sorry. Did anyone get payment or fourth quarter last year? That's how many. How much mentioned in October we had something we're going to go on. We're going to get that in. We're able to. You will go ahead and get that in your April. Should have got your payment but probably didn't have October even. Did you not get it? Can I come talk to us? Did you send the meetings? One. One. That was here for October. Okay. That's why. That's why. That will be backed up in the next one you go. Okay. Yeah, special meeting But I'll get that money to you You can quit eating beans Little get you say you can buy some States even notice but my even notice my tax man went. What's this for? You know, that's when I tried to put that on my turbo. I shouldn't let me get a turn. I tried to turn this out.