We are on the record again. We are here at 305 PM. We had a five minute recess from our work session and we Adjust to our new afternoon schedules on Wednesdays instead of Tuesdays. We are on the record, ma'am. Yes, sir. Okay. We will call us to order then if you are so inclined we would Like like to invite you to join us in an invocation and the pledge. Yeah, Mr. Dodge. Did you meet your computer? All right. If you are so inclined, please stand. Dear Lord God, our Heavenly Father, our higher power, our guiding light. We thank you for the moisture you delivered over the last several days. It is nourishing the land. We needed it desperately. We are so grateful. And we thank you for the moisture that is going to be delivered later this week. Even if it's over the weekend, we are grateful. We left up our residences and ask to you deliver the grace to them. Give them healing and comfort in any challenges they're facing. We also lift up Park County, the State of Colorado in the United States, and ask for your will to be done and give all those working to lead those entities follow your will. We ask that you protect us from evil and in in your name we pray, amen. I pledge allegiance. We apply the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Commissioner Mitchell. Welcome, everyone. We have a few folks in the room. We have several people on Zoom. Before us today, we have our agenda as proposed. Do we have any additions or corrections? I move that we approve the agenda as written. Upper motion. I'll second it. It's proper second any further discussion. Hearing none, we'll call the question those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed same sign that motion carries 3-0. Okay, with that we have first thing up on our agenda number one. We have the consent agenda. We have our approval of minutes as well as our vouchers. I move that we approve the consent items minutes from April 21, minutes from April 23, and vouchers from April 30, and vouchers from May 7. As proper proper emotion. I'll second that. I'll first second any further discussion. I was not a meeting on the 21st, so those minutes I cannot approve or deny. It was a quick meeting. I'm sure it was. I just wanted to make that statement. I can just say for comment, we've looked at the vouchers as presented and have no questions. So with that, call the question. Those in favor vote will say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign that motion carries 3 to 0. Consideration and or decision on the following items. Approver deny holds harmless agreement for the high Rockies school. This I believe is some of our South Park National Heritage area. I will defer to our county manager because he's on my can't hear side. Yes, thank you commissioner. So the high Rockies kids have a regularly scheduled story hour at the fair play Library and we wanted to do a hold harmless because this is a regularly scheduled event for the public as well as the use for their children that attend that as part of their school. So just making sure that they are in compliance and that we're all happy that they have submitted their hold harmless agreement and also certificate of liability insurance proving that they are covered under all aspects of their operating hours with that. And so with that, I will hand you their hold harmless, sir. Thank you, your chairman was confused. I was referring to last week's stuff, not this week's stuff. This is a new charter school in Fair Play in the utilize some of our facilities. They are charter school or they are home school structure. I thought they were charter school through the two RE2, but I'm not exactly sure, so I will hesitate from saying that. Lucas. That is something I can follow up with you later on as to the status of a homeschool organization or charter school. But I just wanted to make sure that we did our due diligence and that we were covered and they were covered and everybody was legally and liability was covered and happy to continue to move forward and support this relationship with them and the kids using that for story hour. And if I may, on their application it says this is a home school enrichment class so that could be some of where you've got to be irrespective. We have their whole farmless agreement. All right and I move that we approve the whole harmless agreement for high rocky school. Our promotion. I'll second it. Our second any further discussion? Just that if it's for the kids for more enrichment, good. I appreciate you, Lucas, moving forward and making sure we have this agreement. Thank you. Any further discussion? Call the question. There's a favor of vote by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion carries through zero. Number two, we have a prover to deny resolution to appoint the Board of County commissioners as the Park County Appeals Board. In our work session, we heard from our development services staff and our Director Brandon Hickock that in reviewing with our new county attorney, Christy Fitch, that there were some areas of improvement that we needed to do in the language. And part of that was we licensed contractors in this county and we have for many years. In that realm, if we were to deny a license for whatever purpose, there has not been established as I understand it, a formal appeals process. And one thing that's basic constitutional right in Colorado, as well as the station, is in an adversarial situation where you've been granted something or removed something from the government. You have the right to do process. And so what this does is it would set up the Board of County Commissioners as the appeals board for any question on licensing of contractors. And this is one of many other amendments we will be making, but it was one that was important enough that we do it today. So with that I'll open the floor. I move that we approve a resolution to appoint the Board of County Commissioners as part county appeals board. Opposition. Opposition. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the question. Those in favor vote with saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. The motion carries 3-0. Resolution number. Oh, I've heard a big signature of each on the resolution. That should be resolution 14, Madam Clerk. I know our meetings are usually in the morning, so we've got it. We're reorganizing our future here. It is 2025-013. Oh, we missed 13. I missed 13. I'm trying to keep track, I really am. 13. Okay. Number three, approver denied 2025 strategic master plan adopted by Park County Planning Commission on 417-2025. What's the take the lead on this one? Okay, I guess I'm going to give you a short presentation on kind of what happened with the strategic master plan. Do you want to give those to me? Thank you, Jenny Cannon. Yes, Jenny, yes. Scott Dodd, choose them with us from our Planning Department and Planning Commission. Yes. Nice for copies that I have. Okay. This looks just like the one I saw on my computer. Since we've had verpinning issues. Okay, so go over the purpose of the Strategic Master Plan first. Per Colorado revised statutes section 3028106. Every county must have a Strategic Master Plan made and adopted by the County Planning Commission. The Strategic Master Plan is an advisory document that outlines the county's objectives and goals for the physical development of the county. It will serve as a guiding resource for decisions, capital improvements, and regional collaboration, and will provide, I'm sorry, I'm not seeing everything here. Provide a foundation for updating land use regulations. Let me make it here. There we go. Okay. The Strategic Master Plan is a community-led document shaped by the community's vision and priorities for the county's future. It's guided and informed by the goals and priorities established in plans adopted by county boards and commissions, state, federal and local partner organizations, and other collaborative efforts of previous and ongoing planning work. The Planning Commission, and responsible for preparing, disseminating, and adopting this advisory document, and ensuring it evolves with the county's needs. Okay, now it's like gonna go. Next, where? Next. Sure. Enter. Okay. Space. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes it thinks it. Technology is wonderful when it works. When it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Just like it just stopped. Steve? It throws it. It's okay. Okay. Okay. I'm going to apply this. Then this, to It throws it. Oh, okay, we can do that. So this, to earth to share. Okay, this one. I'm going to use this one. It's like, maybe I'll fix itself. be able'll fix it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Come on. Listen again. We're just waiting on this game and we get our computer to speak with her nicely. Nicely. It's not that much that I ask. Thank you. That's a good one. Yeah. And it's a good one. It's a good one. I think it was a good one. It's a good one. I think it was a good one. It's a good one. I think it was a good one. I think it was a good one. I think it was a good one. I think it was a good one. I think it. Maybe. Okay. Let's process that was followed. Back in, I think 23 near the end of 2023, the county received a dola grant and proceeded to hire consultants to help with the gathering of information and the writing of the strategic master plan. We had three consultants respond to the RFP and Electro Johnson design and planning LLC was chosen. From there, they did, they did, basically community survey and interviews of community stakeholders. They had tables at Bailey Days, Bro Days in the County Fair, and that was all summer of 2024. Then there were community outreach meetings conducted by the consultants and county staff that took place July through September 2024. At that point then they started writing the draft and it was presented to the first draft was presented to the planning commission in January of 2025. Also in January, the county, kind of ran out of money for paying the consultants and we're ready to just take it on our own. The Planning Commission took it on and spent several work sessions working on it, reviewing it, changing, well, not just making it smaller basically, just making it more detailed and easier to look at and getting all the fine points in there. So that was a good four months of work. On April 2nd, we were ready to present the first draft of the Strategic Master Plan. That was the first public presentation, and we just presented, and there was no public comment. On April 9th, there was a second second public presentation and that was open for public comment and discussion. On April 17th we had a public hearing posted all correctly for a public hearing. The Planning Commission listened to several public comments and read in I think we had like five written public comments. They deliberated and decided to adopt. And then just a little detail on the public outreach. There was a three-phase outreach plan once developed to encourage participation from as many residents as possible. And then to capture more localized input, they divided Park County into distinct communities, which consists of one, okay, which are Alma and the Greater Alma area, the Greater Fairplay area, Jefferson Como, Bailey, Lake George, and then Lake George Hartzel and Guffey. Informal discussions online surveys and interviews with community stakeholders to shape an understanding of community priorities. We're done. And stakeholders were like, they talked to fire department schools, utility companies, businesses, nonprofits, most of county managers. And the survey we got back, we got about 826 responses, which ends up being about 4.5 percent of the population of Park County. Phase two was gathering community feedback through the workshops and public discussions. There were seven workshops in seven different towns and we had Alma, Fair Play, Bailey, Jefferson, Lake George, Guffy, and Hartzel. Phase three was the draft which was written by the consultants integrating all the community input they had gotten, and then revised by the Planning Commission in the work sessions and adopted after the public hearing. So what the Strategic Master Plan looks like is, at chapter one, is an introduction, talks about the purpose of the plan, talks about the county wide survey and the results there, and the plan's referenced all the research they did on plans that we were using, and the demographics of the county. The Planning Commission divided it into 10 county wide goals and strategies for them. The goals are one, improve roads and transportation connectivity, to expand housing access and affordability, three, support emergency services and disaster preparedness, four, strengthen community health and essential services, five conservation and preservation of water and wastewater, six improved decentralized infrastructure systems, seven protect natural landscape and resources, eight expand recreation and tourism, nine develop a diverse economy and support local business, and ten improved governance and land use planning. And then chapter three talks about the sub areas that were divided out of Park County based on sort of their obviously there where they are and the specific character of each of the sub areas. So the southern area consists of Guffy Lake, George, Tariel and Hartzell.. Then there's Como and Jefferson, Matt area, Fair Play and Alma, and the Bailey, Pine Junction, Shawnee, and Grant area. And that section has specific goals and strategies that come from the workshops that we had, and specific ideas and priorities from those communities. And then they also follow the county white goals. The vision statement came from the consultants, the steering committee and the planning commission all kind of worked in. And so it says park county is committed to our community embracing responsible growth, protecting open spaces, natural visitors and critical wildlife corridors while preserving the rural quality of life, resiliency and economic sustainability, ensuring that our resources are preserved for future generations. So that's a little bit about the history and if you have any questions, I'm here but Mr. Dodge is very excited to talk to you about it. So at this point I would just say for Jenny, are there any questions with Jenny? I do have some questions if you don't mind. So one of the questions I do have is, when you guys did the survey or when the survey was produced, and you guys, as you stated, the 826 individuals that or gave the information back, do you guys have a census based off of where the majority or how that was broken out between those specific areas that you guys sought after, I fair play, Alma, and how that broke down. Yeah, thank you, great question, Scott Dodge, Planning Commissioner. I just wanted to elaborate on that a little bit. So yes, the consultant went to each individual open house. They were held in seven different locations. Did outreach there, as well as then the countywide survey also went out and they compiled the data from the countywide survey. So the first sections of the actual strategic master plan, there's a summary of that and it is broke out actually based on the results from the actual survey. So it's pretty concise. And then there were some additional notes that were, that we used to basically based on the actual community outreach portion to which we were able to say, yes, this area down in Hartzell said they want these things. And it's specific to these areas. Guffy wanted this and they need these things and they're specific to those areas. So underneath the sub areas, section three, the sub areas, although there are all 10 of these goals apply to every area in the county, each sub area has their own unique item. So Bailey has their own thing. Airplay, Alma has their own thing that is important to them too. So they are unique just to the sub area. Thank you for that. And let me go back. I want to apologize. I just want to give a great thanks to those that were on the Planning Commission, Scott Dodge, Garrison Genshork, Greg Johnson, Susan Jones, Cindy Sheriff, Kathy Lindsey, and Julie Westendorf. I really appreciate your guys' time and effort in what you put into this. So thank you guys very much. I appreciate it. And it was absolutely an honor to work with the staff. Staff was way ahead of this. Got it in front of the Planning Commission in January. And we had a phenomenal Planning Commission review after four or four and a half months. I think we have this thing. Absolutely. This is the document of the people. There's no doubt about it. And all of the goals that are in there were created from the voices of the people, the public outreach, the comments that we got, the people that attended to the public meetings, it was all incorporated. We had things last minute on the 17th that came up, even some corrections that we found, and we took those into consideration in our deliberations, made those changes on the spot. So it went down literally to the last very meeting that we had to make this the document that you see today. Thank you guys for that, I really appreciate it. Absolutely. Commissioner Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Jenny, I will thank you first. I mean, you're kind of the head of the, leading the planning commission on all this work. You and the whole commission. You guys went beyond and the time invested in this, it was beyond the call of duty. And thank you so much because it was a huge heavy lift. It was, and you're welcome. And really it was these guys. They spent so many hours looking at lots of writing and re-wrapping and drafting because when we run out of money, we can't print any. So we have to just figure out how to make it work and you guys did make it work. Just have a question. About the survey that Electra did, and this was a year ago, how was the survey drafted? Who drafted it? Because surveys, there's a real art and requirement to making a very unbiased survey. And I was just curious on how that was done. That was Electra and that group, yeah. And steering committee looked it over and had a few suggestions. But yeah, it was mostly them. Okay, thank you. Because I, personally, I think that it was a survey that was leading to answers that they wanted, not a survey that was completely unbiased and would not, it attempted to lead. And that's all I can say, and that's why we end up with the product we got. I think I agreed 100% and I believe the planning commission, I'm not going to speak for them in general, but we also noticed that as well too and we made sure that when we went through every item by item that we took that into consideration and if it felt like it was a lead or a direction that was probably not the direction of the people just based on the survey results and the feedback that we got, we made sure we took it right out. Thank you. Yeah, and I know I completely, you know, give you guys credit for engaging your brain and put it through. Everyone who lives here, they know they've got a good temperature check, you know, a good gauge on what is, is more part county reality. So thank you. I just was curious. The other thing is in, so do you believe you can tie every segment of this to a comment from a person? because some of these housing requests to me seemed pretty urban centric. And I didn't really think that a lot of this would stem from park county residents. Yes, good question. So the goals came from the survey results and from the community outreach. The strategies definitely were the work of our consultant. And we have to thank the consultant for that because they did research and brought things back to us that we would have never thought about. So they came up with the goals based on the survey results and the community outreach. And then the strategies that were implemented really were the work of the consultant. And that's where you're getting your money's worth. So we have hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents that staff can now use to help with these strategies going forward in each individual goal. So we didn't lose any of that. So that's what the county paid for moving forward is to hire a consultant to be able to provide those data to us. It's up to us. And when we went through it, there were things in there that may or may not have aligned 100% with what the county is looking to do going forward. But we thought it was necessary to keep as many of those strategies in there as possible as, hey, what if? What if we can do this? What if this is an option an option 10 years from now so that this document can live into the future? You're right, there's a lot of things that maybe we would see in the urban world and we might see in a planning world down in Denver, but we're evolving fast up here. So if we can get these tools and we have them in a document that says, hey, look, we've already looked at this once. Oh, hey, somebody just mentioned this. I saw something. I think it was related to one of the districts that could be created in the strategic master plan. It just came up in a town of Fairplay meeting last week. I was like, wow, we already know about this on the county side. We're way ahead of the town. So absolutely, I think those things, we're taking it into consideration. And it was more of a don't leave anything on the table. Just put it all out there. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is how we're going to accomplish that goal, but leave it there so that we can try to go after it anyway we can. So it's a tool. Thank you for that information, that's very helpful. And I know that there's lots of tools in the toolbox and we will borrow tools from anywhere. I mean us county commissioners, we share across the state. And we've got counties that have lots of attorneys and a big budget. And they have people that help do stuff and they lend it to us to borrow from and then make it part county's own. And so we're always grateful for that. So I appreciate that. I just, my main concern in reading through this, and I've read it a couple times, is. Easy to read, right? Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you. The first draft, Holy Moly, it was what, 160 pages. It was way more than that. That was only the first half. Yeah, it was crazy. It's just that this is, you know, the goals are the hope wishes and dreams of the people who live here, you know. And that is absolutely we want to hear from them. And we agree with the majority of them. But then there's the whole reality side. What is really possible and feasible because it all comes down to money to the budget? And I just want to make sure that anyone who uses this document, somebody who's looking to move up here or a contractor, possible developer, that they read this and they get a real, a reality check about really what Park County can deliver or what is feasible under our current 2025 world at the county level and the state financial status right now. And so that's just something that I just think that that it be helpful if we put a cover page on this to just say we completely 100% acknowledge you guys in your work. Completely acknowledge that this is the hope wishes and dreams of the people who live here and strategies that were brought forth by the consultant that can help us deal was some of our challenges in the county but but you know we would like to just give a budget a quick little budgetary comment on you know where where we fall on some of these goals that boy if we could we would you know yeah and that's the idea of the strategic master plan is to create the goal so that it's in our forefront. Obviously you have the document now, so you can actually use that as your tool going forward. And then we really rely on our staff and our staff to say, hey, this is a priority. We had an item. We had two items on our agenda yesterday that we actually, I don't know if I can talk about them right now. No. No. No. Because it'll come before us. So he can. They're quasi legislative. Okay. Okay. Sorry. We thank you, Christy. All right. Well, I'm going there then. So goal number two was our housing goal in section 2.13, 2.13 for everybody that doesn't know that, was related to an update to land use regulations regarding accessory dwelling units as a use by right. So we have tackled that already in one meeting, one item that actually is going to help now with other granting and opportunities. But during that discussion, it opened up a door with staff yesterday about updating other land. that actually is going to help now with other granting and opportunities. But during that discussion, it opened up a door with staff yesterday about updating other land use regulations with Brandon and Jenny and the staff to where, wow, we have an opportunity. And that door just opened up with one item. There was another item that we talked about yesterday as well, too. And it was regarding our 1041 rules and updating for potential projects. I'm not gonna go in the weeds there, but I do wanna say about that is that was goal number five. So if you look at goal number five, our water attorney actually wrote the language for goal number five, and the strategies that were in there, so that was your water attorney. We saw that and said, oh my gosh, this is absolutely important. And when it hit our agenda yesterday, we were able to tackle it. And we spent hours on both these items yesterday. So just know this, you have the best planning commission in the world right now, the group of people that we have. And super, super detailed, diving into everything, way beyond any planning commission I've ever seen. So rely on us. We're your advisory board, use us to go into the detail and have to debate so that you guys don't have to do the heavy lifting. So you can make the decision. That's what we need you for. Thank you very much. My comments are basically with a longer historical perspective on many different updates on our strategic master plan over the years, you know, going back into the original plan of 1975 as required by Senate Bill. It was one year old then. I was a little older than that. I remember I started here when I was 12, okay. But when you look at all the iterations of this and when we I tried to reflect back on this last effort so when you look at that and look at the consultant we hired I mean as individuals of lecturing sky were were great people they had some great outreach and we had some good meetings I I think we were at every one of them, Commissioner Mitchell. I think the only one I missed was Guffy, because I had to be in Canyon in the morning and that was the same time the Guffy meeting was going on. So that didn't happen, but everything else we were at. And when I reflect back on the fact that this really came out of we were noticed, I think Tom Eisenman told me When I got here in January of 23, we had this grant. And so it then ultimately got some wings later that was then completed in 24. But when you look at the original product delivered to us, I think it was somewhere around 400 pages. At least. It's something like that. It'll have it all by the way, so if you ever want to go through it, through it your tears Well, I haven't gotten that sleepy Need yet, but I may can reserve that but When you look at that particular product and I think the the The original content was something around 180 pages and it's now down to 53 Whatever the numbers were it was an extraordinary Lift and job on behalf of our planning commission And so I want to echo what the other two commissioners have said and give all the kudos to our staff, Jenny. You're our staff of one and all of the planning commission. I do. It was my staff member for about four and a half months. So thank you, Jenny. So yeah, so we recognize that with our unusual conditions in the last few months. With that, you look at the compilation of this and the amendments and the modification of it and the streamlining of all of that content into this document. I want to reiterate the fact that this is really the reflection of those people who bothered to comment. So I think Commissioner Mitchell touched on a little bit, but we have of our 18,000 people we had less than 900 submissions. Plus we had input from all the public meetings too. I mean that was good. That was a good opportunity. But when you look at that, this really is the hopes, wishes and dreams of those people who chose to participate. Absolutely. And so we have to measure that or balance that or try to illustrate this is a set of hope streams and wishes. And then Commissioner Mitchell was right on when we look at it and we look at okay we need to do this and we need to do that we need to encourage this and we to create that we're trying to maintain our head up of water with what we're doing right now with the funding stream and the funding stream just isn't enough yeah so when we look at those new things and to be sure I'm a big believer and you need to put things on paper because if you don't have a goal you don't have anything to shoot for you have nothing to reach for, you may never get there. So you have to have some things that may not be attainable but they're good ideas. So I get that, I understand that. But that's what I wanted to reiterate and we've been kind of kicking around the idea of adding a cover sheet is what Commissioner Mitchell called it. Simply with a little, nothing to take away from this document. This is a lot of 100,000 of ours have worked in effort. But to then give a little bit of balance of our perspective, that makes sense. And if I just, I'm gonna just chime in if you're okay with that. And just, you know, we interact with a lot of people who did not comment. The people who are, I love the park county the way it is, leave me alone, and let me do my own thing, and I don't want anything to change ever. So those comments were also in the surveys. We saw them. Right. There were a few, but you know, there's a lot who aren't reflected in here. And we want to, I don't know, just the reality side of the budget, you know, because I don't want somebody to read this and think, cool, I'm gonna move to Park County and they're gonna start doing all this stuff. So that's not the vision of that document. That's actually not it. And, you know, I'm just gonna take a step back for a second because even if you didn't participate, it doesn't mean you can't participate today. And if you don't want to participate today, you can participate 10 years now. It doesn't matter. It's the people that are going to drive this. It's not going to be me. It's not going to be any of the commissioners. It's going to be staff saying, hey, people are saying we need this. And the goal is already there. So the strategy is to help achieve that goal. So it doesn't matter about the budget today. It doesn't matter about the budget today. It doesn't matter where we are 10 years from now. It's a guide. It's a document that we use to move forward with. It's not saying, I want to playground. I want a new school or I want a hospital or a facility for our parents. It's none of that. It's just saying that, hey, we have an aging issue. We're trying to address the aging issue. We have a health care issue. We're trying to address health care issues. We have infrastructure issues that we need to address. We got water problems. We got sanitation problems. And this is just a guide to get us to the next level and then maybe even have some Suggestions for funding so when we have this document and it's adopted of which it is you guys can go up for grants You can say the people want this now. I can use this document to go get grant money That's a that's a absolute tool for you guys moving forward Anytime you do a grant application, they're say, do you have a comprehensive plan that can back that up? You got it. That's your updated comprehensive plan. And if you need additional ammo, you can go back to 2016 in 2021, and you can show for 25 years, this has been a need. So you can get that across to whoever you're doing your grant application with. So use it as a tool. It's just the guide. It's not a we want, we want, we want, raise more money. None of that. And I think that's the important thing for the public to understand. We're not even asking for anything. We're just asking that you use it. I appreciate that, but I think also we have to look at the content of the document. And the content of the document is a lot of wants and a lot of wishes and a lot of we should, we need to, with those kinds of things, and those are all excellent. And we can, we can. And that's to be sure we can't go into it with an attitude other than that. But we are faced with reality. We're the ones that hit the hard-gold facts of what we can do within the available resources. And again, as I said, I think we need to have goals that are lofty and yet also achievable. We may not see that today, it may not be our generation. And then I think this then document, we need to be like a five year update plan. So it's been you know 2016 we're basically a 2025 now. If we can schedule this to be looked at it in 2030 because our demographics are ever changing and those influences externally and internally are continuing to also evolve. We really didn't think for a second that the 2016 plan was a bad plan at all. It just needed updating to current issues. Just like you said, our demographics have changed. Our population hasn't really grown a whole lot. I mean, you can see that in the documents. But our housing situations have changed. Values have definitely changed. People are definitely struggling with some of these things. This isn't a mandate to anything. This isn't forcing anybody to do, you know, any of these goals. But it is an important thing to identify what are the needs and what is the purpose in the intent. And that's what the strategic master plans all about is acknowledging the fact that we have these issues in May 5th. What is today? May 7th, May 5th. Whatever today is, 2025. And we have that documented, so it's a snapshot in time that we can use moving forward and staff can use to say, you know what, if a developer came in here and they wanted to do some attainable housing, I don't like the word affordable. We wrote that out of there a few times. I like the word attainable. I like transitional housing. I like rentals. I like all those types of things. Those are all addressed in goal number two. So if a developer wanted to come in, they can see that, oh my gosh, County does have a need. And then you go to the demographic section and it says, wow, we have a housing shortage in specific areas. There's one really good table in there that I thought was absolutely necessary. section and it says, wow, we have a housing shortage in specific areas. There's one really good table in there that I thought was absolutely necessary and it was the 92% of our properties, our single-family homes, which they are and then less than that 8% might be multi-family or rentals and those types of properties. That tells you we got to, we got to imbalance. And we know it because we're having trouble with transitional housing. I listened to a potential governor candidate on Saturday and say the same thing. I'm like, awesome, we're right in a strategic master plan right now and we just adopted it. And we love to have this in part county. So use it that way. Use it as that tool. And I get the budget. You guys, I know. I sat up here six months ago and said, oh my gosh, we need to fix some things. But when you guys are working on 2026, you can say, hey, is there one goal that we can focus in on in 2026? Well, I think your water issues might be it. So maybe we start tackling that. Maybe we start working on land use regulations a little bit to make some of this the building easier in a certain synthesizing some developers to come into the area. You guys know there's other ways to do septics. There's other ways to do sewers. I've been doing a ton of research. We have an engineer actually on our planning staff that there's a lot of ways we can solve our problems without the traditional methods. So think of it that way. Think of it as a door opener for us. More than, oh my gosh, what are we going to do in 2026? Don't worry about 2026. We're about 20, you know, 2036. So we get one or two of these things checked off. We're in good shape. Lucas, do you want to make a comment? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, as we look at this, it was no small task at all to take the dreams and nightmares or the wants and needs, however you want to look at it, of hundreds of and consolidated down to 53 pages, right, approximately. And so, you know, for the planning commission, Jenny, I also, you know, and I don't want to forget, Emmy and Joe and Cindy, which were there to contribute a lot, as well as their legal team. You know, it's no small task, but I mean, I think, you know, definitely keeping in mind that it is a, you know, it's a guidance and it's an imaginary product of, you know, wants and needs or it's a calculated. Right. It's, yeah, it's based on people's real feelings. They're real experience in life. But it's also important, I think, to, you know, balance that and I think the cover sheet, you know, to address the budgetary constraints and everything. It is probably a good direction to go with that because, don't want a developer or somebody in the community to just say, oh, but it says here, and it's yes, we want that, we need that, we are looking for this direction forward without any type of restrictive statement to say based on and budgetary confinements. I think your approach is excellent. And keep in mind, when we went through item by item, we were looking for pitfalls. We were looking for things that would put us in jeopardy, things that would be potentially issues for the county. Unachievable things that, oh my gosh, we just got back into a corner because because we said this or we put that down on paper. I tell you what there was some embedded things in that document that I was not happy with and we fought over and it got ugly up here. So just know that and so you know what if we if we went that far and I found something on the last very day when we were reading through the document and these guys guys, you know, as many times as we've been through it, we found things at the very last second. We're like, how did that get there? Oh, absolutely. And the document, you know, the original version absolutely displayed, you know, the perception from the citizens. There was a lot of repetitive language and a lot of language that was very descriptive and to bring that down to a usable document. General. Right. I said into portions of several meetings, I had a lot of back-to-back double bookings, but I can attest that, you know, it wasn't changed. During those meetings, everything was, you know, just condensed down to idea. You know, they pull out the, pull out the opinion, pull out the what if all those types of things and really make a a document that is just like you said more general and more guiding than you should do this or by the way the people said that. Right. I mean you know rather than you know this area needs a pink building right now it's this area needs a building right now. Absolutely. And so you know it was not a lot of that type of fluff language that was cut down. But yeah, I just wanted to make sure to reiterate the concept going forward and to give my applause to everyone that worked on it because I know it was tireless. And there were a lot of feelings and everything involved the whole way. Yeah, you know, and I've made this public before, but staff did an incredible job and you know what? They started it before we got it in our hands and there's things that we said that you know we're definitely emotional driven and I apologize for on behalf of me and my in my planning commission, but we take these things with passion and anytime you have you know issues that touch people's nerves or a specific thing, you're going to be passionate about it and you're going to let it go. And I think that a lot of that emotion came out in our hearings. It came out during our work sessions. And you know what, the end of the day, we're all neighbors, it doesn't matter if we're getting paid or not. So we just need to come together as a county now and say, hey, the people said this. We just. Today we're all neighbors, it doesn't matter if we're getting paid or not. So we just need to come together as a county now and say, hey, the people said this. We've just created that document and use it as the tool that it is. And I just, man, I'm sorry. Commissioner. And just two facts within this that I think should be clarified is, it about all the small lots. Small lots, I'll just use South Park because you go look at a plat and there's all these itty-bate lots drawn out. And they said we need to consolidate all these lots and such. But the thing that they forgot is that's all privately owned property. And so you can't just say, okay, we're gonna magically consolidate all these lots and make it work. And so that part was not put in here. It made you think that we could just magically wave our wand and do that. And that's a reality that I think probably just a little mention on our side would be a good thing for somebody to have in their head. And the second one is, in talking about the South portion where it says we need to have a mobile game processing unit in Lake George, we have cripples. And they basically dismissed that business in Lake George, saying we need a mobile meat processing plant. Well, we've got a actually brick and mortar business there. And so I thought that that, and if I would have had a chance to review this before now, I could have made that comment and made sure that didn't get put in there. So I saw that as well too, and I'm aware of crippings and everything, but I didn't write that statement to that was a comment made actually on the survey. So somebody actually made that comment and when they brought together all of the comments for Lake George, that was an important thing. So when the consultant put that together, they mentioned it. We left it in there because we think it's important. It doesn't matter whether we think that that business is good or not, or if it's a need or not, it's what they said. So we thought that if Lake George, the people Lake George had attended those outreach meetings and filled out those surveys, said that that was important. Leave it. Just like Hartzell, they went on and on and on about their water situation. We thought that that was important. We leave it in there. Do you think they just didn't know Krippin's existed? It doesn't matter, Krippin's could be gone tomorrow. So... Hey, I just I just think that it, um, what is missed? And I understand with what you're saying in regards to that. And there is a difference between a meatpacking plant and a slaughterhouse, which I believe that's how it was stated in there. Am I correct? So don't get hung up on, don't get a processing plant. Don't get hung up on what the people said because it's a reflection of what the public in their mind think they need in that area. It's our job to report that if that's accurate. And I think that's what we did because that did come up. But I do want to say about the 20,000 vacant lots. So that was on our 2001 goals as well as our 2016 goals as an issue, right? A lot of discussion came up over what do we do, what do we do, what do we do? So obviously it hasn't been addressed yet and we don't know how it's addressed yet. They are all private parcels but what we do need to do is we need to either get them in production or figure out how to strip the density off or do something in order to be able to use those parcels and still make them productive tax, viable tax revenue for the county and then still be able to use the property. So the problem that we have down in the heart salarium, particularly as water, I've attended a community meetings down that way and if you guys have a chance to, they have a community meeting every Saturday at, sorry, the first Saturday of the month from 1 to 3 and they got issues, they need some help, they need you guys, you guys are the county commissioners, not me. They need you guys to listen, they have water problems down there. And we know that there's issues with people living off the grid. We've addressed that in our housing situation. We addressed that with bringing non-conforming structures into compliance. We addressed the fact that they don't have sanitation in some areas. There's a lot of people that do. It's off the grid though. So we've really looked at those issues. And then if somebody decides someday that they want to buy up lots and then strip the density off and transfer the density to a developer that wants to be in a rural center and build the infrastructure for water, sewer, and go vertical. Well, you transfer the density from that area, you move it to your rural center, and that's actually been addressed in the strategic master plan. So these are thoughts that we don't deal with today, but 10 years soon now we might be. I know we're dealing with in a town of Fair Play currently, and it's new to them too. So we need to really keep this document fluid for the future, not just for our needs today. Okay. What's the place for the board? I move that we do not adopt the Strategic Master Plan at this time, that we all put together our comments for a cover page. Because I think that we owe it to anyone reading this to get, there's just a couple things that I'd like to put out there that I think would be beneficial to anyone reading this from inside or outside the county. And we bring it back up once we've got that all compiled. I just want to point out that Christy can help us with this too. So the planning commission has already adopted this master plan. So now it's in your hands to do with what you wish. Thank you. Yeah, I think, procedurally. I'll ask Christy for some comment on this, but basically, let me just ask a question. You made a motion, is there a second? I'm not going to second that at this time. OK, I have a question on that. Because I think what you said is true. We need to put our arm little cover sheet on it or whatever we call it, just as a preamble to give our perspective is because these guys did all the heavy lifting and the change in the law that occurred in 2024, we have to agree on the plan and both adopt it under state law. So I don't think it's an issue to the staff and to the plan commission members of the content. We're not ready to add our cover page to it and then adopted as a total document. Is that correct? That is correct. So maybe one way to do it is then just table it the issue right now until we can get our cover page on and then present that. That's why I didn't want to second as I had a question and this pertains to you. This being adopted as it sits right now and adding a cover page is that two separate issues, one that needs to be tabled for later. So I think in this case, if you all want to add some additional information onto this document, I think the best way to do that would be to continue this hearing. To, and then also let the Planning Commission know what that cover page looks like. Probably best to continue it to a date certain, but keeping in mind how I don't know how long it's going to take you guys to come up with the, with the cover page document, with a comprehensive plan just based on the conversations I've heard here today really what it is is it's always an aspirational document right and the way that the board of county commissioners adopts the policies in the aspirational document is by making the subsequent concrete changes to the lane use code so adding things like making subdivisions to allow for more density easier, that back. So yeah, with the cover page, I would suggest, like I said, continuing this to a date certain. Because the law changed in 2024 and is as confusing as it can get, they forgot to change a section. That's two sections after it. So it didn't conflict with itself. I think it would be best to also present that change to the planning commission because they are the body that adopts that. Appreciate those comments. I felt the same way. That just gives us time to prepare, interact and create and then distribute. Yeah, that was just, yeah, that was my question. I wasn't sure if we could do like an adept, not an adendum later or if that was something that needed to be taken care of now. Yeah, I think if you're adding anything to the plan, it would be my recommendation that it also goes back to the planning commission to take a look at and give the recommendation to. Okay, so Christy, does that mean that the motion is, that I move that we, we table this to a future date? Yeah, either you can do a future date or a date certain. So you're not under it's only the planning commission that has to notice their dates to a date certain on this matter. So if it's 60 days, 30 days, whatever works for you all, or just table it until you all come back. Cindy, it might be good to give a deadline. So if it's gonna go back to the planning commission, their next meeting is an until June. It's the third Tuesday in June. Third Tuesday in June, yeah. That should provide plenty of time for us. So I move that we table this to be rather provide a cover sheet. I move that we respond to a date certain of third Tuesday of June to take this up with a proposed cover page. So just the third Tuesday and June meeting is the meeting of the planning commission. So if we do it before. Now we're on Wednesday. What do you want to do? Do you want to do Wednesday or do you want to give you all a buffer of a week to look at what the planning commission comes up with or two weeks? I think we need to build a time into it. Yeah. Yeah, it's more busy. Um, it just to it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's more busy. Um. What do you guys think? It just depends what the calendar is. I don't have a calendar. So I've got the calendar. So the third. Um. So the 17th of June is the third Tuesday. So that's when the planning commission would meet. We could put it on your work session for the 18th because you would be meeting that week. And then you don't meet again until July 2nd because the 4th week of June, you wouldn't be meeting. So you could talk about it with the feedback from the planning commission on the 18th Wednesday and then do something more official on the following. Your next meeting, which would be July 2nd. As a fit for you. We'll need a work session before then, too, so we can hash it out all of our comments to fold them in, right? Well, we're going to have meeting times between now and then that we could put on as a work session. Those days work for me. If that sets the calendar, then that's what we want to do. I'll go ahead and second that. Okay. With that modification. So, Mel, you want to... Yeah, well, what's that? What we did, Mel. What's that, Mel? She's writing previously over here. I'm running the edit page. Let me pull up the calendar. I move that we table this to Wednesday, June 18th. No. No, for work session, and then it can be, but you're the intent for any kind of other action might be Joyce. Second, second, yeah. Yeah, just to because our goal is to provide a draft to planning before then, correct, before they're meeting. Yeah. Yeah. So but then we bring it up formally on the 18th. Work session on the if you could get it to us before our meetings so we have a chance to review it like a couple of days like. So do you guys want to do have a work session on it on the 11th? Would you like to have the draft finalized to send to the planning? That would probably be better. By the 11th. So I move that we table this to a work session on Wednesday, June 11th, to discuss a final draft to send to the Planning Commission forth with for a week for you guys to review. And then we will take it up formally, take up the comments from the Planning Commission on the 18th. How's that? Is that proper motion legal? Oh, no. Yes, I do think it's a proper motion. My only concern is that on the 18th, you only like less than 24 hours to review that. So you might want to go to July 2nd. Okay, we'll do it to July 2nd. And the 8th like the Jenny commission draft. Before you send it. Read through it, I believe. Yeah, I don't think we're going to be looking at anything or shaking. We've got the afternoon. I mean, we've got the whole morning on the 18th to read. Okay, so fine, I say we'll leave it at the 18th. Sounds good. It's a court clear with our dates. Good grief. Well, morning on the 18th the read. Okay so fine I say we'll leave it at the 18th. Sounds good. Is the clerk clear with our dates? We'll review your agenda in the minutes. So to discuss final draft formally. Going to on the 18th for on a work session and then final on July 2nd. Now we're going to discuss the final draft at a work session on the 11th of June and then review comments from planning on the 18th in a work session. And then we'll figure out what? And at least July 2nd for adoption. Correct. In the calendar. Correct. Okay. Everybody unclear on that? Yeah, you can correct me on that light. We will help you with this because we still don't know what's going on. Can I get something clear? I think we can try. So that it has been adopted by the planning commission. Yes. So I am going to start using the 2025 Strategic Master Plan when I'm answering questions from the public and doing my cases. Right? I think that answers. Yes. Okay. As an advisory document. Yes. As an advisory. Absolutely. That and that word is all over the place. So we are revising and it's an advisory document. Okay, thanks. Okay, now with that discussion. Okay, we got a motion in another second. We do have a second. I'm going to go ahead and call the questions just to see what happens. Those in favor of the motion vote by saying aye. Aye. I vote the same sign, the motion carries through to zero. We'll work on the language details. Okay, that was an interesting experience. We have now contracts which is something a little more apart, our par alley. We have items coming up for us with several different inter-overlapping. Number four is approveri Professional Services Agreement with Form Works Design Group on the Paris Mill. It's cursed. Yes, so this was discussed with you with Andy Spencer, the Director of our Heritage and Tourism, who oversees our Heritage National Heritage Area. And so the agreement for professional services is with Form Works Design Group. This is for the Paris Mill, I think it's face, he noted. The dollar amount for the contractual services, they do the engineering documentation part of the projects. And it's for an amount of $30,530. Any questions on that? No, I move that we approve the professional services agreement with form works, design group for the Paris Mail. Proper motion, I'll second any further discussion. We have the contract, some of the just a matter of all these right now and this block are basically relating to heritage and tourism. So with that any further discussion, call the question those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. That motion carries through to zero. Number five on our list is Approver Deny Contract Certification Formed from State Historical Fund Project 250102 Scope of Work Form Works. Yes, so hand in hand with professional services agreement. The funding for these projects are through task agreements with the National Park Service or Heritage Area as well as we get funding through the State Historic Fund. And so the funding for form works is coming from State Historic Fund. And so this certification form really just spells out that we have a contract with this provider for this amount of money and our contract includes things like the insurance liability requirements, professional liability, the services are going to take place within the term of the grant. So it's certification of certain terms so that it's in compliance with the state. So it matches up with the same amount, $530,530. Yeah, so it makes the paperwork match? Yes. Any questions? No questions. I move that we approve the contract certification form for State Historical Fund, a project 25-01022 scope of work for form works. It's a proper motion. I'll second that. I'll first second any further discussion. The numbers presented were slightly off its 250-1002. 250-1002, okay. Thanks. For the record. For the record. For the record. All the questions, those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. The motion carries 3 to 0. Number 6. Approver, deny award acknowledgement of award conditions for State Historical Fund Project 2025, PL-011. This is our old historic courthouse project. Yes, so another project that has been funded through a smaller grant with the History State Historic Fund is the Old Courthouse Building Rehabilitation for construction documents. And so this is just an acknowledgement of the ward conditions. And so that's all there is we were awarded and this just acknowledges the terms of the grant award. Okay, great. I move that we approve the award acknowledgement of ward conditions for the State Historical Fund, project 2025-PL-011 for the old courthouse. Upper motion. A second, any further discussion? Call the question. Those in favor will be saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That motion carries through zero. Number seven, approver to my contract amendment five, State of Colorado, Department of Human Services, behavioral health administration related to jail-based behavioral health program, JBBS, at the jail, per county jail correction on the cover pages what we're fixing. Yes, so we talked about this this morning. Two weeks ago you signed a contract amendment with our state. They provide funding for the services jail based behavioral services that we provide. And there was an error on the cover page. Not an error relative to the terms of our own, the dollars funding our program, but in total where they've identified general accounting and conferences, the original contract you signed, or I'm sorry, amendment you signed, identified $16,748 and $929, and how it was split among jail-based vendors. The corrected page reflects $16,241,451. So it's just a correction to the amount noted on the cover page. Okay, it states total funding. Yeah, it's just the correction of that amount. Any further questions? No. No, I move that we approve the contract amendment 5, State of Colorado Department of Human Services, Behavioral Health Administration related to jail-based behavioral health program at Park County, jailed the correction on the cover page. Proper motion. I'll second it. I'll second any further discussion. Hearing none, we'll call the question. Those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. The motion carries 3-0. We are now in our agenda where we would be to recess the Board of County Commissioners now. I move that we recess as the Board of County Commissioners and convene as the Park County liquor board. Proper motion. Second. Proper second. Over there's discussion. Call the question. Those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. I will note for the record at 4.13 pm, we are now acting as the liquor board. In that item one, approve or deny a resolution governing administrative approval of certain types of liquor applications. We heard this in our work session. It came about through an existing application that we will deal with, but it was a temporary scenario because it was not requiring a full blown hearing in front of this as the liquor board. So in discussion with our county clerk, she asked, would we be willing to delegate authority for temporary license and things within our ability within law to her. And the second question I ask is, was she willing to accept that delegation and she said she was. So with that I'll turn it over to the legal legal for the resolution side of that. Sorry, my brain. The legal part of this resolution. Yes, so regarding this resolution it is just obviously giving me all the ability. I sent you an updated one or a sent Cindy an updated one that deleted that section. So, just approve or deny the resolution, granting mail those abilities. Thank you, ma'am. Yeah, and we discussed this in the work session. I move that we approve resolution governing administration, administrative approval of certain types of liquor applications. And that resolution has authority for A through D. Proper motion, I'll second that. This is basically with our amendment to taking out for transfer of license ownership from that temporary. We want to add it. Keep that in our domain. And so with that, that's on the table. Any further discussion? Mel, do you have any comments? No. Do you want a resolution number? Yes, we will need one. I'm good with the changes to the resolution. And the resolution number is 2025-014. Thank you, ma'am. A little question, those in favor of what we're saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign, the motion carries through zero. May I, Mr. Chair? Yes. And, Mel, thank you for wanting to take over this. Some of this administrative stuff will definitely speed up the process for our liquor license holders. And thank you for your willingness to just always do good work. You're welcome, thank you. Number two under the liquor board is a Prover to Nyer I resolution ratifying approval of the application for temporary modification of the liquor license premises submitted on April 30th, 2025 by Z golf, food and beverage services LLC doing business as wedge wood weddings at Mountain View Ranch. That is before us. We discussed this at our work session, too. Do we need any other information? Now, this was the purpose for the temporary approval that we've then have formalized and it's basically to facilitate this action. Right, I move that we approve. A resolution ratifying approval of the application for temporary modification of the liquor licensees premises submitted on April 30th, 2025 by ZGolf Food and Beverage Services LLC doing business as wedge wood weddings at Mountain View Ranch. Second, second. On the table, we found out this was the Dunwoody property over Elk Creek, near with the Jefferson County line, just for the location for people that were curious. I was curious. Any further discussion? Call the question, those in favor vote by saying aye. Opposed? Same sign that motion carries 3 to 0 and I would presume this might be resolution 15. And that would be correct. I'm trying to keep track of our clerk mentally. Okay. I move that we adjourn as the park County liquor board and reconvene as the board of County commissioners. I'll second it. Proper motion at 418 p.m. Any further discussion being done. We'll call the question. Those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. and read this opening statement and then we will hear from our staff. So with that, land use sharing may 7th 2025. The Board of County Commissioners will now conduct a hearing on the application of Robert Kassola for the conditional use permit for residential structures in the mining zone district. This statement I am reading shall be incorporated into and made a part of the record on these proceedings. Notice this hearing has been given as required by the Park County Land Use Regulations, and a copy of said notice is hereby made a part of the record of this proceeding. The Board of County Commissioners has jurisdiction to conduct a public hearing on a conditional use permit application under section 5-502 per NC of the park county land use regulations. The purpose of this hearing is to consider whether the application should be approved. In considering that matter, the board will address the approval standard set forth in section 5-503 of the park county of the Park County Land Use Regulation. Procedured to be followed in this hearing will be as follows. County staff will make an initial presentation. The applicant may then make their presentation. Following the applicant's presentation, any other person supporting the application may present any evidence supporting this application. Then any person's opposing the application may present evidence. I will then ask for a motion to close public comment. The applicant may then present any rebuttal evidence commissioners then may ask any questions. The board asked that the parties and witnesses not submit redundant or relevant or cumulative evidence. If someone has already made the point that you wish to make, simply say so. The chair will also require that all comments be made to the board and that there be no dialogue between the applicant and members of the audience. At the conclusion of this hearing, the board may take the matter under advisement or give direction to staff to prepare a resolution. In any event, the board's decision will be in the form of a resolution to be considered at a subsequent hearing. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of the board or the form or substance of these proceedings? I see none in the room. Hearing none, seeing none, the county staff will start with making a initial presentation, Miss Gannon. Thank you. Jenny G in the planning department. Okay, so the specific request for this application is for conditional use permit for an existing resident and a new garage in the mining zone district. And it's kind of weird conditional use permit for an already existing house. We really wanted to actually do a rezoning. But we couldn't prove that the mineral rights hadn't been severed from the surface rights. So conditional use it is. And okay. Property is about 6.09 acres. Mine, north of County Road 14, addressed as 1109 County Road 14 in Fair Play. So here's a vicinity map. The property is highlighted in red and it's about a mile down County Road 14 from Highway 9. Zoning map, so again, it's in red. Zoned mining, all that crosshatch is mining. And there's residential close by as well. Current conditions map. Chills where the house is. Just kind of what the area looks like. And here's the plant, which is always kind of hard to read on here. But it's showing the house driveway and to the right of the driveway is where the new garage is being proposed. This hearing was, well, this hearing wasn't on this sign, but the planning commission hearing was posted at the site with the B.O.C.C. as TBD. We also mailed adjacent property owners notice of this hearing. We published it in the flume and the posting at the site. Referral response as we got back, we're from the advisory board on the environment who said this application does comply with any of their concerns and public works had no conflicts. Just some pictures to kind of orient you. Here's the existing house. And then off to the east a little bit, I'm looking north the driveway and the little wood burning thing. I didn't get a good picture of where the garage would be but thinking of it as being towards me from the little the little shed and also a little bit to the east. Looking across County Road 14 and this is where the mall's research station is right across the road. In looking southwest up County Road 14 and then back towards the highway. The Planning Commission heard this case on April 9th and voted unanimously to recommend approval with no conditions. So we thought maybe the standards of approval should be on here And I can read it and go through that if you want. Would you please? I would. Yes. Okay, so standards of approval for conditional use permit. A, the use proposed is an authorized conditional use for the zone district in which the property described in the application is located. Yes, residences unrelated to mining activity can be approved as a conditional use in the mining zone district. B, the property described in the application for conditional use permit possesses geological physical and other environmental conditions that are compatible with the proposed conditional use. So, per the teotectical review, which is in the application, the lot doesn't contain any known geological hazards or other environmental constraints that would prevent the proposed use. These esteemed house fires geological features and the proposed grids are on flat land and well away from any existing wetlands and the rest of the lot is treated and gently sloping. See, the conditional use will conform to all applicable requirements of the zone district in these land use regulations and does not create a substantial safety concern for anticipated visitors to the property. So, a building permit for the garage will be required and all applicable building code requirements will be enforced and there are no safety concerns for visitors to the property. The property has a reasonable certain right of permanent legal access permitting vehicular access from the property to the public thoroughfare and there is frontage on County Road from 14 which ensures the permanent legal access. E, access to the property from the public thoroughfare reasonably meets County Street Road or driveway standards or if the property is undeveloped, such access will be established prior to issuance of a building permit. So there is an existing right now unpurmitated driveway which may or may not need to be brought up to current standards. The applicant has applied for the driveway registration permit. So the county environmental health department will go out there and inspect the driveway and require upgrades if needed. I checked with the health department Monday, I think. They're just waiting to be told that they can go out and do the inspection, the first inspection. Okay. And obviously it will be approved prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage. F, the proposed conditional use is compatible with the uses and zoning for other properties within the neighborhood or the immediately surrounding area. So the proposed residential use is compatible with the residential zoning and uses that are close by on the west and south. The large adjacent property to the north is zone mining but is used residential. And the property is adjacent to the west and south of county road 14 or zone mining and are currently vacant. So the residential use being much less impactful than mining is compatible with all the areas around. You may have some mining that's not compatible if that comes back. G, in making this determination conflicts with any enforceable covenants, conditions, and restrictions of record will be considered, but no such restrictions exist. Are there any questions? Questions of Ms. Gannon. I have none. I think it's pretty simple straightforward application. It's basically unusual conditions from our past that are trying to become compliant with our rules today. Exactly. I have a little bit of recollection of that particular property over the years and if it was installed in 1979, Looking to the person I live with as a planning consultant who worked for the county for a long time, they really didn't force conditional use permits on mining zone property but this being in 79 predated all of those efforts. So that's why this is not conforming, if you will. If the rules of the day, the time time, it was installed and created are different than what we have today. Right. Yeah. And we would have let him slide by if he didn't need a permit for a garage. But then we might as well make everything good and in compliance. Okay. Any other questions? I have one question and I don't remember which document it was in there, but I wrote it down in my notes that there was described that malt accepted um is the property conserved under malt? it is there yeah there Is there a building envelope for this garage? Yes. Okay. So there was an approved pre-approved under the conservation easement for a garage. Correct. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that I read that right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Beautiful. The applicant can give you more details on that. Okay. Thank you. No questions for me. Thank you for the presentation. What about the Geotech report? Who prepared the geotech report? I didn't see it in our application. Oh, I hope it's there. It's common. It just to help you. It's common for especially mining zone property for commissioner Gamer edification is that a geotech report is required to determine are there any hazards, are there any glory holes or anything like that that should be addressed? Or are there any unknown deposits for recovery and those kinds of things? That's what a geotech report really looks at. They will look at historic mining records to see if there's anything on the old. That's to be a plaster probably more likely we're originated and split off over time You know, was there any production records or anything on that it indicates there's no Recoverable mineral deposits and therefore it's a geologic surveys good with it right and it was Dean Miss and Tony who put who 34 of your packet. Yeah, would you like a minute to review it? I've got it pulled up. Oh, I just report. Yeah, it's on page 34 of your packet. Yeah, would you like a minute to review it? I've got it pulled up. Oh, I just live. Do I know Dean's work? He's worked this area for 30 years. I was just curious because I hadn't seen that the actual report in it may have made my fault, but I just wanted to ask that question because that standard procedure in a non-conforming use where it was, or can be mining, and now we're really out of your presidential use, although zoning maps are what they are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. So the applicant, Dr. Sola is hopefully online. I think so. I saw something earlier online. Hold on. Madam Zoom master. Would you look at that? I'm getting there. I got to pull up all my. Robert. All right. I'm going to add Mr. Chris hola. I'm going to ask you to unmute. You'd like to make some comments? Yes, we'd like the applicant to make a presentation, please. Go ahead. Yes, thank I'd like to thank Ms. Scanan for her assistance and the commissioners for hearing this petition. I have now been living in the fair play area for four years and I want to make it full time. However, I've learned the necessity of a garage for the benefit of my vehicles and for the ability to store. I have been working almost a year with the commission and the land news plan. I have petitioned all of my neighbors and they are all supportive. I have also worked with Malt who also has a conservatorium on several of the properties there. I have worked closely with them and we have been able to modify the easement because the original easement would have put the garage on the drain field in proximity to the sewer that is currently there. So they were able to come out and modify and I employed them in their legal services to make the appropriate changes. So there was recognition of following the restrictions of the easement and abiding by their requirements. I also, in talking to my neighbors, they did not want to proceed with a steel garage or many of that nature. So what I decided to do is follow the local architecture and it's going to be a long cabin garage to appear aesthetically appropriate for the area. And I'm requesting that the commissioners approve this CUP so I can proceed. I have contracted the appropriate people to proceed. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? No, that's fine. Thank you. We appreciate it. Thanks for being with us. Questions of the Board? No, just Mr. Kusola. Thank you for answering my question. That's it. All right, as I said before, go ahead, sir. We're good, thank you. Okay, there's nothing more to say. We have anyone in the audience around Zoomland who would like to speak in favor of this application. I would like to speak. Please come to the podium and we're going to ask you to sign in. Give your name and address for our record for our county clerk. And then when you've done that, you have the floor for three minutes. There should be a that clipboard right there should have a. Is that for signing? Whoops. I guess there's no sheet. Yes, just go ahead and stick the record. Yeah, he can just stay his name and address the record. My company is RLB Builders. And we do. The tractor. Is the little green light on? Yes. Okay, just speak into the mic, please. My name is Ray Butler. My company is RLB Builders on the contractor. There will be building the structure for Mr. Kassola. Interesting process we've gone through here. I've never gone through the CUP process before. So something new to learn. I think Mr. Kassola has made every effort to try to lay the property to lay the property out so that it will be appealing from the road. And it's going to be my effort to make the structure as appealing as I can as well. And I appreciate you guys taking the time to review this and make this as relatively as possible I guess. So anyway, that's what I have to say about that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. Thank you. Anyone on Zoom land? There are no hands up on Zoom. Okay. Are there anyone in the audience or on Zoom who would be opposed to this application? I see nothing in the room. Nothing on zoom no hands. I moved that we close public comment. It's proper motion. I'll second it. My second motion is to close public comment. Any further discussion? Seeing none we'll call the question those in favor vote. Aye. Aye. That motion carries 3 to 0. Okay, so we've closed public comment. What's the pleasure of the board? For discussion, I would say that, you know, in mining district, it's always a concern just on what has happened in the past. According to the geologic report, nothing has happened in the past on that parcel. And that's always the main concern if there's any hazards. The conclusion basically said, the potential for geological hazards related to historical mining is minimal, as no rock has been mined via surface or underground methods. And that's always the biggest concern of developing on mining. And so I think that outside of that being my concern, I think Mr. Kisola already understands the reality of living in a mining district that it could be noisy, it could be dusty. But the nature of that roadway and such does not have a lot of activity in mining, at least in the area where he is, so I don't see any conflicts. I don't have a whole lot to add of, then going to the report from the staff and what was presented. I don't see any conflicts on this issue at this time. Okay, I appreciate the comments. I want to defer to Christie, our county attorney. I'll, I'm sure I know what to do. Okay, thank you. Because this ate my first rodeo. I move that we direct staff to draft a resolution of proving conditional use permit case number 25-022 for Robert Kassola. It's a proper motion. Is that okay, Christy? I'll say that. Here it is. It's on the table. So with that we have sometimes gone through the criteria for approval but I believe it was all fairly comprehensive and complete that it meets the criteria for approval of the CUP. Right. I don't think that it's necessary for us to go through all of those conditions because I think Ginny very clearly explained where the reality of each of the items from A through G and none of them are any concerns or any conflict with regard to this desired garage. I would concur with you. I just wanted to raise the issue. I agree. Thank you. And, Christie, are you okay with that? Yes. So, your approval would or directing staff to draft a resolution for approval and I would say that's with seven findings of fact because those are your seven criteria of approval that you have there Okay, yes, please All right, we have a motion on the floor to approve Call the question those in favor of what we're saying aye aye opposed same sign that motion carries and We will prepare that in the future For to be determined Thank you all for that case. Now we have a presentation by Carlos State University regarding presentation. Raise your hand. I is not, let's see. Joe is on. Joe, do you know why we have this issue on? Because I don't remember seeing anything that precipitated this. Maybe it's just a mistake. Well, it's just the table. We don't have anything to do. If I may, the only thing I can think of is that at some point as we, you know, our goal is to move forward, we are going to be given some information about additional things we could do on the fair grounds that would help with some economic development and potential grants for the future. But we can ping back once we have our CSU specialists on board and we can get a hold of Kurt and find out. I talked to the guy when we were interviewing applicants for the director for CSU extension and he wanted to make a presentation, but maybe this got just dated in the wrong date or something. So we'll follow up. I, I think that's, yeah. And then just to tag on to what Commissioner Mitchell said, her and Commissioner Gimmer were part of their interview process, we lost our ACEs in our extension service office here in Park County. Barbie moved on and bigger and better things in the CSU family. And so we are replacing that point person and our support person for that position with 4-H extension and the CSU extension office. So that will be filled in in your future. Sir. Sounds like they will be presenting that tomorrow. Yeah, sounds like you guys are in the loop for that. Okay, just a point of edification. With that, we have no other business other than public comments. If anyone would like to make comments to us, you can approach the podium. You have a maximum time of three minutes or is there anyone on Zoom? I see one hand. Gary Fisk. Gary, I will ask you to unmute. Hello. I hope I'm unmuted. You asked who are? Oh, hi. I listened to the lengthy presentation on the Strategic Master Plan today, and I have some comments. Many of the items in the plan were not presented at this BEOCC presentation by the Planning Commission today. And it is not the document of the people, quote, document of the people who was just claimed during the presentation. I agree with Amy that the questions were leading respondents, the survey questions were leading respondents to a predetermined answer. And I read the April 7 chain draft that was approved at that planning commission meeting. And I'm glad that you're extending your hearing until after the planning commission can include the BOC comments. For the sake of time, I just want to present a 30,000 foot view. The strategic master plan does not represent the will of park county voters, particularly because it lists numerous new taxes and tax increases as ways to fund new ambiguous future county programs. A 4.5 page of the report is devoted to listing ways to raise new taxes. The proposed plan is written more like a campaign document in my opinion than a guideline for future growth. It sees growth of government not private business as a way to guide growth. Specifically it prefers the repeal of our cherished taber spending limit. Taber is our constitutional birthright and we are one of of about only eight counties now that still cherish and want our spending limits. Without spending limits, the county will grow excessively in a boom economy and then endure painful cuts in a bust economy, much like the state is now cutting 1.2 billion dollars from its budget. Next year will be even worse for the state to join budget committee like it and the cuts this year to to pulling off the band aid and the cuts next year as applying a turn a cut. All I'm saying is that budget cuts, budget restrictions are multi-year events. So instead of orange addition to advocating political opinions concerning tax increases, the planning commission should also have advocated political opinions, including eliminating existing low priority expenses that are not required by the state constitution, lowering expenses. Incidentally, refocusing on only essential programs will project a budget discipline that will likely appeal to future commercial and real estate developers. The plan is obviously a cut and paste template from a plan that might have worked better in Thornton or Lakewood or Aurora, for example, when it mentioned using toll roads as a source of revenue. It endlessly repeats statistics, yet the stats shown to 1,100% are based on only 4.5% of the residents. This is spurious accuracy to project credibility that doesn't exist. It is not a scientific poll. It is highly inaccurate and poorly worded. The poll questions do not present opinions for private business solutions to growth. The plan needs to be redone starting with the template from other rural counties. If it is approved, it is now written, it will have to be redone in the near future. If it is now approved, it will be the basis for justification for bigger government, taking the place of private businesses and justification for new tax increases that make park county unaffordable. This report should not be accepted by the BOCC. Further, the Planning Commission has essentially recommended the failed proposals of the three defeated commissioners in the last two elections, Gerudo, Green, and Hansel. We voted them down because we did not like their expansive government ideas, yet this plan is proposing these very same ideas. The presenters today call this the document of the people. They also said today's budget does not matter. That was a laughable statement by the way. But it is directly contrary to 58% election victories of commissioners Mitchell and Jason Gamer only six months ago. And it is a rebuttal in the face of the 58% of people who voted for them. Residents will be better served by a newly seated planning commission that develops a new plan that better reflects their priorities of 58% of the 58% of the BOCC voters. We have the time to do it. To do it right the first time so we don't have to do it the second time. And thanks for your patience here. Thank you, Mr. Fisk. Appreciate your comments. Any others? I see no hands. I see nothing in the room beating a path to the podium. I move the close public comments. A promotion. I'll say about a promotion in second to close public comments. Call the question. Those in favor vote by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the same sign, the motion carries three to zero. We have no weather business on our agenda. We are adjourned at 4.47 pm. I guess I move we adjourn. You need a motion, Barton. We'll second that motion to adjourn. Now we'll do it accordingly to the rules. And we can call that question and we can adjourn. Call the question. Aye. Opposed same sign we are now adjourned at 4.47 pm. Thank you everyone. We want to admit that you're in the middle of session. Lucas, you want to go? I'm going to leave zoom open. You can listen in and we'll see what updates from county manager. Thank you. We want to admit that we're going to have administrative session which is a little bit more update. We ran out of time during our work session. I'm going to leave zoom open. You can listen in and we'll see what updates from county manager. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see what updates from County Manager.