Okay, that's all you've got. Okay. Okay, then we're done. Just get the stuff. Just get it through. Okay. We're going to raise a few jobs for you now. Okay. We're going to take money on time. Well, true. We ready. Okay. All right. All right. Keep moving. All right. We'll talk about that. We have time at the end. I think we'll have time. Oh, good. Okay. We'll close. Oh, we lost. We're going to close. Sorry. Let these people come in and get their seats. It is 6 o'clock. I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the planning commission for Montrose regular meeting for April 2025. I'd like to welcome everybody. For those of you able, please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like you the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Just a reminder, if you have cell phones and they're active, silence them so they don't interfere with our discussions Everything we do tonight our decisions will be advisory to the Board of County Commissioners We don't make any final decisions just to let you know If you're interested we can give you the date of when that meeting will be that the county commissioners will hear the case. We will enforce the 11 o'clock rule I don't think we'll get there tonight just that if we get to that late we will not entertain any new agenda items we'll put it off till the next month. We do we do we have a full house tonight. So we do have a quorum, everybody's here. We have a fresh copy of the minutes. Kasha made a change or two in there. I didn't have a chance to take a quick look at it, but I'm sure, as you looked at it, it looks good. Okay. It was only on that that first agenda Yeah, uh, yes, okay. Yeah, we got it. It looks good to me. Any further discussion on the minutes? Mr. Chairman, I would move to accept the minutes from the March 27th 2025 meeting as they are presented. Okay, we got a motion on the floor to accept the minutes by David Seymour, or do I have a second? I'll second that. Rocky, Rocky Gabriel seconds it. Any further discussion on the motion? If not all in favor raise your hand. Looks like unanimous. Okay, that's. Okay, call to the public. Is there anyone here that wants to present something to us that is not on the agenda? We open, we open the floor up for a little bit of time and the start of each meeting in case somebody's got something bothering them or something if not we'll proceed with our agenda. Okay. Looks like our first order of business is JJ Minor Subdivision. Who is this? Kim or it is Kim. You're up. It's an application that proposes to divide 24.90% of the crew. Object property. We just have to properties locate on J.E.R.O. in the room. Each lot will act as conduits to the room. We'll have to do that in a shared access. Water will run by window pin and wastewater by septic. And each lot is vacant at this time. Lot 1 and 2 are zone general residential, which are which lots of internal residential dwellings and are related in stress releases, which may include single family, complex dwelling, and accessory dwelling units. And of free is on general business, free general sales office, service district, supply range and capital sources. Discicure turistics analysis provided just when setting this viable for each lot. The proposed subdivision is consistent with projected land use designated at the Park West County Master of Land. And it meets all county regulations as well and I'm having to answer any questions. Any other questions? These lots were zoned that way before the subdivision was proposed. Well, that's interesting. Do you have any history to that zoning out? How did we end up with a general business zoning that far out? Was there something way back when that prompted that zoning? I don't know. I don't have any history on the way that was out commercial. Is it zone commercial or gender business business? It's business, general business. I'm just showing you what's your new. Oh. It's business general business That is That's interesting you don't see that It turns out because of the blue layer on there. It's been no. Well, it's not that far off the highway. It's not really far off. Because there's a lot of parcels. If you zoom out, you can see there's a lot of residential over there. And a lot of commercial. It would fall outside of the commercial node. Yeah. though. I mean that's The cross streets are JPM. It's already zone so it's Water is a bridge master's land from 2010 and today Okay Any further questions for Kim Okay. Any further questions for Kim? Any discussion amongst us? The applicant here? You want to guess? Does anybody have any questions? I don't want to have you walk all the way up here and no questions. Any particular questions? We're not alone. The lens. So. Okay. Can you show off? Let me see. Very sources. So, finally, $20.00. Okay. I need that exercise. We're not alone. I can't show off. I can see very sources of maybe $20. Do you know the history on that? Why that was just, was that way? I have to be back on my ideas. It's just that we can call what we talked about here the other day again. And it is what it is. Yeah. So when we did the subdivisionision, we tried to follow this closely that the GIS as we could. And said that's not three. This is close to we get it. That's the business. As of hopefully as of tonight, the commission is then defined that we have been locked in to a tree, that business and movie. Okay. Is this ground all backs up to the ceiling canal? Is there a... What's the topography here for this part? Pretty flat. It is dry. It's been raised forever. So putting back stuff to the canal right there, which the federal government knows that. Yeah, the right away. Yeah, they went right through there. This doesn't look like there's been an irrigation moment. If there was, it was long before you were born. That's all I can tell you. But is there irrigation water? because it's not irrigated to the is the irrigation water that goes with these lots? No, but I don't know. I don't know if there's any irrigation that keeps the water. Looks like it's a mancus shell. I wonder if they never allocated water for it. I don't know. Yeah, it's pretty tough soil. Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't know far much about that farm much Are you a liberty to disclose Lot three is intended to be used for business or is it intended to go residential? I do not have any inclination of what that is I know it's a zone, so we thought it's only done it What and a lot too is business. different kind of access for a lot too at least. A lot too could be very busy. And that's just following up with County Seven. It is great. I mean, we should have, we could give them up with a different answer, but that's, that's up for you guys, it's great relations. And once again, give them a talk about that, The access and this is where we were before. Kim, would that warrant further discussion with public works if that turns out to be the case? That's the direction from how that works. To combine it. Okay. Oh well. Okay, any further questions to the applicant? Thanks a lot. Is there anyone else that would hear that would like to speak on this agenda item? His illness on this plaque. We've got to see lib cannell. Does it denote any ingress easement, ingress maintenance easement for the cannell along the back of these properties? The cannell, come on up. Got to get you on tape. The canal accesses off of JJ Road and then it comes back out through 6200 Road. So it has its own access and it is feasible to begin. They access right there On the same side of the subdivision they Okay, so should that 50 feet Is much of be recorded here, so that people at by this know it's there? It's not a 50 foot easement. The federal bill, the owns that property. There is not easement there. So bottom line is the, you're property might only go to there. The rest is federal bill. If they drive on their own property, they're driving on their own property. They have access to both things of this, other properties, that act for the whole length of it. For the whole need they can access it, they have a room. They have a room on both sides. They can access either side. I think there's... It's a piece of it. It's a piece that ownership that the government has. I don't have to define the exact width, I think, of some of the... If this drawing is accurate, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. It shows the property line on both sides of the canal. No. If you look at the property, it shows the canal is further to the west. Yeah, the canal is this light. Well, can The canals is green. No. The canals are between these dashed lines. Oh, OK. See the canal. Yeah. OK. So that's on the outside of that. OK. Oh, I missed out. They own that piece of it. And the way we put that together was through their working drawings that they're asked about what they could pack and get those can out. Okay. Don't argue with them. No. It's not. Okay. Nobody wants to say anything. Okay. So it's back to us. Do we have any further discussion on this? If not, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would move to approve the JJ Miner Subdivision based on the findings of fact listed in paragraph 5 of this report. Okay, we've got a motion to approve by David Seymour as a second. I'll second that. Don't argue about it. Okay, Rocky seconded it. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor of the motion raise your hand. Looks like we have all five. We have unanimous. Okay the second agenda item is Gurkin minor subdivision looks like him you again. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. There's a minor. I have to put you in the position that's that I voted to divide two acres on a four-acre parcel, between the sub-china and racing. One lot was going to access off racing. There's a really good right-wing indication along the fence well. One is provided by the right-coming. And we put it by set-check. It's pretty straight forward. And you talk kind of like that. But we're getting into it. I'm getting into it. And you can see it pretty straight forward. What is this little squirt right here in the other corner? There's a catacorn? Where? The little square in that upper corner? Yeah, what is that? Is that somebody else's? Probably a subdivision I would guess. Somebody's plentiful, could plentiful. Don't know? That's outside of this proposal. Yeah. I'm not sure. This I had a hard time finding the act of the proposed access camera with that. Was that us? I'm not sure. It was me. It's not on the plaque because it's going to access racing more ever it is that they decide on their site map. Okay. Okay. That's a future trip. We'll have for you out there. We only allow two accesses. Right. So it has to be done. I think it's one year in a share. Okay. All right. Any more questions for staff? No? Is the applicant here? Do you want to say a word or two? Do we have questions? Do we have? I've got a question. Okay. He's got a question. We just need your name and address for the record. Allium, right. 6859118, Ro. Okay. So it's been a few weeks or months of solstice. since I came through this area. Is this site kind of healing or rolling or is it? The whole thing, the site that you're I go by there quite a bit Not a lot, but yeah Was a common question I ask because your there irrigation water with this? Or is this just dry land? No, it's here. We have 27 shares of water. So two will probably go to that. Okay. Is this land? Is it reasonable farm ground? Is it? It can't be irrigated, can't produce. Okay. With water. With water. That's a necessary ingredient. All right. Any further questions of the applicant? No. We're all good. Thank you. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak to this agenda item? Okay. It's back to the commission. Is there any further discussion amongst us? Further questions of staff? Okay. Silence is good. I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the Gertrude Conminor subdivision based on the findings of fact listed in paragraph three of this report. Okay. Lana, Kenzie. I'll second it. And David, see more seconds. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. Any further discussion on the motion. All those in favor raise your hand. Looks like we have a unanimous in favor. OK. Number three, Mountain View Estates Miner Subdivision. Kim, you said all three of them tonight. Thank you. This is an application that proposes to provide pretty lots from a study-90 proposal. I'm going to track the subject property of those people on rural road, each lot with access and lots of what is we would like to share in access. Water is provided by Tri-County and wastewater by each lot with access, and lots of what is we would for them to share in access. Water is provided by Tri-County, and we square by septic. Each lot is vacant. Was we in the community? And we have any answering questions? This is... Got good frontage on each lap. Yeah, I don't have any questions on it. Anybody? No, I've got a question. Go ahead. Not for stand, exactly. No, for the applicant, maybe. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, all right. Is the applicant here? On the order. I guess you're going to be the spokesperson for... I guess. Okay. Come on up. I thought Jim did a good job. He's got a question. State your name and address. Jason, and buyers 70611 Black Horn Road. Okay. Okay. I'm curious where this proposal is to subdivide off the land the front's rural road and looking at the picture before they brought this up. There's a number of lots also front Viral Road is there going to be access to Viral Road to the South property to the South? No it have to come off the Vancouver there. Pardon? No it will come off the rest of the lots I mean the rest of the land is off of the Vancouver. This the road to the South that the arrow is outside of the S. Okay. And that's how the river, the farm, will be as it is. Accesses. Is that access directly off 550? I CUNET does, doesn't it? It has access directly off the highway. Yeah, I CUNET. Do you know what the access control plan at the C.Dot did is going to do with that? Are they going to keep that or? I have no idea. Okay. Because they're closing a lot of the smaller access points along there. Right. Yeah. No, I have no idea about that. Okay. I'm just wondering if they did how they would, they'd have to have it. Well, there is a frontage road there. Yeah, there's a frontage. Okay, that would work. Okay. Okay. All right. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Okay Okay any further discussion amongst the commission or a staff if not I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, of course. That's pretty good. Yeah, go ahead. I moved to approve the Mountain View of State's minor subdivision based on the Pine Spac List and paragraph three of this report. Okay, you've got a, you've got a, you said second, David, okay? So we have a motion by Rocky and a second by David to approve. I think it was clipped the second. Oh, it's clipped the one in. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion on that? If not, I'll raise your hand favor. Looks like we have unanimous again. All right. So all three subdivisions will go to the commission about County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve. We have a meeting date for the next commission or whenever that meeting of May, 7th of May. Oh, okay. So that's all the agenda items we had. I think there's at least a couple of, you have some stuff you want. We have a discussion. Okay. Well, we wanted to bring up kind of an old one and see if there's something we can do with it. It's the ag loss issue. And I think it falls in line if I'm understanding your comment here on the agenda. Based on our earlier discussion, I think everything we're wanting to talk about probably falls in line with the item you have listed. What is your point of talking about that? Preservation of agriculture. I heard that. It sounds like a specific topic. Well, I... Sheds and light for us, Townmage. Well, I guess where I was coming from on it, Townmage, you know, I watched the video of the last Commissioner meeting with that Colt Greek and they were pretty clear that they're not going to infringe on farmer's property rights on who they sell and can't sell to. And I personally, when you have an applicant come in who's completely compliant with the regulations and purchase the property, if you deny them, the commissioners could probably get sued because they're spending all a good money to prepare that. So the master plans is kind of general. It talks about supporting conservation easements and transferable development rights. it say, and it's got a section on the urban growth boundary. And that's where I think we might have some wiggle room. It might not stop development of Ag Land, but we could certainly, if there's some way we can put maybe an overlay district over the growth boundary and put some carrots in. Oh, is it? Okay. Well that was this might think and if we could put some carrots in there so that like the developers coming in can say oh we got a little better deal here we won't go out and develop the farm ground so it won't completely solve the issue but it could certainly help so that was kind of my thinking and I don't know where you think in the same thing. So tracking right along with Dennis, after your comment last month and again watching what the commissioners did with our recent decisions. So I had a little time and I jumped in on zoning regs, subdivision regs and the master master plan. And I think this commission's done a really good job of saying what our vision is, what we intend, how we want this community to look, how we want the quality of life to continue, all throughout the documents, and in the master plan, even the vision statement talks about us preserving our agri-cultural heritage, our farmlands and everything. The framework is there, we just don't have anything in the regs, we don't have the teeth as we've said. And I agree with Dennis about that urban growth boundary or the three-mile boundary. But when I got to looking at that and you take the map and you lay that map out, that three-mile urban growth boundary takes in a lot of our prime farm ground. So what I, I was trying to come up with solutions and I'm not saying this is or couldn't be a solution but what I would offer up at least as a starting point is maybe at least saying if you're going to do a major subdivision where you impact infrastructure roads emergency services, you have to do that within the limitations of the city to reach out to provide those services. And that would at least I think help us maybe to develop appropriately without creating, like I know we've got a few areas where we've, despite our view, we've tried to, we have ended up allowing major subdivisions very far out in the county based on the current regulations that we have. We have allowed three lots, three lots, three lots, three lots until we have essentially some very large subdivisions. have the potential to have another one happen. And I think that those all fly in the face of everything that we've said in our guiding documents. We've just got to figure out some way to put some teeth in it. So that's my I thought and I know it's a hard subject. We've danced in it. So that's my thought. And I know it's a hard subject. We've danced around it for years. But I'm afraid if we don't take a stand on it pretty soon. I don't think it hurts. Every thing that we stand for is going to disappear. We can't just keep nibbling away at this county and expect to keep what makes this county Montrose County. Yes, the discussion I have on the agenda is right along. Perfect. Where are you guys are going? I I am being tempted, sorry, we're back up. One month. Kaja is the newest team of the commission. She's been with us for just a month. I think the last time the commission was super skinny. So we love having Kaja. Yeah. Sounds good. Yeah. Hopefully you got some men. So we heard about work so happy in the morning after. Okay, so the discussion here, I think we focus a lot on subdivision when the focus should be on subdivision. So, and the Coltrick one's a great example. Coltrick, what's piled up there, was a subdivision. You drive by there and you see the road, you see the lake there. They got the utilities and things. Well, what's the use of the land still? It's ag. The property's being used as ag, even though it's subdivided almost 20 years ago. So the subdivision did not take it out of ag. It didn't. The subdivision does not change the land use. No subdivision does. It's the zoning that allows certain uses and the property owner that chooses to do something different. So in this case, you forget how to subdivide it and then chose not to sell it. The self division, given the opportunity to sell, it did not give him any additional opportunity to use the land any differently. That's what the zone does. The sub division allowed him to sell, he chose not to sell and as the property or chose to use the property as a tag. So the subdivision divides land and it doesn't determine use but it does allow the land on a two transfer to different entities. The zoning determines what uses are allowed right. Saying a lot of things but I think it's that know, but I think it's important to set the base here. So the zoning identifies what uses of the property are allowed, and then the property owner essentially looks through that list of allowable uses and chooses which ones he wants to use. So in Fri others case Ag uses are obviously loud in the general act district. He chose to use it as an That's a lot of people who are interested in the field. Tell me. Yes, we can. I hate to interrupt, but just for clarification, be honest, we're going to use this one as an example. Wasn't the subdivision there through a developer prior to Friendo's ownership? I don't believe so. Was that was seven when it first got? I thought when I was researching the records that there was like, relitter developer owners in those seven or something. Uh, yeah, I don't know about that. Okay. It's okay. I think they got transferred to different entities, but I'm pretty sure you don't know what the point is. I could be wrong. You could be right. then, anyway, so the property of what decides to the use within the confines of the zone district. The zone district, and I don't need to say subdivision is only completely separate. They work together. Subdivision, obviously, you can subdued that property as long as it appears to all the zoning ranks. One of the big things that we're looking at for it is the dimensional standards and the main thing for that is the minimum lot size. So that is determined if they were proposing to resubbed it by last month and create three-quarter acre lots we obviously wouldn't be recommending any sort of approval because it wouldn't be the zone. So they are intertwined, but I think when we talk about preserving ag and taking land out of ag, it's not the subject in the process. It's the order bought that sub-bited land. So definitely related, but I think it's a zone issue. And here's why. I... There probably is a mechanism to what you're saying, of not allowing major subdivisions, but I think that goes against the purpose of the subdivision regulations. I think the mechanism to encouraging development in certain areas is through the zoning. And the reason I say that, what Dennis said, could have de-absent. Just a question we get. Okay. It's going to be a little while, so feel free to make an answer. What is the direction from the BOCC with regard to the decision? I have no idea because they started a couple of months ago. Right. So that's kind of the kickoff to the discussion. For me, anyway, it's going to be a good brainstorm session to get your feedback and your direction. And then at least when I go before the B.O.C.C. hopefully sometime this summer to hear their direction I can share yours and understand theirs. So that's the biggest part of all this. If we all say oh yeah we agree this is what we want to do and then we take the B.O.C.C. and they say no that's not at all what we're going to do. discussion needs nothing. But it is a good brainstorm to offer potential alternatives to work. So as Dennis was talking about some sort of overlay district, some sort of different zoning district than what we have right now. Because the zoning issue we have now, general ag, allows for residential uses. It allows for some quasi commercial uses, uses even in the Church of Schools all sorts of things. So one of the action items and mother tools in the Master Plan is to create this ag district that only allows ag uses. And that's, I believe that was in the 2010 Master Plan 2. I'm pretty sure that goal in action was in the 2010 plan. So, work 15 years in and that district has not been created. And I think we'll discuss probably some reasons why. And so, an idea or a vision of the Ag District, it would be, maybe I can pull it up here. We did do some major changes to the uses in the Ag back when we took out event centers. It's ag related pretty much in the Ag table now. So we got that part of it pretty good. But there still are things like, obviously like residential uses. Right. Okay, so here's the general egg district. If we were to create some other overlay or just a separate district, it would be, let's call it egg 35, something just to give it a name. It would say Ag 35, and at the purpose, it had the use table, and then instead of having all these different uses, count, childcare for the center, it could just be just the Ag use box. I'm not saying this is what we're proposing, I'm saying this is a vision of what it could be. And maybe there's probably some other things in there like parks or public utilities or certain things that we can do more in houses and what it would be, but it would be a lot smaller of a list than what's here. Obviously, we've done in 10 of keeping the focus on the act. The next big thing that would be, is this minimum, a lot size, would be something bigger than one. It would be, maybe it's 35. Delta County has an act 35, Ureigh County has acted. That's pretty, Stede Colorado because that's when it goes from local jurisdiction to state jurisdiction. Okay, quick question. Just playing along. So we create Act 35, but the farmer decides to sell 3 acres to his kids so he can build a house. It's no longer 35. That's not allowed in this situation. In this scenario. I'll scrap. That would not be allowed because it would be against the minimum lot size. Similar to the coal-create, it was proposing three-quarter-create to lots. That's where I think this would be tough because you're talking a big change to property what they can do with the product. And maybe I can go through the process first. The process we use, and I use the word preserves add because that's the word that we use. And then I'll address that in the comments. But it essentially, it would preserve add. We would see less development, each residential development. Most of that would keep with that. Another pro, again speaking to the neighbors at the last meeting, it would give neighbors a sense of what the uses are going to be, where it could be a school, it could be it, whatever. You have a sense of a more limited sense of what surrounding property will be. It also contributes to your culture and history and ag. The cons, being that it preserves ag, it prohibits or limits uses of the property that for the last 50 years have been allowed in the general act district. So it does have some limitations and severe limitations. The things we took out of the act district two, three years ago, event centers and things like that that are a few and far between taking a single family residential out is big. That's big. Yes, he. And I haven't done any deep analysis or spoke to any professionals in this room, but I based on general economics and would have a severe impact on property values. If the more UCF of the land, the more valuable it is. The prices prices on it. I have to do more analysis on that. But from what I know, if we have a huge impact on the negative land, can we tap that? The other issue with the public, you've done that. The other issue is creating the zone, that's cool. But then the only way to make it do anything is to assign properties to that zone to shoot. So then we're drawing a line and saying these properties, you'll still pretend to Joe Ag, you'll have the right to develop, you'll want to make a lot of resonances. But on this side of the line, you can't, you've got to put it up Uster, but not in the can. So that's going to be hard for if that's the route that the commission goes. And I think this is why it hasn't happened in the last 15 years, because drawing that line is impossible to do at my opinion without it being arbitrary. Maybe it could be done. And Talbidge, I couldn't agree with you more because that is the thought process that I ended up rolling through. As I kept reading the regs and looking at the maps, how do you go out and say, okay, your zone to ag, but the guy right next to you, now he can zone whatever. And you get that disparity. And that's where I faltered and went back to, you have to be able to connect to the services. And I don't, if you'll bear with me for just a minute, I have a little clipping that I have had for years. I keep it with my planning stuff and it just says, scattered haphazard development brings no more revenues than the same development in more compact form, but involves greater annual obligations in operations, maintenance and repair of capital systems and often greater service cost obligations as well. Local government should also identify the full cost of proposed extensions and additions of its capital infrastructure system including operations and maintenance and local service costs. The identification of these costs will encourage local officials to seek the least costly system which can adequately support a given amount of urban development. This This in turn will promote wise land use development policies and discourage scattered leapfrog development. And that last part is what really keeps coming to my mind when I think about for example this cold-priced project or the project out west of Olathe where we just keep adding and adding and adding those lots. It's not doing us any favors as a county to keep putting those urban developments leapfrogged out in the county. Can I stop there? I think herbons and exaggerations. I don't think they grow lots. I don't know anyone who would consider that burden, but I do agree that the zoning that we have had here for the last 50 years and and the submarines working together. Yeah, there are opportunities for kind of leave from. Leave from the problem. I don't know that that's... I think most people are less concerned with that and will probably say they're more concerned any growth, any development because there is a development that goes on the city. That gets the same complaints. Yeah. Probably more so. Did you hear about Matt Miles' new proposal down by like 5,000 units. Yeah, but that national one that comes to mind, even when they're proposed to be in the city, where the comprehensive plan to designates. And that's where we want to see it. That's even that's complaint about so I I think it's more growth in general than the regular growth too. And there's always going to be people that don't want to live they like to be out in the country. You even know their resident they're not farmers. So I came up with a couple alternatives that we can massage if we have other thoughts. I like. Obviously that's why I'm talking with you guys. Bring those up. So the Ag 35 district, whatever one I call it, a less intense way of incorporating that. That's probably not going to really solve anything. we could do something like a lot of public outreach and do some sort of sign up where the county's not assigning the zone district to farmers what we're going on saying we're doing this to preserve that do you want to rezone to this probably would have very low effect because it's not giving any benefit to the farmer. It's probably very similar to a conservation easement or an ag development easement, something like that, except it has no benefit. It has no tax benefits that it conservation is all about. So it's not real attractive. The voluntaryary, yeah, it's not attractive. Maybe a handful of passionate farmers would sign up, but probably won't have much of an effect. And going back, someone you mentioned the conservationism. That's probably what practical we had to do with it, because it has it in seconds, and the county obviously would support anything like that. I think we've got two now. So I really want to move on. Yeah, we have a couple. We may have one of the two. You know, if you look at Mesa, Delta, Gunnison, San Miguel, I got out of a map. And there's quite a few. We're the, we're really shy of what they've got. So if it catches on here like there we should have a lot more. I'm going to make a comment here that's kind of been hasn't been mentioned and it's out there. I got part of these comments from my dad. My dad used to sit on the Wanda user's board. But there's 80,000 acres, you ever take in this valley that is part of the Uncompact of Valley Warrant User's Association. That 80,000 acres provides the irrigation water throughout the valley. And today it provides every drop of raw domestic water for the entire valley from south Ridgeway or North Adela. The Water Use Association does that and they depend upon the assessment they get from every irrigated acre to continue to operate every year and provide the water to this valley and the domestic water. Now the water can't be taken away from the land, but I guess people can continue to pay their assessment. But the water users have kind of a de facto or illusion, I don't know how you would describe it, but if the tunnel went down and Needed to be repaired The water users would turn around and they would come back to that 80,000 acres and say you're going to have to pay You're going to have to pull me up that 80,000 acres are going to have to generate the money to repair that tunnel. Now, granted there's federal help and a lot of different things that have evolved since the tunnel was built. But when the water users was put together, it was with the idea that 80,000 acres of irrigated farm ground would be called upon to maintain the project, to build the canals, to maintain the tunnel, and today in 2025 we provide every drop of raw domestic water. Of course we've got hydroelectric and that kind of thing, but the water users' association, the farmers at which I'm one, depend upon every acre of irrigated ground out here to maintain the water system that comes into this valley. And it's going to move forward like that. And if we start to take irrigated acres out of production, of course, like I say, people can pay the water bill every year. But it was intended that that 80,000 acres would provide the input to keep and maintain this system since 1999. And it's easy to forget. We can take it for granted. You've got your tap water, you've got your shower, water, and everything. But the farmers in this valley put that water in Fairview Reservoir twice a month. And for those farmers, there wouldn't be domestic water in this valley. We've got to defend those acres that are dependent, that the water supply in this valley is dependent upon. That's, I guess that's the end of my sermon. Well, we, where I live, we're in a subdivision that used to be a farm. Yeah. But we still have to pay the water. Yeah. Because we're getting a lot of water. It could get to a point where people don't want a farm, they don't want to pay for the water. They get a piece of farm ground and they refuse to pay for the water. Well the water users will put a lien on your feed tool. They will put a lien on your property. They will do that, but they depend upon that 80,000 acres to generate enough money to keep the water in the valley. And when we start taking that 80,000 acres out and parts swing it out, it becomes that much more difficult for the water users to do their thing So another alternative that is It's very common to be institute when zoning is instituted But it's a lot more difficult to just do is to instead of of just having one new overlay district have four or five Ag districts of different densities. Similar to what you see in the city where you have R1 is low density to R5 is high density. So you have some sort of Ag 1, Ag 5, Ag 10. One way to break down Ag land. There's class 1, 2, and 3 land. And that receives the maximum amount of water, which in a perfect year is 5 acre feet. There's other land, 4, 5, and 6., some of that land gets water on in time of flood. But your prime farm ground could be denoted as class one, two, and three. And that's come through the sole conservation service. So I'll serve it. So that could help determine which, which land gets, so it's not an arbitrary number. I like that idea. It's not our arbitrary. No, I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying that could help us determine if the board were to choose they were going to be all of them. It's not going to be general act anymore. You're going to be Ag1 Ag5 Ag2. Different overlays. Yeah, different. Not even overlays just use only completely. And based on your soil classification. I have to get too much about what it would be based on because it's still in completely in theory because it's going to be very difficult to actually move that. But the theory of it would be that Ag1 would be more of a rural residential district. On a one acre lot you put put a house, you have your garden, you have your chickens, whatever, your typical farm. Yeah, and then your ag five is gonna be, you're slightly larger lots, maybe, where an ag one you're not, you're not doing a campground. Anyway,, the uses would depend with differ depending on the minimum lot size and a lot of those minimum lot size are going to vary depending on distance from town. So your closer to town is going to be your ag ones. Your further out of town is going to be ag 35. Does that make sense? High your density closer to town. Yeah. So that's typical of a zoning. Obviously going from ag to five different districts, you're still running into the issue of where we draw the lines that one aren't arbitrary, but two also don to talk cause right, you know, just the, that reality that change is difficult in that, especially change in how you can use your property. That's, that's what's really that new, come, kids. What's that? I would say it's probably not new. What have other counties done? It's fairly new. Those counties implement that at the beginning. And then if not, they just jumped to the Ag 35 issue. We didn't even have zoning until the 90s. Was it 90s or 70s? 78 I think. I thought it was late. Not that long ago. Definitely. So most kinds of work. I don't know. I have to do some more research. But I don't know that most counts are doing it this way. I think they're just if they were to do something like this and to limit the uses in the zone district or to increase the amount of loss in our system. They've been pretty busy at that moment. Have you said anything about this? I know they have their values set on preserving a hand and making sure growing intelligently and playing for the interests. Who's that the commissioner? Yeah. From what I watch that meeting on video the other day, they're concerned about property right in Frenchmen. So that's going to be the task of balance. That's going to be the thing. You're going to start telling people what they can and can't do and that doesn't go over too big. I like conceptually what you're saying, but we'd have to start very soft. Down to technicality of the GIS of actually mapping it. It's going to be an excellent period of nightmare. The fact that every property owner in the general districts zoning is going to change will be in my environment. So, in theory it's, I think it's, again, if it was in students' 70s like that, great wind problem solve, probably not problem solve. A lot easier. A lot easier than implementing it now. One of the things that happens when you begin or open up the subdivision process and you allow this division, it puts pressure on the farmers out there, on the businessmen, I agree, businessmen, that want to continue to farm and make their farm, they're living off of a farm. When you start subdividing, then you start to put pressure on those guys to do something different. And there are people in lad location at Colquery that want to depend upon farming as a livelihood. And they don't necessarily want to be pushed around by infrastructure and traffic and all this kind of stuff while they're trying to conduct a livelihood in which they are still successful at doing. The introduction of subdivision puts pressure on legitimate business band Trying to conduct their business One reason I can say this is because my place is only about three miles from this this site And just to interject some perspective, I guess. Earlier you said you don't think of that out there being urban. I grew up in the call-crick valley. And when I go out there today and look at what has happened out there in my perspective, that practically looks like a small city out there. So to me, the development that has taken place out there has forever changed the face of that agricultural valley. It will never go back and be what it was. And I have to agree with David when you get when you get traffic that increases and applies pressure and this may sound silly but to those those of us that grew up out there, or anywhere around here, you get traffic behind a combine or a big loaded trailer with hay or whatever, and you get people honking at you, there are those kinds of pressures, and the more that we allow that kind of development in our rural areas the greater the pressure is on our rural farm. Case in point true story about a month ago I was pulling out on 6200 to go into town about eight o'clock which is kind of rush hour and there was a combine coming down spring creek towards town and I bet there was 50 cars behind him waiting for him to turn off the road. I'm going here is the clash of development and the most most combine operators and it's not always possible but most combine operators will find a place to pull out. Sometimes that's not possible. Well, he turned down about three quarters of mile down the road, but he had quite a crowd behind him. Why did you go to work? So it was a clash between workers. And I'm not sure that was the count-bind's choice. That may have been the only question. Well, the solution of that would be do it at 10 o'clock or 9 o'clock or 6 o'clock, not a day. I know what you're saying. And those are the kinds of things that come through my head when we're talking about these. or six or five, not a day. But I know what you're saying. And those are the kinds of things that come through my head when we're talking about these land uses and putting more people out in our rural communities. My husband did emergency services, party partner stuff. The farther you keep putting people out, the pressure that it puts on your emergency services people. I don't think people understand the pressure then that is felt on the back side of that. When you get the call that somebody's having, you know, the widow maker heart attack and they're 17 miles out somewhere. Oh an easement that you can't drive down. It creates stress then on the backside. So to me trying to alleviate as many of these stressors as we can, whether it's on the farmer or the people or the county trying to provide services I feel like we've got it we've got to put our foot down and say The buck stops here. We've got to figure this out if we want to maintain some sort of a quality of life and a balance Well, and I think the important thing to think about too This is not going to get easier. No. You know, it's going to be hard now, but if we wait another five or ten years, this is going to get worse because it's a grow in place. It's already the main event. Yeah, so I mean... They're not going to stop coming. I kind of like some of your concepts, and I don't know where you're going to maybe bounce some of that stuff off the commissioners and Maybe it'd be a good time to meet we haven't really formally met those guys yet if they want to have a quick meeting They have a lot of 35-year-old off that have played where you're looking to that similar summertime Okay, we're not doing a zoning amendment until we finish the current Folks. So, folks, the amount that needs to be done by Ben June, and then you might take a little breather and jump into the document. Okay. But it's good discussion. We need to keep this going and think about, you threw some ideas at me I hadn't thought about. So, let Let's everybody keep thinking we need all the brain power we can on this Nothing's easy. Do you have any interaction with the city? Do you and Jake? Is it Jake? Jace Jace Jason will is Is there any combined effort between the city and county department heads to tackle this? I mean, I know I helped work a long time ago on the city's comp plan, but I know that they've updated since then. We just got ours cleaned up and done. I mean, has there been any meetings? Is there any conceptual conversations between the city and county? Certainly. They just did a big revamping of some of the rezoning, didn't they? Of what? Some of the rezoning or residential stuff? Yeah, they updated to, they're in there, zoning. Yeah. So what they were trying to balance, and this is partly, this is going to be a big impact on anything we do in the zoning is cost of things, cost of land and cost of housing. The less availability, the higher the cost. So the city up is some of their rates to allow for some creative housing in town. I think they expanded the redo districts. They allow for some some more grand PDs that allow for some additional. That's the where that infrastructure is. So I don't think encouraging growth towards town that goes along with what the city's prepared to do. But I hear kind of a stop and that's probably not what. Stop growth. Yeah, that doesn't really go on with how to do it. You can only have a one round trip ticket if you come visit here. Yeah, get out. So the governor and the legislature have been talking about, maybe they passed it on urban density and it includes not only urban areas but county areas. Is there something on the books that talks about density of housing that the state is? Oh, they tried to do a top-down zoning that included densities. That got bombed. That got to that. I have heard of that. That got all pulled. They were trying to increase density for mountain. Primarily the issue was like these expensive tell you ride aspen they needed more higher density for the workers. And they were trying to. They were trying to require, however the bill was they were trying to require any news value in county where a sum of family house is allowed, the county news value also must allow multi-family. And they had certain densities too. We're pretty crazy. It was like the idea of... Yeah. Because we can allow a house at P-Green. Now we have to allow a apartment building there. So it was kind of wacky. Well, they were trying to make a one-size-fits-everything-everything like the whole state would go one and it didn't go very good. Now they know. Okay good discussion. Let's not let it die on us. Let's keep the ball rolling. It sounds like we let it die 15 years ago in 2010 master plan. Oh wow. We were pretty good. I heard that data to say that's when the discussion started. And it just, again, like I said before, it's political. Having people yell at your face at a board meeting when you're trying to do what you think is the right thing, but it's going to hurt their property and their ownership for that fact. It's not easy. It's tough to do. So we can, we will continue to talk theories and I'll need to, I'll need to learn what the world wants to see. I would prefer to get their guidance because I prefer not to spend months and months and months and months and months and months and months and months and just a few days and months and months and months and months and months and months and months and months We'll have that meeting. I'll probably have a work session with them sometimes June, July, and then we'll discuss the kind of the same discussion. We'll have that meeting. I'll probably have a work session with them sometime June, July, and then we'll discuss the kind of the same discussion of philosophy on the growth and the ag. And at that work session, I'll put together a meeting between board and planning commission. with voluntary people in the ag saying, I'm gonna combine the two alternatives? I'll dedicate my land now to that proposal and I'll tell you what kind of like you do with the land use, conservation. motivation. But I mean, not necessarily saying, I can't ever sell my land or nothing, but maybe designate that volunteer that it was remained ag. Like the 35 acre thing, I think is a good thing. Yeah, we could do that today, but that could be part of the amendment. What happened to the other denial we should have? There's something I didn't know. I didn't mention there is some more flexible. They continue the air strip. Yeah, the commercial across the highway from the... Oh, they supported us on that. Well, they supported us on that? With Sue Hanson. I could tell that the two new commissioners need to look at some of the documents. They weren't aware of some stuff. You know. Yeah. Townmage, your comments earlier about add one, add two, add five, whatever. And it's been a long time ago, but I know that during the 2010 master plan the guy that we worked with Winston, Winston Associates. For a while. I mean we started out there was talk and we talked about it, help me guys if you remember. He had rings. We talked about the discussion went around tree rings, but it was similar to that. And I don't know if any of that old data information or discussion has been retained, but I don't But we have overlapped. There's a couple of laws and I'm in the background on this one, but I don't care. But there's a couple different philosophies on the rings. So one philosophy is like what we just talked about, where higher densies, lower minimum mass out of these toys, two higher, so to that, and all of a sudden. Another philosophy is, and this one's, anyway, I don't know if we should discuss it because it really is what we're doing is that basically a thick ring like the three-mile plan have that one be the highest and act 35 districts and then from there out do the smaller. The principle behind that one is inside the three mile boundary, you reserve all that for city. Where if you break it up into 28 pieces and then the city comes in, then you have a mix of 5,000 square foot lots, acre lots, all these things. Where if you worked to reserve at? 35 acre pieces. Those could all be developed. So, does that make any sense what I'm trying to say? That's more of a planning tricky because it's got a lot of, I don't know how to say it, a lot of... You get caught off her. You're deciding... You gotta follow the whole... You gotta lay it all the way out and thank every step because you can get tripped up pretty easy if you don't watch it. Get full. Many of you balance too much on the community side. You lose out of the property owner. If you balance too much on the property owner, you lose out of the more planning towards it. So it's a tough balance. Right. They didn't say this job was easy when we signed up. I didn't think that was the truth. All right. We good. Till next time. Do you have any direction for us? Do you have homework for us on this? No, I don't have any questions. If there are any questions, then we have, I have tons of reading with you. No, I don't have any. So I've been admitted to Hansen several times about the idea of getting the commissioners and the commission together to exchange ideas and get to get introduced I don't even know two of the commissioners. Did you hear what I mentioned that the summer? Okay, they have summer? Okay. They have a lot going on. So they're interested in me in the planning commission as well. They, uh, I think in the first couple of meetings, there's some confusion on staff and planning commission. They would call us the planning commission. So I think it's necessary for you all to meet them. It just isn't a right time. Definitely not the right time. We'll be a little bit. It'll be a little bit. They're learning all the different staff departments. There's 15 other one, not just plenty of them. Yeah, that's all. That's the best. So we're trying to push it out just a little bit. That's fine. Did they give us a feedback on the alternative energy proposal? Yeah, they're hearing that on their own special public hearing for that. Maybe a night there. It's good. It was still shooting to have it finalized before the June moratorium days. We are too. We're getting tired of this. I just read an article where with all the funding cuts, there's not much going to the renewable industry is less demand now. We're getting less comments from solar developers than we have in the last three years. Let's put in a bite in the documents. Don't you think that's a good idea? Well, that's going to be part of it. It's going to be a good idea. They got them on Trump by the end of the week. We. I would not want them on my backyard, but I'd like to have one close. All right. If you want to do any research, I can talk about it. Or any of you. Well, let's just continue this. And as we come up with with ideas we'll hopefully come up with something. It'll be nice. All right, we're adjourned. All right. I have to move the help. Please just put the thing up here. Stop.