Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Press the video on. Yes, please. All right. Do I need to do that again then? Nope, you're good. All right. Do I need to introduce meeting again? Yes, please. Okay. Uh, I'm calling to order the July 9, 2025 Albony County Climate regular meeting. Uh and we will begin with roll call. Um Mronic here. Um Miss Hanning is absent. Miss David is absent. Here and I am here. Mr. Black. So we have a quorum. May I have a motion to approve agenda? So moved. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Um, may I have a motion to approve the meetings for June 11th, 2025? I move we approve the minutes from June meeting, June 11th, 2025. I'll second that. I I would note that I missed the meeting, but I was able to go back and look at the video and found the minutes helpful. And so, we're we we've accomplished one of our goals with the minutes, which is to help those who weren't there. Joe's been doing excellent jobs. No well the technology that he brought to it was what made all the difference. So anyway, I'll stand on my comment. I have not disc I any further discussion in that case. All those in favor of approval of minutes, please say I. I. I. That motion carries. Um disclosures, conflicts of interest. Morning, you have anything? None. Mr. Rinkley. No. And I have nothing either. Um so we will proceed with uh our first and only public advocation, the H zoning district amendment. CDA05-25 and please note that uh Mr. B show up very good.

Is this yours, David or Joe? This is mine. Okay, go ahead. All right. So, um, Timothy and Karen Hayes are the applicants and property owners of for this application. Property is located at 1321 Carol Street. The request is to change the zoning to neighborhood business from small out residential. Polarm Rivers Conservation District commented on being cautious about erosion and soil degradation and reclaiming um and encouraged reclaiming of disturbed areas. Others that commented provided no issues of concern. The staff analysis of this application is that the application generally follows a comprehensive plan and learn growth plan and that neighborhood business zoning district is compatible with residential uses. The comp plan also supports a mix of commercial and residential uses. Proximity to the city makes this area growth efficient. The application will not negatively impact surrounding land uses. The zoning district is compatible with residential zoning districts and the city technology and office zoning. The only development or land use on any of the surrounding properties um include the trail that exists on the the east property. Um the Sears Sky Technology Park um and then the personal storage buildings that are directly to the west of the proposed zoning district amendment. The properties north and south are vacant at this time and staff recommends approval of this application and be happy to answer any questions. Uh Mr. Hayes is sitting behind me and he would be happy to answer any questions you have for him as well. I'll begin with one question then we'll go around the table here. Um the zoning is for neighborhood business

and according to the use table there's no residential use allowed in that zoning. So is this being grandfathered in or Well, if you if you look at the the use table there is actually an office building and residential uses category which is allowed. Okay. Um in any case, the the use would be grandfathered and if it it would remain. Okay. If this Yeah. And I saw that I was just also the residential uses that particular section and it was shown as being prohibited. Okay. So that's why I asked the question. Okay. You follow what I'm saying or Yeah. There is a use that allows it. Sorry. Very good. All right. Uh in that case, uh Morning. Um yeah, I did. So, I rode by there today and there's construction going on. Is that is there a building going up right now or um if if there is on the property, the property has a permit for a an out building? Is this the building that's going to become the new business or I I don't know that answer. Yes. So, if this is so that the building that's being built, its footprint is approved. The we have a permit for that already. And then if this is approved, then the business would operate in that building. Okay. And then I was a little confused also. It said that Rocky Mountain Reclamation has been there since 1992. Do they mean on this property or in the neighborhood or where? It's actually been on that property. So it would be before any zoning ordinance existed. The business has already operated on that property and honestly operates there today and has never stopped operating at that spot since 1992. Okay. So where's their building or is it that that is the office Rocky Mountain Recreation has a large has a large industrial facility in the city. Okay. Yeah. Second confused by

Second Baker is our our yard large yard and where all the equipment is and Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, is that the business that you'll be running out of that property then? Yes. So, all that equipment and everything will be coming no no it still just be an office. Still just the office. Okay. So, this is just going to um bring what's happening now into alignment with the regulations. Is that the plan? That that's what that's how I that's how I see it. Instead of just asking for a nonconforming you know what the business operating there would be grandfathered I believe I guess since it's been there since 1992. But instead of doing that is upgrading the zoning to make everything poster in the world there. I think Dave did I misspe there? No. Um I I would add that so don't if if you need to correct me um the the offices there were offices or or workers that were working in the home, right? Yeah. So it was like so there's some some employees at the home. So um they're moving them into another building and so that's what really kind of kicks it into, you know, it's not I mean I I I can't speak to say it's non-conforming or not. um I just don't know enough about the property, but this would bring everything into conformance. Um and if he did not have employees, then it would just be a home business. And so it's because there are some employees that'll be on the property. That's where it needed a different zoning. Yeah. And I was thinking that Rocky Mountain Reclamation be more like commercial, but it's just the office. That's right. That's why you're going for correct. Yes. Okay. No, I just wanted to clarify that. That that's all I've got. Mr. Dard. Yeah, I was wondering about the difference between a home business and a

neighborhood business, but I think I understand it now. Mr. Um, got a phone. Doing all the street. I forgot to issue the command to silence phones. [Music] Oh, that's never happened before. Oh jeez. throw open the tent. Okay. Um well, because this is a is at least to me this neighborhood or business is kind of new. I had some of the same questions. Um so, and I and I flagged the same Commissioner Platt had that we don't do single family. So, remind me where in the matrix what you just said, Mr. Okay. If you look on on page 4-3 4-3 just 36 on the the PDF um there's an office building with a mix of residential uses and that is allowed in neighbor business. So what what was the sense of saying single family and multi- family dwellings are prohibited but mix of residential uses? I don't know. Okay, that's my answer. because yeah I it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Um you think that a mix of uses would be appropriate and or like allowing a single family or multifamily in the residential area and this would say the same thing. So it's kind of conflicting. So So just maybe a little contradiction in our in our table. Yeah. Something to note and correct in the future. The other thing that flagged for me was that talked about auto salvage as having been a previous or existing use there. Adjacent adjacent use. Okay. So that's what the applicant had in his application. Right. Right. Okay. I was I was going on here.

So it looked like a lot of those other uses are just kind of grandfathered in like like that one. I mean, when I look at the zoning, it doesn't seem to match up with what's on the ground out there, various places. Well, the the buildings that um I mean, we're not really talking about the neighboring property, but No, no really. It's just my curiosity about how all these fit together. The the joist property is zoned what? Small residential, right? And those are what we've been told in our office is they're for personal use. And so you can have outuildings on the property for personal use. If he had people going in and out of the property and using it like a salvage yard, that would be a whole different story. What we were told with the by the by the property owner was that those are being used for his personal auto automobiles. Whether that's true or not, that's what So when I read used an auto storage and maintenance facility, that is for personal use is the difference. That's my understanding. Yes. Or that would be the the Yeah. I I don't know anything about the auto whatever. Um if he's doing mechanic then on that property. Sure. It seems we're mixing up the the two. Can we proceed to that basis? I'm reading the applicant's response. I mean you Yeah, you probably should ask the applicant because I don't I'm not aware of Well, we don't have other questions for uh for David. So we Well, okay. So then if you want to confine this unless you've got another question for for David. Uh well just give me a second here. Um again that what what this neighborhood business thing it talks about in when I read the comprehensive plan about in the learning growth plan uh businesses that that are supply local services like a little grocery store or something like that seems to be the philosophy behind

neighborhood business. Am I understanding that correctly? And offices. Yeah. And this would be an office. Okay. But there was there was and I'm not objecting to this at all. Again, I'm just trying to understand. There seemed to be some emphasis in the in the words that I'm reading in the plans about this idea of of it's a serving the local community. Am I reading too much into that or uh I don't know that I can point to those words, but I think they got run through. I think that what you're looking at is in the zoning resolution itself, right? because small are this is not, you know, really addressed specifically in the comp plan. The request for neighborhood business zoning was adopted to allow for businesses that are conducive to nearby residential land uses, for example. It just seemed like that theme kind of ran through this. That's quoting from your staff analysis, right? So, I'm just was a little elaboration on again what what you guys see as appropriate for neighborhood business. I mean, I think where what's in the land use table, that is how we've defined that. That makes sense. So, we've got what what is in the definition or whatever you want us to call it in the zoning district chapter. In chapter 3, um, we've used that to determine which uses can be done within neighborhood business and be we've considered what what this application would be for would fit that use. I guess um what what what you're looking at the purpose statement and for neighborhood business as the purpose of the neighborhood business zone is to pro protect the character and property values of residential neighborhoods while allowing the operation of appropriate neighborhood oriented

businesses. The business shall be limited professional offices and small retail businesses that provide goods and services that provide goods and services. These areas should be located near major roads and have water and sewer available. So I mean what it says is is that um they're pro they they can have offices. This is limited to professional offices which is what I would define this use as um and small bits small retail businesses that provide goods and services. That's a whole different phrase to me. So I I feel like it meets the purpose and it meets what's in the land exchange. Okay. And I'm thinking of like Larry growth plan where we tried to identify this is a again the model there was a a little neighborhood grocery or again something that that was locally oriented which is where I was seeing those come forth. Obviously if they're not reflected in land use table then that's fine. Um, okay. Well, that's I just wanted to explore that aspect of neighborhood business and I appreciate the difference between that and commercial which would have been an alternative and would have been much much more expensive. Sure. Um, so just in outline form, what does this not allow neighborhood business? Um, well, I could tell you what allow I could I've got the table for conceptually the idea is that it not be a what kind of a business would not qualify. ever had business? Um, like a mechanic shop, uh, feed lot. Um, yeah, I actually did a spreadsheet of what you can and can't or what you can do. I just didn't put what you can't do on it. So, probably gas station. Let me let me I can see it in a bar, bowling alley, right? Or like maybe they could bring their

shop auto shop over their office, right? So, so things that would have a lot of people coming from area, is that part of the idea? Right. I mean, they're they should be businesses that are not going to, you know, uh provide a lot of impacts to surrounding neighbors. So, yeah. Or that they're providing goods and services to help surrounding neighbors, right? which this isn't overtly a neighborhood thing. Right. Correct. Yeah. But it would not necessarily impact the neighbors either. Right. Right. And where that thinking goes is something that I think we we responsibly bring up each time we have a zoning change. It isn't do we approve of what this gentleman's plans are, but do we approve any classification? What all does that classification allow? Uh, and I guess what I'm hearing back from you and seeing the lives table is not much, right? Yeah. And David, again, what precipitate this is an attempt to bring the property out of performance with our zoning district uses allowed, right? Um, well, it's to allow him to do what he's doing with kind of an expanded use because he has a new building on the property. I'm I'm yeah, we're not going to say that he was doing anything illegal or not. You know, that's not something that we really explored too much. He came to us and wanted to make sure that this what he was proposing would would work. So, no, no, I was just wanting to again get my mind around neighborhood business because we don't haven't seen one of these before. Okay. Well, in that case, let's have Mr. Hayes come forward, please. Uh if you would uh please stand for some questions and if you have anything else you'd like to add to your application, now's the time. What was the first part of your statement? Well, well, if you'll stand for some

questions for us and if you have anything else you'd like to add at this point to your application, um background, what not contest? No, I don't think I No additional background. In that case, we're brilliant. Okay, go ahead. Hit them hard. I think we already answered. Well, that was very hard. Rob, I have no questions again. I haven't seen neighborhood business before, but what's the water sewer situation? Uh, city. Okay. City for water. Actually, septic for sewer. However, we have um in the original deeds the ability to connect to city sewer if we so desire. Um, why not annex? Uh, well, I'm pretty confident that the city Well, I have I also own a property across the street that is in the city. And so, um, I believe annexing into the city, that property would not be allowed to be built unless I fully develop 15th Street all the way to the property. Okay. And so then that's not not financially feasible for just a small uh what will hopefully be a small 20 foot wide office at one end of the building and a 40 foot uh personal storage area at the other end of the building. That's perfectly acceptable answer right beside the city that Yeah. and and it's useful that you've got water. So if the sewer if if there were some future use of the property which had a a greater need for sewer, you're you're set up to Yes. Yeah. Great. And that trail it comes the recreational trail comes it comes into 15th before I looked at the map. Right.

Yeah. So, where 15th Street pavement stops is where my property begins and where the city property begins. On on the south side of that line is the existing development at Thaxton Court and then the school district, I believe. Um um yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The school district owns on the other side of the street there. And so then that most people and we don't block usage of the continuation of 15th Street there, but that's actually our personal driveway that turns to gravel there, but everybody uses it going from Carol Street and around and Well, I didn't I the other day I saw private, so Well, thank you. The sign's there, but we don't do much to enforce it. And about that's why I asked. Yeah. So the sign that's there, it says family this way and visitors this way. That's that's what we're talking about here. This goes up to the house where you live and the other goes right seems to fit. Okay, that's all I got. Any other questions? Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. Uh we will conduct a public hearing and I'm not seeing a whole lot of public hear. Is there anyone online who would like to make a comment about this? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. I'll second. All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Motion carries. Um, in that case, we'll discuss this. I'll lead off discussion by saying I have biked by this house innumerable times. I never had any idea of any other house until we got this application. And I thought anywhere I was I was thinking it can't possibly that because it's just a house. It must be the quietest business around. Um, anyway, um, let's see. To provide us a platform discussion, Mr. Chairman, I will recommend I move that we recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve the Hayes

zoning district amendment ZDA0525 adopting and incorporating staff analysis finding this fact and confusions of law as each are stated in this staff report. Is there a second? I second. Any further discussion? In that case, we will vote. Mr. I, Mr. Hinckley, I miss David. I and I vote I. Motion carries. Good luck get county measures. I think your luck will be good, but uh anyway, good luck anyway. Thanks for being here. Your your your landscaping is a nice little oasis out there. Takes a lot of water. You don't want to see my water bill in the summertime. Okay. Uh and did you say there's no need for you to stick around for the rest of our You're welcome. I was going to make appreciate you. No, thank you, Mr. Hayes. Thank you for hearing us. Definitely wasn't grueling enough. Um, I don't see any citizens uh who would be offer any citizens comments. So, we're going to move on. And we are 24 minutes our meeting. I do not believe we need a break. So, we're going to move on to the current planning project planning and sub amendments. discussion open. Yeah, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um, so we gave you the whole document about red lines all the way through it. We're only looking at chapters six and seven. Wow. Um, and we've removed the chapters after seven and we're going to put them into the zoning resolution with some slight alterations up top, particularly in definitions. Oh, okay. And then there's one change in the subdivision um application requirements concerning uh fire areas which we

uh moved out from mountain subdivisions because seemed possibly like a a good idea to consider. Um but sorry Matt's been doing the heavy lift lifting on this so he knows what's kind of going on a little bit better than Yeah. Yeah. Um but I mean we've actually been working together as well as with um Jake Schneider, county engineer, to um just get this all updated. The big lift was chapter 6 um just to figure out the design standards for roads and and those types of things. And so, um, really we're just bringing this to you for a first look, first questions. Um, anything specifically that catches your eye that we need to discuss. Um, and then we're we're working on the zoning portion where we've moved mobile home park and campground regulations into the zoning. And so we want we want them both to go together, but we we've got this pretty much wrapped up. So, um I mean it's going to take some time to go through both documents, I think. Um so, this is a first look of this one and hopefully we can get to the other one soon once we get that all. And what would you like for like from us here tonight? If there is anything specifically that you have a question about or that's just problematic in your minds or whatever, let's discuss that. If not, um, we're not really wanting I mean, we don't have to have like a huge discussion and go through it line by line or anything like that. This is kind of a first look. So, provide some Yeah. like give you some overview. Well, I'll say uh you wouldn't know um at Matt's request invitation or told Matt it'd be fine. I used to look at the design stuff about three weeks ago or whenever it was and I reread this over

the weekend and to my eye and I'll get your sense of it also. I mean I noticed one typo and I thought everything else was good. I mean I thought the whole document was good and uh obviously Jake weighed in. So I was glad to see that. Yeah. And so I'm curious to know what your impressions are commissioners. Yeah, I think it look pretty good. Damn. I found it a little overwhelming and I was hoping for some context here which I think we just got. So, we get back here. So, I appreciate Well, I read I read through the whole thing. Appreciate the fact that it obviously was was done with some considerable care and a lot of it is just let's get this terminology consistent. So certainly uh appreciated all of the efforts there. Um so then I went swept through the whole thing and just commented out places expecting that perhaps we could just go through the red line and get a explanation as we go along. And I maybe that's premature. No, it's not premature. We can do anything we like. So that would be my suggestion if others had comments in and u like like the very first one was u and why use the red line rather well we just want to burn I mean that's all okay sure yeah okay good and staff helpful not helpful no that'd be fine all right let's do that then because I mean it obviously has a combination little stuff and big stuff in it yeah absolutely well Matt or Joe will put it up on the screen okay um okay so uh So, we're going through all the red line changes or we'll just play through the pages and I'll see who has questions. And right now, I'm page one-1. If I'm going past you, Bern, let me know. Um, well, actually, you have. All right. I'm very good. I'm on Roman 4. Okay, cool.

Uh, where are we stopping? We're at four. I'm I'm back at the table of contents. It bears on what I heard here, but just walk us through that a little more slowly. We we've deleted six chapters. All right. And out and all that. So yeah, I guess we are here. Yeah. No, it was big. Yeah. Okay. So tell me about that again. All of that stuff is somewhere else. We didn't read it or what? So um I can only off the top of my head remember three. Okay. Okay. So, one of the chapters, landscape, uh landscaping was a separate chapter. We made that not a chapter, moved it into subdivision design. Um I was just like thinking structurally that doesn't make sense. Like that is subdivision design. So, put it in that chapter, but it also wasn't very long. Um and then mountain subdivisions. So, mountain subdivisions for three chapters that floated around that uh totally speaking on David's behalf, he has used that those standards once in the time that he has been uh with the planning department. So, yeah. And also with the change of the standards, um weren't the mountain subdivision standards going to be more they were supposed to be more lenient to allow for um just the topography and stuff, but I think the way that we've written them it it's actually in some areas they were like more stringent. Yeah. Um so it from a practical uh perspective the the planning department did not really think that they had much utility um due to the fact that they had never really been used. Um and with uh a lot of it was specific to roads. That was pretty much the the vast bulk of mountain subdivisions was focused on

road standards and deviations that were allowed for mountainous subdivisions, but uh those would be able to fit into the road standards that have been provided by Jake Schneider uh the county engineer. So So we we just won't have a thing called mountain subdivisions. No. Okay. and and the roads kind of ticks in my mind. Somewhere back, whether I was on this side of the table, the other one, there was a a mountain subdivision and they had trouble with the road because the mountains were so constrictive they couldn't do a certain thing and had to come through the neighbor. Yeah, that's the sort of thing that would be handled in the existing road standards perhaps as an exception or Yeah, a lot of it is. So, I mean, essentially with the road standards, um, and I think what what we've seen time and time again from Jake is that he is, I mean, he want he's he's expecting that these roads be designed and built well, um, from, you know, a civil engineering perspective. uh and that any sort of like deviation from those standards, it's going to need approval from him or from the county engineer. Um and there needs to be some sort of like engineering uh you know principal guiding that deviation. Um so I think that the main thrust of of ensuring that you know subdivision roads are adequately built is maybe a little more enshrined now than it was previously. And I would just add too, I mean, we do have the variance process. Not that we want to like push people towards that, but if there are just weird situations, um, with the help of Jake, we can we can make sure that we we allow for a road in

a circum circumstance that just is just weird, you know, that just doesn't work while still being, you know, defensible from an engineering perspective. The other deleted chapters, mobile homes, campgrounds, mobile homes and campgrounds. the way that those were defined in here, they weren't subdivisions. Uh because it didn't actually involve the division of land. Um that that was what I was guessing. So are those so somewhere else or so we're work we're working on them. I have provided like a preliminary draft and those will be handled as conditional use permits. um in the zoning resolution. And um just as an aside, I've been doing a little I actually today I was doing a little research on other folks's regulations um and there was I know Campbell County um and I think Larby County, Netrona County, they all I mean this zoning is where these are handled. Yeah. Um, so the it's just ours are odd. That's where they've been since 1997 when they wrote these, you know. Um, there's this weird provision or maybe not weird, but it in the the statute it talks about subdivisions and the definition includes mobile homes, mobile home courts. mobile home courts, which um in in in my opinion, in order for that to fit, you would have to actually be like purchasing or renting the like space, the physical land. Um because just like kind of creating little courts and having people put that it like it would

have to be laid out in such a way that it was divisible essentially. um if it's all just under one common ownership like not platted, not intended to be and I mean it uh I've thought about I don't know different scenarios a lot and yeah mobile home like courts get weird um because and I think it would really just come to Dave and Joe would like really need to flag like exactly what are you doing here and how is that, you know, because if if it if it is like they're dividing out, you know, individual spaces and say like those are being leased as an individual space, then that gets us into subdivision. Um, but in other situations, yeah, I don't know if it's like just a hookup and you're just paying for a hookup. That's not um So, I'm going to build a mobile home. I'm have to be zoned commercial. No, not necessarily to own a mobile home. No, I want to build a mobile home park. Obviously, I'm not going to have two incremental lot sizes. So, well, what am I? Commercial. I mean, if you're going to be a new one would be commercial. Unless you had like a giant ranch and you had enough density to make those little tiny, but yes, commercial would be where and we've actually talked about that as well, but I don't know. I mean there's potential we could create a new zone just for mobile home parks but so yeah after because I don't know when I first started almost four years ago I think like one of the big first things I got was like redo um

you know chunk out preliminary plat and uh final plat which led to a complete rewrite of the first half of the subdivision resolution And then this has taken about two years since then uh to get the second half broken out. Um because a lot of it is engineering standards that you know I can't just right and David and Joe like we can't just come up with it. Um, so it's been a lot of like working with the county engineer and then, uh, this has been it, but I think we can focus a lot more heavily on sort of like a comprehensive, uh, rewrite of the zoning resolution as well. Um, because it could use like some consistency updates. Yeah. Well, my basic question, if something's missing here, did it is it because we didn't need it like an appendix or is it because we put it somewhere else? So I guess yeah we're in the process of putting those bins out. Okay. So if I remember correctly, uh we were considering changing mobile homes or mobile mobile parks from commercial to another kind of zoning because of the changes in ownership and how u the new owners mistreat um residents. Is that a chance to address this? Well, if you if we're getting towards like I mean I think I already speaking about like private equity buying up mobile homes. Uh the county has no authority to regulate ownership. Um and we do not have the authority uh to

in any way interject into um landlord tenant type situations. That is all private contract right. But if can we regulate the during construction such that it is aable space we have we can we put restrictions on regular subdivisions. Well so it depends on if it's a subdivision or not. Well, someone wants to build a a mobile park kind of subdivides the land for it. Yeah. Then it would go through the subdivision process. So it go through just as a major subdivision. So if somebody buys a parcel without changing the zoning or anything, if it's already zoned commercial, they can basically do whatever they want. Not well, not necessarily. If it's commercial, they they would have to I mean to do a mobile home park or campground, they'd have to get a conditional use permit with the standards that we're going to adopt. Okay. So, you all Yeah. You'll take Okay, that's that was my question. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, it won't be just like mobile home parks are allowed here. Go ahead and do it. Yeah. There there will be standards and they'll have to follow. guidelines and those types and we'll get a chance to look at those. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. It'll come to this. Are are there not standards now? Your tenses will be standards, but Well, there will be standards in the zoning resolution. There are no standards in the zoning resolution because they're in the subdivision regulation. We need to wait to do this until we do that. I'm just holes. So, both of these will go forward at the same time. That's our plan. We're here now with the subdivision. We haven't gotten to the zoning. Okay. No, just just again looking for

gaps in coverage and make sure everything together. So a a mobile home park would not be a subdivision unless you sold the slips or sold or or sold or rented out. Isn't that precise they do? What's that? Isn't that precisely what a trader court does? Not necessarily. I mean it's so it's going to depend like If it is, if you're just renting the structure, the mobile home itself, and say that's con uh common area, like they went through a um condominiumization uh process like we saw up in Centennial a while back, then no, because there's no there's no land being divided. uh you're just getting essentially a leaseold interest in the structure. Our our biggest our biggest mobile home park is Country Meadows. Um isn't our biggest or well, one of our biggest ones, LX Ranch. Okay. But anyways, like um it's one lot. It's one big surveyed lot and then they have, you know, rentable I guess lots within there. The difference is is is what we're I think what we're talking about is if somebody comes in and does a mobile home park and it's that they would give us a plan to show us, okay, this is where these leasable or rentable lots are going to be, but they're not going to actually file that with the clerk to make it a subdivision. So, they're not parsing it out. So, each of those could be individually sold. Okay. And I'll suggest we save discussion of mobile homes until we have something pertaining to mobile homes in front of us. Yeah. Yeah. Although I think it's relevant to know that it's it's

currently going. That's a good thought. It's a great point. So um one more general thought that runs through this um in many places and and Mr. Alluded to it a while ago. It says with the approval of the county engineer. Um I just kind of flagged is that is that appropriate that we delegate this county contractor to make these decisions or should those come back to the planning office or something or are they the only ones with like the expertise necessary to okay make a determine on that determination on those items where it is appropriate? I mean, unless we have like a professional engineer on the planning and zoning commission. Yeah. I'm not looking for work for us. It just it just struck me that that is that new that we have would delegate to Jake this explicit he has to sign off here that this is okay and it's just between him and the applicant. Uh we already had that for um review of improvements through these guys. Review of improvement improvements. So like yeah it it already in the subdivision improvements chapter um you know previously it was like any any sort of improvement for the subdivision that's subdividers responsibility that all has to be reviewed uh or that already has to be reviewed by the county engineer and signed off on um and and I don't think it's taken away from your authority to or or whatever to provide comments and suggestions and make recommendations to the board of commissioners because ultimately the board has to make the decision. Um I I think those sections that that we're giving you know kind of a little bit of a decision- making is on those specific items but as a whole you you will look at those and if if you don't agree I mean by all means you could you

know make a recommendation to you know the board in in whatever you don't agree with. And and I I was not by any means wanting to be a highway engineer. I was just trying to trace the threat of authority. The way it's written that Jake or whoever's in that position would would have the the authority to say yes, this is okay. No, this is not okay. But what you're telling me is in fact even that would be yes, I will recommend this for approval by the board. Maybe that's a a subtlety. Is he not? It seemed inappropriate that he would be the final authority. I don't mean that should be us, but no, he's working as staff. Yeah. I mean, it's a technical review. You know, those pieces are technical, but like the overall permit, I mean, that's that's got to be approved by the board. So, Okay. It just caught my eye as I was going through. It's okay. So, I'm done with my I think with my plenary stuff, Mr. Chair. All right. We're very good. Those were uh useful points to go over. So we will I will bleed on down through page one. Anything there anyone two three just keep up with 14. Anything with variances? Where was that? 15. Okay. 21 definitions. Yeah. I I was wondered why minor again looking at the strikeouts what happened to minor subdivision. I see that it's

defined later at 521, but what was the thinking on what gets to be in a in the definition chapter? Um well, uh so I think we already had major and minor subdivision um and large acreage. uh but I was going more on the the route of subdivision and then there are sort of items underneath that types of subdivisions uh which is how like Wyoming statute is usually laid out in their their definitions and I think it makes for a cleaner organization because they're conceptually all under the same heading they being quite I didn't quite So it if we if you go down there are two subdivision. Okay. Right. There's subdivision, there's subdivision, large acreage, major. Yeah, I saw they were all defined later on. It just seemed like we went to such difficulty there roads that that those two. All right. Anyway, I just was wonder if that that was a deliberate uh idea to put them in one place somewhere else. Yes. got moved down under S instead of I eventually found it, but so then they're all lumped together for an easier comparison. Um, okay. Thank you. Any other comments about definitions then? Um, road includes the land between road lines. I just flagged that. Now, let me see what I had here. So, a road [Music] approved by official action and includes

the lamb between road lines. What did that mean? That phrase I meant I meant J. So, I think that that was just the previous uh standard or that was the previous designation for street and I just changed street to road because from what I could best tell we don't have streets in the county, we have roads. Um streets generally entail something for vehicular movement uh bounded on both sides by structures consistently. um that made my comments just review that phrase and see if it's if it's usefully omitted because it didn't immediately make sense to this reader. I don't Yeah, I do not think uh that it necessarily does make a whole lot of sense between road lines. I guess it would be road is it like a turning lane? So you have the roads and then you have a charting lane that's between road lines. I mean that's kind of what I had in mind I guess. Um I mean lines it would be well or shoulder like edge of shoulder which we don't even really have shoulders anymore. So I guess I can take a look at that. Yeah, I just I just flagged it as something to look at cuz Okay, that's what I add on that page. Yeah, the question is about about definitions.

Good question. If we don't have streets, do we still have alleys? Yeah. And the definition of road includes streets. It was just a a change in terminology because it was street and road were used alternatively throughout like the entire thing particularly in the road standards. And um it made sense to just choose and have that include a sort of vehicular movement area. Anything else about definitions? In that case, chapter three, planning requirements. Oh, I still need definitions. Oh, I'm sorry that I do have one. I was page number. Go ahead. Um, okay. I'm about on page four of major subdivision and that is now defined again at 521. So, there's a little inconsistency. what get what got defined where. Um, so you might just look and see if you've been consistent in keeping your definitions all together. Uh where was it? I'm at subdivision major. It's on page 24 of the red line under the definition of subdivision. I guess I just noted that I saw that definition appear twice and I thought you were suggesting that we should keep in one place. Where's other place? Where did you see 521? I noted section three and section 4. There's major subdivision and minor subdivision. Which one do we find that 521? That's my reference 45 and I'm looking at just a second here.

Chapter five. Yeah, I just dropped a note in that I'd seen that I saw that same thing again later on here at 520, which is where Yeah, it's done in chapter 5, section three and four. Okay. So, again, just just flag that to I appreciate. We'll make these as tight as we can. So, you see that, Matt? Okay. Very good. Anything else, B? Nope. I'm good there. Okay. Well, then planning department. So, chapter three. Lots of lots of roads. Anything 3 through 32? [Music] 33. Not not for me. 34. My next comment is on the next chapter. Okay. Subdivision permits chapter 4 41. Um my Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Um yeah, the the phrase there, the first sentence under section two, separate review, it reads um will not be accepted by the planning department until a preliminary plat and preliminary report is approved, conditionally approved or denied by the

board. I guess that caught in my eye is if you denied it, then you're done, aren't you? You're not waiting for another uh the way we defined No. So the because there actually hasn't been an application for a subdivision permit yet. The application for the subdivision permit is the final plat and final report. Um and that is how to deal with the timelines prescribed in 185 300s. But I I remember that big discussion that was one of the main things you did was to try to sort this all out there and final plat. So does that not seem out of line to suggest that we won't take a final plaid unless you've been denied your preliminary plat. No, it's it's the fact that it's been reviewed that's the only way to um be able to separate those two. But but we could deny it. Can we deny a preliminary plot if it isn't really an application? Sure. But then they could just go ahead and give us a final plot. Okay. If they so choose. Okay. Then there there is a path through those those words. Um and then just to remind ourselves and I'm not sure how how many people were here when we started this. The point was to load a bunch of stuff into the preliminary plat to spare us starting the clock on the final plat. Are you remembering that correctly? Yeah. Well, yes. Um and to allow for a little more thorough review than the tight timelines would otherwise provide, which is something that um we see throughout other counties,

right? Because once we go to final plat then we have statutes that say you have to do this, you have to do this after this. Okay, that that's what I thought I was was trying to say in a preliminary stage. We're still in the discussions. Let's see what you got. Let's go back and forth. So this accomplishes that. Um so then there was the first time around there was a lot of discussion about the reports that go to DEEQ. And so this isn't change language. This is just reminding us of what we decided before. So we're saying they will not send their DEEQ report, but we've basically written all of those same requirements into our preliminary flag. This is conceptually how I'm reading this. Is that sound on target? So they'll kind of have written us a a chapter 23 as those of us in the business call it as part of their preliminary plan. Then they will submit a formal version of that waterway suitability stage to DQ. Okay. Thank you. So I'll add just a point of clarification Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh anything on 42 43 um section six in some cases consistency approve continually approve or disapprove you use deny elsewhere. I'm reading the second sentence of section six just a little editorial thing just to be consistent with the clarity that you've brought to the rest of it. Uh, second sentence. Is there a difference between disapprove and deny or second line? Second line percent section six review and decision by board. No, I mean just just flag it your your editorial

choice. Also line five of that. Okay. Anything else? Nope. Okay. How about through 44? How about all the way down to subdivision requirements chapter five? Anything else in four? No from me. Okay. Subdivision requirements chapter five. Um, this may go back to our previous comment. It says delineation of hazardous fire areas identified under the requirements. So those are going to be somewhere else now. Uh yeah. So those are in oh shoot where are those now? Um under section 1B of this chapter. Okay. So that is so it's like preliminary plat which is all the information. So that now it's part of the preliminary report is delineation of hazardous fire areas um as that was defined in the mountainous subdivision uh standards which is basically anything with vegetative fuel slopes over 30%. Okay. And I saw those definitions. I just So there and it's I mean it's essentially the the thought behind this was just to create a buyer beware. Um like you know if they if they are building in fireprone areas should probably be aware of that. There seems to be some fires going on these days. Okay. And so that we do have those those def definition of hazardous fire areas. Yeah. As and that's outlined by slopes and vegetation so forth. Yeah.

Um then just a a general question about when we changed these before and and as I characterized it moved a lot of material in the preliminary plat there was some sense that we were going overboard there and the person has to spend all this money and do all these studies and and then we say yeah dumb idea. Have we gotten any any feedback, any push back from our developers that say you're making me the preliminary plan should be a tentative thing and you're making what a huge expense to do that? I've not really heard anybody complain about it or whatever. I mean this is pretty typical of yeah it's the preliminary plot is usually where you get all of the you know all the stuff you know so that we can understand what what is really going to happen to this property what are the impacts going to be and the final plat is more of this is what's going to be filed in the clerk's office let's make sure we have all that information on there along with your subdivision permit right so the the thing that that we discussed earlier when we did this was where does the just kind of the tentative stuff that's just in conferences with you before the preliminary plaid. Yeah. Yeah. Because there are pre-application conference requirements. I will say like we haven't had any complaints but we also don't get a whole lot of subdivisions. Well, we exercise this, but yet I just I dreamed at the time we were quite concerned that that might leave kind of defeating the whole purpose by making everybody do everything ahead of time and escaping the timelines and things that the final plan require. I mean, it's gonna No, because they're going to have to put all that in there anyway. Just like that's the a lot of it is just bare minimum statute. A lot of

it's engineering and it's that's going to cost well if they go forward to a full scale subdivision. The point was how far does the person have to go before they can bail out and say this is this is I mean I think realistically that's going to happen at the pre-application conference. I think Dave and Joe are going to tell anyone like oh yeah go for it and it's going to not meet anything. And you know, even with the subdivisions we get in, probably 90% of them are minor minor and they're not going to be going through all of this stuff. So, it speaks to a comment that you'd made, Commissioner Platt, of somebody comes in and says, "Wait a second. I've spent all this money. You've got to give me my application." So, we want to avoid being in that situation, obviously. Okay. That's Well, and subdivisions aren't a right, right? No, there's no vested right and subdivision. Um, it's a it's a legislative decision uh of the the county commissioners which involves a wide variety of policy um considerations. Oh no, that that person would be wrong. There's substantial political emotional momentum behind them. That's true. Um and then the way that the uh exception or the subdivision, you know, exclusions or exceptions are written, you can carve off land pretty easily. Okay. How about anything through uh page 54? Just one comment. Are we still going over the 100year flood events? Is that Yep. Page 59 that's addressed? That's um section 14.

We also have the adopt our flood flood damage prevention resolution which also covers um subdivisions as well. I was just asking given the recent flooding events across the country and the world seeming like they're getting really really bad. Yeah. So the the flood plane resolution stuff is going to cover like structures. Um, a lot of this evaluation of flood plans, uh, was more for Jake and roads and subdivision improvements. So, you're not, you know, building a road right through a flood pl flood path. Uh, and then that just gets washed away, acquiring proper size and that kind of stuff because, you know, the individual structures don't come at the subdivision stage. How about any comments down to fire hazards on page 510? Um, a question. It might be on question, but David just said, um, maybe it goes to Jake. Why the switch from defining our floods by how many inches per hour to 100year event? Just curious. Yeah, it's that's a question for him. I mean, it's kind of an interesting point. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean 100year events have become a little bit we are seeing one in a thousand year events happening the same week. I think that they're defined in the same and a 100red-year event is actually a a 1% chance event. It's not really a 100redyear, but that's we used to define it as a 2 and a half inch per hour event, right? You know, I see that. I I have no clue. Yeah, that's uh that that was Jake's preference. And I believe that they mean the same thing, but I'm not sure. Yeah.

And there was a reason. And it's also well and and they're all standardized. Like it's all based on like Noah or like like the city of Laram has a Noah. I think it's Noah or US. No, it's not USGS. Yeah, it's Noah. IDF curves are no atlas rainfall data. So the city has uh like rainfall determination standards and Noah and I think that they largely line up. I don't why I couldn't write this. I'll ask Jake if I see or I mean if they're significant enough questions we can always ask him to address these to the planning and zoning commission. Okay. Once again down through 510. Anything else? Excuse me. Anything else? What page? 510. 510. Do fire hazards. Keep on going down. And just with the higher hazard stuff, we did um me and Joe, I believe, talked to to Chad and really he they just want to see see these and they can help with any identification of of problems that they may see. Um but I think this is a good standard for us. Before we get the one typo, uh, at the beginning of that same page, it says 5% and then in parentheses five and two symbol of percent. One can be deleted. What's that? It's in section B. Oh, nice. Yeah. On five time. You see that? Yeah. Just tiny thing. Okay.

Is that the typo you had, Michael? Uh, no. Shoot. Thanks. 511. 511. Go ahead. U deleted a a discussion of traffic studies moved uh down to um uh subdivision design standards. Um, we had that kind of like standalone section on ingress and egress if you're over 30 lots which is added I think as the most recent amendment to the zoning or subdivision resolution that uh got added essentially with this because it was it was kind of weird then we had a standard for if it was 30 then it may require a traffic impact study and then if it's over 20 it also may but they were in different spots. So, we kind of um put those under ingress and egress standards for subdivision design and address them or kind of harmonized a little bit. 64 and 65 are where they're moved. Okay. How about down through uh 513 onto the next page to final plant subdivision per 514? Nothing. Nothing here. Okay. I do have one question about the fencing. Are we referencing our fencing regulation here? Yes. Okay. How about down all the way through 518 or so? No. How about down through major subdivisions section three on page 5-21

and then on the minor subdivisions right underneath it large acre subdivisions. Okay, just above that at item seven, I'm looking at the deletion and I dropped a note into myself to ask what was going on there under item seven just above section. Oh, um, so it used to be that it allowed a uh smaller rideway width and smaller roaded width. um you can go below 24 feet uh if you have a really small subdivision for your roadway width uh according to um Jake standards. Uh so that would sort of be more stringent otherwise. So we just left um the rightway width. You get a smaller rideway width than otherwise. So 80 foot ride ofway width for roads road right ofway width should be a minimum of 50 feet those sound like yeah something's weird kind of going on two different things but is it 80 or is it 50 maybe I just lost the thread in the red lines but yeah no uh we'll take out that because well in a previously said whatever. Oh, that's okay. Sorry. So, the way that these are written,

it's saying that the following county requirements will not be required. Um so generally you have to what's our standard road redway with dund 80 80 that's 80. So yeah generally your road right away rith is 80. So it's saying 80 is not required. However um rightway width shall be a minimum of 50. So that's because the way it's written if the following county requirements will not be required. It just says review and recommendation from DEQ. So it's like stating affirmatively what the requirement is and in some cases provides an alternative. Okay. Which is actually and that was the same way how it was written before. You don't have to do 80 but you do have to do at least 50. Yeah. The point. Okay. Okay. I'll try to Yeah. If there's more just a couple uh periods back to back to make it look funky. Yeah. household think the next step is a little bit cleaner if you're looking at the clean example rather than that red line. It's easier to follow. Um, okay. Well, down through 523, 524, 525, 526, 527. This is almost the old language. 528. Then we're down to subdivision design standards, chapter six, the big one. A comment on the first page. Sure. Go ahead. Item D. Um, it seemed like that was not an unreasonable thing to require that it be the streets be designed to

accommodate adjacent subdivisions. Was that objectionable or covered somewhere else? I missed it or what? Um so uh planning considerations these had no objective standard and arguably weren't standards. Um so we can add that as a No. And I think that we have it might be hard to corral that because what do I know what the neighbor's going to do, but I guess it would mean don't don't culdeac all your roads or something. So where um there's a well I know there's the 30 lot thing but yeah so in the 30 lot thing you have to consider it if you're using or the any adjacent subdivision counts towards your lot number if you're connecting to adjacent streets. Um I mean I read this as something different than that. This it could be added into general or it could be added back into like road layout um under road standards. Uh, but I guess Oh yeah, unless there's justification

for an alternative design. There needs to be like a little more objective of the standard. So, I mean, the justification could be, well, we're not going to, we hate them, right? They're not going to subdivide. So, it does it's not really clear whether it's existing adjacent subdivisions or just I mean, if there is no adjacent subdivision because they haven't subdivided it, then that wouldn't No, you can't plan for something that isn't there. Well, unless it's on the major street plan. Oh, I see. Shall be designed to permit continuation of streets into adjacent subdivisions. So, maybe existing or planned adjacent subdivisions or prospective, but that's crossed out anyway. So, I mean, if anyone has something to offer, um, they could very easily go into, uh, the road layout subsection under road standards. Yeah. Okay. But maybe it's just it's something too. And it had an echo of our learning growth plan of course where we've made much of we want the streets to line up with the next guy subdivides. Yeah. But when again how to write standards to that I I'm not sure but maybe we could chew on that a little bit. That part does come out later. Uh well the the part about eress and access and egress does I know I'm talking about a combination of for the major street plan. Yes. Yes. But it's a major street but again this is this is slightly different. Yeah. Right. Okay. General standards. Excuse me. General standards or lot standards 61. How about 62? 62. Um I'd be at the top. Uh, I thought

consider just seems like an awfully weak word to me. I thought about it. Uh, what do we is there a a different way to say that? Design and development center shall consider shall consider geologic hazard fire hazard areas shall I don't know accommodate or I don't know that just seemed pretty tame. No. Well, um Yeah, I guess putting myself in the staff's you you could say no, you failed to consider this. You use this as your backup. Yeah. How about accommodate or something? Would that be too descriptive? Just mark just identical. That's true. Yeah. I guess what we're asking them to do is just identify these areas that could be a potential hazard. So I guess what would be the the development then is would be on the zoning side. Well I mean unless they change lot dimensions and how they're well you want them to not just identify them. You want them to accommodate them. You know what I'm saying? Go the other way if there's a a hazard, right? Or or I suppose we're buffering or something because the the geologic hazards as it as it is right now is those defined by the state geological survey, earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, expansive soils, which do what does that burn?

Oh, yeah. Certain soil types, you put water on them, they expand and screw up your concrete. Oh, okay. uh windb blown deposits which what's that sand dudes that are unstable. Okay. And uh quadinary falting quary falting that's falting that has recently had movement on it and might again thereismic activity. Yeah it would be a potential for seismic activity. Uh so yeah, we're hoping that people aren't going to try to sell someone a lot and say put your house on top of on top of a sand dun say if if you're talking or an expansive soils or a volcanic eruption. I like I like accommodate just I think that's a good word there. Accommodate avoid accommodate. I mean, you you you design your subdivision to, you know, look at and accommodate where these hazards are so that there's places on each lot to build that they're not necessarily right in the middle of the hazard. Yeah. I mean, I don't know. Well, I think that's our point is we'd like them to do something and not just identify sh not consider. Yeah. Like, all right, we can change that. Okay. Um, just down below, a single lot shall not be divided by a road or another lot, but I think we included driveways in our definition of road. So, I stumbled on that one. Do I not get a put a driveway through the middle of my lot? Uh, each lot. Well, a driveway in theory ends at the house, right? Uh, wait, sorry. Where? Yeah, they're they're under uh where is this? Okay. Under lot design item one, two, three, four. I'm on page.

Yeah. 662 of the red line. Yeah. Well, I'll add that back in. Good catch. Yeah. Okay. Our intention there is to just allow a driveway on anywhere you want on your lot, I assume. Right. Well, I mean, we're not going to be putting driveways on the plat either. It wouldn't be dividing. Yeah. No, I think there wasn't driveways in your definition way up above. It is. It is. But why would it be dividing? It would have to span an entire And when you do a subdivision, that's not going to be shown on there. Only the roads are going to be shown on there. So, the driveway would actually come after. So, it all be already be approved. And then if the driveway Yeah. Why? Unless it crosses the property to get to another lot, which would be a road. Oh, you're on the word divided. I guess I was thinking of that not in a technical, not in a bureaucratic sense, but in a physical. Yeah. Splitting. Okay. Is that clear that that by not divided that word divided means running a lot line down is what I hear you saying. Well, well, not it would be it would be intersecting the entirety in in some direction. So, like if we had a row going down the middle of a lot and lot one has a row going down the middle of it, that would not be allowed. We would make it go, you know, move it to the lot line. It goes lot lot one's here and lot two is here. The road would go in between it and we wouldn't want it back and it didn't run from end to end of lot one. That's a different story. right now, right? Well, a driveway was what I was getting up. My house is in the middle of my 5acre lot and I want to go through the middle of it to my house. I mean, I guess you could just put in there parentheses excluding driveway. Okay. Because I thought driveway got

included in the driveway. Got to get coordinated. Okay. I went on down to road standards. Can I ask a question before? Go ahead. What is block design? What does it mean? Block is a series of blocks. Blocks. So like city blocks, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Which we don't really see those, but Centennial, I guess. Well, we've always we have lots we have lots of blocks on every block one, lot one, and lot two. All right. So, I don't know what it does, but it How about down to the map on page 64? Major street plan map. Where to? Sorry. Down to the major street plan map on 64. I'm going down to 65. Uh just clarification at the beginning of the the uh this is a 30 lot business. Remind me about first filings, second filings, third filings. Are those separate subdivisions or do they have to do all their filings in their initial PL? Tell us about that. So this will be based on the preliminary plot, right? So a preliminary plot would have all the lots of the proposed subdivision in theory and then the final plot would be that's when they would phase it. Phase one would do these lots in the premier pack, but phase phase two would do the next section of lots. Phase three would do the next section. So the preliminary shows everything. Okay. Um and then the phases would just be for the the final plats. So So phases and filings are the same

thing. And we talk about first filing girth subdivision, second filing g. Oh, like ter like the paddics did. You're like the paddics. Yeah. Yeah, that was their terminology. Okay. I mean, yeah. I don't know cuz they Yeah, they called it like second filing. Second filing. Yeah, cuz they I mean, they did that I think because they changed like when the packs came in, they had a preliminary plat and then they built one phase of that. Then they came back and changed their preliminary plat. So then they changed the name of the preliminary plat to like second filing and then they did the phases within the I don't it was terminology I don't okay so filings really doesn't mean anything not really world no and and how it prevents me if I wanted to do my 50 acre and escape this clause doing it in two completely separate 25 lot subdivisions or yeah don't mean acres but lots How do we um where do we say if if I found your this burdensome to provide two two points of ingress and access couldn't I escape the well by just doing two subdivisions? Not if it connects to the other subdivision. Oh, because of what Mr. said earlier then my access would be through somebody else. Okay. Now, if they use different accesses on both of them, then that'd be a different story. Well, if it's the same parent lot, what's a parent lot? Um, lots of major subdivision. Yeah. So, like you if you if you do a minor subdivision on one area of a parcel, you then can't come back with a second

minor subdivision because that parent parcel has already been subdivided. And that parentage was established at some earlier stage when I bought the thing in the first place. Yeah. So if it's if it's a part if you're trying to subdivide a parcel part of which has already been subdivided. Okay. That kicks you out of minor. So you can't just, you know, do six feet lots by doing 20 minor subdivisions. [Music] Okay. I'm still thinking if I owned a 40 acre parcel, I could chop off 20 acres and do a subdivision and then I could do another one and another another. Yeah. I mean, you could it'd be a major subdivision, but the the subsequent two would be major subdivisions even if they were each three acres. So, because I hadn't sold the other chunk, the other chunk yet. Yeah. Okay. I have a question. Still on the uh page 65. I see that you deleted all the requirements. Is that just because, you know, we shouldn't tell them how to build roads? Uh, that comes later. They've been moved. Okay. I miss that. Thank you. And modified I think by Jake. But anything down through 66. Uh yeah, I had a question on the naming on page 66. It just I think needs a little more qualification. It says road names shall be substantially different from any other established public or private road names in the world or in that subdivision or in the world. Yeah. Your list is getting seriously. Could

be. Do we mean in the subdivision or in the county or what's the Yeah, the county. Okay, I just add that in. I would assume the county would be the logical choice. Anything through 67? How about through 68 with the human improved road diagram? Oh, I love it. Go build a road. 6ix9ine. 610. See how you Yeah. 611 612 is all struck out. 613. Oh, yeah. The title of section six is sewage disposal and water supply requirements, but there are no subsequent water supply requirements. So perhaps the title needs to be adjusted to the content. Section six, sewage disposal water supply. Um, sorry, one second. Well, there's still uh SE disposal requirements and our supplies fire safety fire. So, do you want to change that to what?

sewage or sewage and and fire disposable and guess I was expecting to see something about adequacy of the of the water supply. Um and didn't surge and and fire safety requirements. Yeah, we can do and uh and fire water supply. Okay, that should be fine. How about down through 668 616 down we see a fence diagram on 618 two diagrams landscaping has been removed 619 about 617 sorry to go back a little there's a statement deviations uh shall be per only with written recommendation that has been struck out. What's the provision for deviations or permitting deviations? Um I mean I think the various section cover I don't know why we removed it. Well, shoot. Actually, that entire underground utility section might be a problem. That's permitted by uh public service commission, then we can't require that. Um and my thought was unless it's something hyper technical like engineering then it's uh we already have a standard for that variance to try to get rid of

those like subvariances that were kind of granted here and there. Okay. So they would kind of go back to that earlier point of the county engineer is authorized to give you clearance on these things. We don't need to talk but only where that's put which is like road standards. Okay. Anything else you need a variance. Okay. Um but for something like roads which are much more I guess ad hoc then maybe the variance standard isn't or that's not the best place to go. But if it's like an affirmative standard applicable across the board, then we don't need a specific like subvariance requirement. Right? So this this is under underground utilities and it tells me what I can and can't do. And then there is no provision for deviations. There is variance. Oh, as just global variances. Yeah. Okay. Um although I'll need to look into that. We might need to remove that in its entirety. Yeah. Think about whether work stepping on other toes. Okay. Through 619. Top of 619 shall apply to new residential subdivisions including mobile home ports within the major corridors of the unincorporated area. Major corridors are what's a corridor? How wide does it

major corridors are 80 287? I mean it lists them, right? So say you can't build on Interstate 80 or is there some idea of a corridor which I would suggest that means some distance from I80? I'm just looking for a little tighter definition where you I mean we've always next to it. So like if it's off the road or if it's not continuous to one of those corridors then how to do it if within the right of way is what you mean or adjacent to. Okay. bug. I'll just tell you how we've applied it. Okay. I'm just reading the words in order what they mean. Okay. So, this is for landscaping and it's for the subdivision lots that border those roads. Not necessarily the whole subdivision, just then it should say border the ride of way or probably something like that. That would be something like that. See, I mean corridor to me means a kind of a here's the road and here's either side of it and somewhere that ceases to be a corridor as opposed to a rightway. So yeah, if you're talking about the strip of land, we haven't defined any corridors. So Okay. So like for I25 that would be like entire towns. Yeah. Okay. So find some different words there. Um Yeah. All right. or define what a corridor is, but it sounds like it's something like like Mr. Rob said, it's contiguous with the adjacent to the right of way. That's a thing. Well, I've got one typo there. And this is the type of which page

620 in 2A it says shall place owner street. I think it probably should be one one. Yeah. So I've been told that was me though. So I was there before. I've been told that the city of Larmy does not allow uh planting coniferous trees along the streets anymore. That I don't know. Yeah. No, I like that's because it blocks. We hear a lot of complaints about their landscaping standards, but never like any specifics. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean because we rescued a lot of spruce trees off uh uh Udub campus that they grew uh in the new landscaping walk pences and stuff and we were going to donate them to who you know the um outdoor ground and other groups in town that help with landscaping for the city. And the city said absolutely not. We're not accepting. So we don't allow any more coniferous trees to be planted along roads in our reach. You can plant them in your backyard but not along the roads because they obstruct the view. [Music] Just as a comment. So I don't know. It says one corner. Do we specify what type of tree? Um there are specific specifications right like deciduous we at least make that whatever do we want to specify infra or persists and remains green

that's assuming they can even grow grow anything else to page 71. Um maybe there's this discussion about who's going to take care of these trees. Uh five for example on this is page six little 21 of the red line. um until such time as the homeowner or the HOA assume maintenance responsibilities but we don't have any documents where anybody assumes responsibility or anything do we I mean this all just seems like unless an improvement agreement or whatever we don't know now so I mean essentially like if a subdivider is told that they have to put a tree there until they saw that lot. So, they're true to take care of or unless it's put on some sort of like common property. Okay. Then the HOA would assume. Well, this says that it's the responsibility of the developer forever. No. Until such time as somebody else assumes responsibilities. Yeah. Maybe I'll I'll ask the a broader question. What are your thoughts on landscaping standards in the first place? Yeah. I mean the one the one thing about you know trying to plant trees in the county sometimes the soil stinks getting water to them stinks. It's Yeah, I wouldn't say we want to be in that business. Agree. I think we should not be too specific about landscape. That's a strike the whole thing. Nobody pays attention. Um,

I would Yeah, I would take that whole section out. Okay. And I highlight it's a lovely idea, but I just find the whole thing is just town on earth. Would you ever actually do this? Force it. Who's responsible? So, yeah. And it could be dangerous and fire hazard and both of you. Yeah. like a n mile can't grow a tree. Yeah. So these are existing standards and we just kind of pull them off here to form. No, no, you make them. I did as best as I could. Well, I mean what happens is we we require them to provide a plan. They'll provide a plan of the landscaping. I mean this is in zoning too. So we provide they provide a plan and like okay this is what you're going to do and then we approve the the permits or whatever and everybody moves on and landscaping doesn't usually go in right. Yeah. Well maybe maybe tenatively out of this meeting we're going to get rid of the whole thing. Make life easier for both you guys. But remind us of if it shows up somewhere else or there's some collateral damage or if we just delete it here. But I don't think it's going to hurt in the subdivision. So yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anything else through 7-1 about that? A lot of strict language. Yeah. Well, we see we got rid of a whole chapter for them. How about through 7-2? Dan, these are mostly just these whole stricken section. I the number change to 71. After 622 after 622 we go 61. Yeah, I just noticed that as well. Is that what the heck? Where 71? Uh there was a section break that I didn't hit. Okay.

But there is a 71 later. Oh, there's that deleted. Okay. Are is is the word improvements defined? very good question. Uh I mean common the I guess one nice thing is that that does have a very good plain language definition but I mean we could throw a definition in there but um is a pretty standard common language definition. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I would post having it just I think we all kind of know what we see it. But if if there is a use workable definition that might be useful as an improvement junior is it building a building or uh either most the patunia is dimminimous but if you put in two though There's Patunia lobby out there. That's Yeah. Any any alteration to the natural state of land um improves its value. Yeah. Okay. I mean when we've in the aquifer stuff we've talked about those kinds of words float around. So yeah. If there's a way to throw a standard definition, I think that would be useful. Yeah. Okay. Good. That's all I got. Mr. Chairman, about through 74, which brings us down to the stricken mobile home park campground application standards. Anything through 74?

My page number again. So chapter 10 and the chapter went back to 71. Okay. 71 through 73 and then 71. I think I think it's because those chapters are removed. I'm guessing. Yeah, that's just the way Microsoft work does like breaks. It's okay. So all the mobile home stuff is gone and mobile home utilities is gone. Regulations is gone plain draft. So that's okay. I think we got through it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming. I think that was a a pretty big lift compared to what we started with a few where we were a few weeks ago. So, I'm going to say good job y'all. And I'm glad that Jay weighed in. Anything else pertaining to this item? Any other questions? Anything else you want from us, David, for now, Matt? No. Um in that case current planning projects uh anything for us David you've got planning and solution man we did that how about any staff updates you tell me but I don't think we have anything to update you nothing from the city pertaining to plan okay question go ahead um Mr. What is the status of the APOZ lawsuits?

They're still alive or one still alive. Um yeah. So there uh we had oral arguments um in the on the uh 2023 amendments February 21st, 2023 amendments on remand um back from the Supreme Court in the district court two or three weeks ago. I think it was the 19th of June. Um so we are uh a decision from the district court will be forthcoming. Um and then we are underway with briefing in the appeals of the December 4th, 2024 um amendments to the APOZ regulations and the small wastewater um regulations specific to the APOZ. And so what's what the schedule your your you briefing schedule and then the what's yeah so uh petitioners war lifestock have submitted uh their brief and I have begun working on respondents brief okay second question related the DQ delegation agreement has been dominantly up for review years. What's the status of Apple? Um, the last time we talked to DEQ, which I think was year, they said that they were working on updating our delegation agreement and that we would discuss that when they when they got to

it or whatever, but I we haven't heard anything from DEQ. So, and they didn't offer any timelines for themselves, goals, just when they get to it. When they get to it. Okay. Just wondering where are things standing with the big wind project down in the south. Has ground been broken? Um so they have built a couple of roads down there. Um but they are they're still planning on going forward I believe this fall with some more construction. But well we talking about the Thai sighting. Yeah. Yeah. because they are building uh the I can't speak today. They are building the turbines on the west side. Yeah, that's where they built the roads, but it's not Well, the there's no turbons that have went up that I know of. Oh, yeah. I flew in from the conference and saw them up. H your tighting. No, not in Tai sighting on the I thought there was another wind project on the west side on the west side of 287. Oh, is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Yeah, rail tide goes across 287. Yeah, it's on. Oh, but it was all the way by the snowies. Oh, are you talking about Rock Creek? Oh, it could be Rock Creek. Yeah, Rock Creek's going up right now. Rock Creek is going up. It's operating. Yeah. Yeah. And I was asking they're they did a year of construction last year and they're finishing it up this year. Thought it was up and running. I guess not that I'm aware of. I can't say for certain, but I know that we've been communicating with them about some stuff. So, they better hurry because the

all the tax credits are going to run out in December 2025. We we did re I mean one of the things that uh rail type folks were concerned with was the the tariffs and how that impacts stuff. I don't I don't know that was an excuse for them not getting going I guess. So Diana, do you have any comments? Um just I will probably I will be gone next month so I will try to zoom in but likely will not be able to. Okay. Uh would you let me know if if you can't? Well, let's just say I can't and if Well, I mean, you know, back to that, you know, close to the Well, you can tell me that. That's that's fine. Yeah. We'll assume you're not going to be here based on that. And if you change your terms, let me know. Okay, I'll do that. Nothing. All right. Uh well, our next regular meeting will be August 13th at 5:00 PM. this room. I believe we'll have some bylaws to take a look at. And with that, I recommending adjourns. Thank you. Can I stop the recording?