P&z Meeting - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission. It's being held at the Commissioner's Meeting Room in Monizuma County Administrative Offices, 109 West Maine, room 2550, Cortez, Colorado. We're going to open with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Can we have roll call? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay. Absent is uh uh Commissioner Alternate Commissioner Mike Doyle. Uh, also present is Don Haley and Jane Duncan of the county planning department. Please silence your cell phones during the meeting. Um, if you need to take an important call, it can go out to the foyer out there. Has the planning and zoning commission uh reviewed the June minutes? Yes. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Anybody? Mr. Chair, I move that we vote to

approve the uh planning and zoning minutes for June 12th meeting of the planning and zoning commission. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second half for vote. Commissioner Hernandez, I. Commissioner Saunders, I. Commissioner Armstrong, abstain. Commissioner Lynch, I. Was that an I or abstain? Abstain. I wasn't here. Okay. No further discussion. Motion carried. uh was three to 3 to one. Okay, moving on. The Monizuma County Planning Commission welcomes you to this meeting. This board is comprised of members who are tasked to make recommendations to the board of county commissioners. We are not the decision makers. We encourage public comment after each permit. Persons speaking during the public comment will be limited to three minutes or depending on the number of people wishing to speak may be reduced at the discretion of the planning commission to allow all members of the public the opportunity to address their thoughts and concerns. When addressing the commission, please come to the podium turn on the mic uh and state your name and address for the record. before providing your comments. Comments to individual applicants are not permitted and participants may not yield their time to others. I will be voting tonight. Roll call. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Lynch here.

Okay. Number one notice is hereby given. The Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the board of county commissioners regarding a proposed subdivision amendment reszoning applications to lot one and two of the Phelps Farm subdivision submitted by Fred Phelps on properties located at 24351 and to be determined road Tolores, Colorado consisting of four I'm excuse me consisting of 6.40 and 3.99 acres more or less located north of road T west west of road 25 situated in section 15 township 37 north range 16 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was a public notice published? Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. Was a sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay, if we could have the applicant come on down there. Yeah. No, the table there. Sorry. Yeah. And just just hit that mic so when you speak we can hear it. Okay. Planning department findings. Um the applicant is proposing to move this boundary line uh between the two parcels. He owns both parcels. Um making the um the 6.4 acre parcel the small smaller parcel and then the smaller parcel the larger parcel. So it

basically is switching the acreage around. Um the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses. Uh there are several um subdivision lots in the immediate area. Um his access is directly off of road T. Uh there's already driveway access there uh due to his um residence is on the bigger piece. Um all the utilities infrastructure is in place and um that's basically it. Oh, and MBI did MVIC did state that there is a um 30 foot uh easement. It's 15 feet on either side of the ditch there uh in the southeast corner of the property and they would like to uh make sure that that maintains and it's on the flat. Okay. You have anything to add to that? Yes, there's there. Go ahead. There we go. Okay. Yeah. I want to say I I want to I don't know if the acreage will be exact like, you know, completely swapping the 6.4 for the 3.99 because I want to utilize an existing driveway. that's already there on the on the Okay. But I can probably have it, you know, put angle there to do that. I just want to be sure. I know the limitation is three acres for subdivision, right? For the parcels for partial three acres. So, if I stay above that, I think it might be closer to like three acres versus and seven acres, but I haven't had it surveyed yet because, you know, wasn't okay and I didn't want to spend

the $2,000. Makes sense. But I'm just Yeah. As long as you understand. Yeah. There's a minimum of three acres. Sure. Yes, sir. Okay. Whether it's three, three and a half, four, whatever. Minimum three. Okay. Okay. Questions, commissioners? None. No questions to the to the applicant. Okay. I have I have questions. Uh so we have an existing 6.40 and an existing 3.99 and we're going to be using the access road from road T across now the new lot which is going to be 4.3 to get to the new lot 6.2. I don't if you can see where that uh the 24393 used to be an old trailer house there I've since there's an existing driveway right there off the road. Okay. So that's going to be the driveway. That's going to be the driveway. I'll leave the one that's going to the old house there the same. That's you know with the three acres whatever ends up being but okay. Okay. So, we're going to need an easement then from Roti through the now 4.3 to the 6.2. Well, there's there's already Well, there has to be a dedicated easement. I mean, a written easement. Okay. So, even though the driveway's there, the easements there's been used for years. You'll have to get a new easement. Is that what you're saying? Because it my mother used to live in that trailer and it was used to here for years. And in fact, I still use it when I'm irrigating. No, I guess it wouldn't have to be a new easement. If there's an existing easement, then yeah, cuz that's that 24 39. Unless the easement stops at the 3.99, which it probably does. If it's a written easement, it's going to go

through the 640 over to the 399. And now you're bringing it back to the west. Yeah. Even though I'm not moving, only thing I'm moving is the property line. Yeah. No, there shouldn't have to be a new Smith then. No, cuz he can always get a new driveway permit to access coming. Yeah, it's still encompassing the same property. Yeah. If one wouldn't be issued, then there may have to be an easement there, but Right. All right. So, there's going to be a new house then on the new eventually. The long-term plan is my son wants to move back down this area in four or five years from Mont Rose. Okay, that's down the road, but you know, and I'm going to basically sell him the six acre portion of it, keep the old house part of it. That's where I grew up. So, it's going to Okay. And he would the water company said they had a water the water company said they have water service. Yes. Available for that. Okay. Even if it's five years down the road. Yes. Okay. All right. That's all I had. Okay. Then we're going to open this up comment, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. We're not done with discussion. That's right. Yet anyway. So, I do have a a point I want to make and I um asked Mr. Haley about it and I uh still have a a different understanding and maybe Don can clarify um when I'm done but in uh 9103.5 change or expansion of use says major changes to an approved permit shall require the land owner to conform to the previous pre provisions of chapter 2. Major changes shall include but are not limited to changes in use exceeding a measurable 10% of the permitted his or historic use and change of use layout

any condition of approval any change resulting in increased off-site impacts and any similar changes and it has more language there but this is the part that I'm concentrating on. So, um, I'm of the belief that changing the acreage from 6 something to 4 something is more than a 10% change in the acreage, which in my understanding is a change of use and would fall under this um provision. And in the uh 9103.4 for for exemptions. The board of county commissioners may grant exemptions as provided by the revised statutes and it has to do with this just this part. So what I am contending and um uh I'll either be found to be true or not is that because of this 10 this change in use it doesn't go before the planning and zoning commission. it automatically goes straight to the BOCC and they make the decision and they have to make a um an exemption in order to make that decision. So um my contention is um this doesn't even get voted on by the planning and zoning and that's all I have. How does it change the Well, so chapter 2 is for high impact permits. So it doesn't apply anything here. And that's where the 10% is noted. This is a subdivision and it's being amended. So under statute, it goes through the two public hearing process to amend the subdivision same as it was created. I know in the application item seven is in there, but it's in there for like six different items. It just makes a statement that the commissioners may grant exemptions.

Okay. This application gets used for several items. This one is noted boxes checked for a two lot moderate subdivision common lot line change. Um so that's that's the process we're running it through. So because we're not looking at a high impact permit, strictly a basically a boundary adjustment is all it is, right? But because it's subdivision, we have to go through the process, right? That make sense, Commissioner. I I understand perfectly what he's saying. I just Okay. And I have nothing against what you're trying to do. I just I'm all for it. I'm sitting here confused. Okay, then we're going to go back to open this up for public comment. Anybody wishing to speaking for against come to the podium. Okay, seeing none, we'll close it and bring it back to the commissioners for a recommendation. I will make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed subdivision amendment reszoning application to lots one and two of the Phelps Farm subdivision submitted by Fred Phelps based on the following proposed uses in conformity with the code. Proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning and I have no conditions. Okay. The only condition I would put is that the new property owner, whether it's your son or someone else, be he be made aware of the land use code and so he'll know that there's setbacks and so forth. Okay, that's it.

Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. No further discussion. We'll call for a vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders. I. Commissioner Armstrong. I. Commissioner Lynch. I abstain. Okay. The motion carried. It was 3 to one. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. No, we'll be in contact because you'll have to you'll have to go to the county commissioner's meeting with the same process. Fair enough. Right. You're welcome. Okay. Can we have roll call? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay. Number two. Notice is hereby given. And the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the board of county commissioners regarding a proposed three lot minor subdivision and AR 10 to 34 resoning application submitted by Rudy and Jackie Archeletta on property located at 9,000 road 45.6 6 Mus Colorado consisting of 40.02 acres more or less located west of Highway 160 situated in section 31 township 36 north range 12

west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was the public notice published? Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the joining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. And was a sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay, we have the applicants come on down. Can we have the planning department findings? Sure. Uh the plan uh the applicants uh proposed to create a three lot minor subdivision consisting of one um 8.3 acre parcel 13.34 acre parcel and 18.34 acre parcel. The lots will uh be accessed by a 60oot easement. Uh the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses along with lands owned by the US Forest Service uh Bureau of Land Management and the state of Colorado in the immediate area. Um the um property is currently accessed off of a red signed non-countymaintained road. Uh and the driveway permit will not be required by the county road department. Um, as I stated, uh, the lots will be accessed by a 60-foot easement. Um, and C do DOT, um, does not have any problems with this, uh, subdivision being created. Uh, no permit will be required for them. Okay. Um, they stated that there this will not generate enough, uh, activity to warrant a permit. Um there is uh no water company has

pipelines in this area and the properties are uh serviced by sistns. Um and um they they have electricity for the other houses. Um um the wildfire adaptive partnership recommends a wildfire mitigation plan even though uh the parcel is in low to moderate uh risk area but has dense forest fuels and gamble oak around it. Um the property is surrounded by BLM on three sides. Um and um the the applicants I believe have already been in contact with uh W about that. Okay. And that's basically it. Okay. Anything to add to that? Sorry. Anything to add to that? No, she does a good job. She does. Okay. Um commissioners, questions, comments? Yes. Yeah. I I have a question for Don, I think. Um Don, on the uh proposed development information, it says the current zoning is AR35 plus. The requested zoning is AR 10 to 34. Shouldn't that also be um include uh AR 3 through 9 for the smaller piece so that there's two zoning changes? Two zoning. That is that is correct. the the smaller one would take three through nine. Yeah. Can you explain what you just said? What that means? Does it pertain to something we need to know? So, um the the zoning uh designations

AR10 to 34 means 10 acres to 34 acres. And you have one of the three um parcels that you're breaking it into is only 8 3 acres. So it doesn't fall into the 10 to 34. So it needs to go to the next zoning designation below that which is AR3 through nine. Oh okay. So it's just yeah technicality technical. Okay. Anything else? Anybody? Okay. I have some. Don, is this a compliance issue? Because we have four lots, four residents on a single lot. Currently, there's only two residences. Only two residents. That's correct. That's correct. Two residents. Okay. Okay. There's only two, not three. The two Yeah, the two little orange are just storage buildings or sheds or Okay. And the water issue is not going to be a problem with the U commissioners. You know how they are with especially in Manus. That was the question doc to you. That was a question to you. Is there going to be a problem with the water issue with the commissioners? And that was the previous the previous attorney seemed to be really big on not having water. If if water was not available, then we the commissioner should not

be subdividing properties. But it says it serve as sistns. So if they're on sistns, it's hall water, right? Then the whole subdivision is on sistns. Okay. The issue is if there's a water line there and it's questionable if it's available later, then you'd need to buy the taps now. But if it's already fed by sistns, then the subdivision will just be run by sistns. Okay. Okay. And I would like to state um Celeste, I believe is her name, with the fire mitigation. She's coming out tomorrow at 1 to do an assessment. Okay, great. And then we can go forward from there. Okay. If we have nothing else, we're going to open it up for public comment. Anybody we wishing to speak for or against this application, please come to the podium. Okay, seeing none, we'll close it. close the public comment, bring it back to the commissioners. I'll make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a of a proposed three lot minor subdivision AR 10 to 34 and and AR AR 3 to 9. um reszone application submitted by Rudy and Jackie Archeletta based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are not available um to uh to support the uses consistent with the proposed zoning.

Okay, I have a second. I'll second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Condition would be if the properties are for sale that the new owners be notified of the Monizuma County Land Use Code. So, that again everybody's on the same page. Okay. Saunders. Okay. No further discussion. We'll call for a vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi, Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Okay, motion carried. It was unanimous. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. I'll be in touch, Jackie. Okay, takes care of that one. Roll call on. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Lynch here. Number three, notice is hereby given that the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a proposed subdivision amendment application to lot two of Pickkins lot moderate subdivision. Amended. Sub submitted by Suzanne Herman and Neil and Terry Jones. Agent Neil Jones on

properties located at 13654 and 13526 Road 23 Dolores consisting of 15.12 acres and 43.42 42 acres, more or less, located south of Road P, east of Highway 491. Both situated in section 4, Township 36 North, range 16 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. Okay, this was this is a public hearing. Was a public notice published? Yes, sir. Evidence to letters of adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. And the sign was posted. Yes, sir. Okay. Can we have the applicant come on down? Okay. Jane, planning department findings, please. Sure. Uh both sets of property owners are in agreement to adjust the boundary line uh for future access to the Jones property and to get in compliance with the 30foot setback of a dwelling uh from the Jones property line. The dwelling was in compliance until uh the roof was extended um to the existing dwelling. Original setback was 35 ft. Uh the roof extension caused it to be at uh 27 ft resulting in a three-foot shortage. Uh the Herman property is in the Pickkins two lot moderate subdivision and is subject to the permitting process to amend the subdivision for the boundary line adjustment. Um the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and

residential uses. Uh and there are several uh subdivision lots in the immediate area. Um, both properties are accessed from road 23. There is a dedicated 60-foot easement for the Herman property, lot number two of the Pickkins two lot moderate subdivision amended uh that runs along the north property line to uh lot number 1A. Um the access for the Jones property is part of the Jones property. So um that is that basement is their own property. Um all the utilities uh and infrastructure is in uh due to being um residential properties on both pieces. Um and that's basically it. Okay. Oh, and uh again, NVIC states that there is a 30 foot easement 30 uh 15 feet on both sides along the west property line of the Jones property, which is the uh blue and white line on the map may pipe and they would they would uh recommend that that also um maint be maintained and placed on the plat. Okay. We can make that a condition. Okay. You have anything to add to that? I'm sorry. Anything to add to that? No. Okay. All right. Then we're going to bring it to the commissioners. questions? No question. But I I do want to commend the uh land owners for being able to

come to a friendly agreement to move the boundary line in order to accommodate the setback in the land use code. Thank you for that. Thank you. Herman's have been very good about that. So, and Don is the one that actually found it. So when I came in for the easement uh or the deed right away, Don suggested I go measure. So I did and we were out of compliance. So all right. Okay. Other commissioners questions. Okay. I have Let's see. So Oh, I lost it. It's gone back. Oh, there it is. Okay. So, the the structure that's out of compliance is the is on the corner just above where the arrow. Oh, there's the there's the structure. I see. It's up there. Yeah. So, I could bring it that way. Just up above where the dwelling is. Okay. I see. And we had not planned go that far with uh the rightway, but Mr. and Mrs. Hermans wanted the fence line straightened out. So they decided to go ahead and let us go all the way and straighten that fence line out. So Okay. Okay. Now the other question I have, there's a little white object inside that little triangle. Can you zoom in on that, Don, at all? Right where the point of the arrow is at. Is that anything to be concerned of? Because now it's going to be on the other property, right? No, it's going to stay on your property. It's a trailer. Because that that currently is on Herman property, right? And now it's going to be on your property. Nope. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. Bring back the dash line. I didn't know what that thing with

it. Well, that's that's something to do with uh Mr. Herman's and Mr. Pickings. It's nothing has nothing to do. It's got tan and some stuff left over from pickings. Okay. So, nothing that's permanent or anything like that. Okay. No, it can be moved out of the way. It's a It's a trailer, right? Okay. Flatbed trailer with tin and stuff on it. It's It has nothing to do with what we're doing. So, Okay. I just saw that and I thought it Yeah. I want to bring it to somebody's attention. No, no, no problem. Okay. Um, no further questions. We're going to open it up for public comment. Anybody wishing to speak for or against this application? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close it and bring it back to the commissioners. I can make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed subdivision amendment application to lot two of the Pickkins 2 lot moderate subdivision amended. submitted by Suzanne Herman and Neil and Terry Jones. Agent Neil Jones based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with code. The proposed use shall not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning and I have no conditions. Okay. I believe one of the conditions is going to be that that the pipeline be shown on the uh on your plat. Yeah, that's away from the that has not that's all all on my property. Okay. Or our our property. So, okay. Um then we looking for a second. A second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders. I. Commissioner Armstrong. I.

Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Okay, the motion carried. It was unanimous. Thank you. Good luck. I have a comment I'd like to make if it's possible. Do I need to move over there? Can I stay here? Go ahead. Um, and sending these letters out that we sent 14 letters out cost us $90 to all the surrounding land owners that had nothing to do with this. And so my question is, is there some kind of criteria or an amendment or something that could be put in here for the future? Somebody else going to run into this. Probably already has. Maybe they've asked the same question. But to me, it was ridiculous to send that many letters out when those people had nothing uh to do with what we were doing. uh just because they bordered us all the way around and their setbacks where their houses are and everything is way out there. So to me it was just took a lot of our time, your time to look at it, Don and and Jeanie's time to look at this and now yours and there was no reason to send 14 letters out. Uh, I'll let Don answer that, but I'm sure I understand your the situation. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's it's unfortunate, but that's what the land use code and statute requires for public notice, at least our version of the land use code, is that all adjoining neighbors, if if the Herman property was not in a subdivision, it would it wouldn't even be a public hearing. It would just be a boundary line adjustment, but once you're in a subdivision, you're under those rules for life.

We've talked about this before, but I didn't know if there was something that can be done to the land use code uh to keep this from happening from someone else. Unfortunately, it follows state statute and it's a state statute. Okay. All right. Need to amend that. Good luck there. Thank you. Thank you very Okay. Now, can I have a roll call? Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay. Number four. Notice is hereby given that the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the Board of County Commissioners regarding a proposed two lot moderate subdivision application submitted by Dolores State Bank, agent Brian Mclofflin on property located at 27880 Highway 160, Cortez, Colorado, consisting of 9.14 acres, more or less, located south of 160, situated in section 30, township 36 north, range 15 west of the New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was a public notice published? Yes, sir. Was evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. And was a signposted? Yes, sir. Okay, we have the applicant come on

down. Agent Orange. Yeah, now you are. Okay. Planning department findings. J. Uh the applicant is proposing to divide their property into one 3.2 uh acre parcel and one 5.94 acre parcel. Uh the larger parcel will then be sold to Tractor Supply Company. Uh the property is currently zoned commercial and is not seeking any change. Uh the surrounding properties consist of agricultural and residential uses along with commercial and industrial uses. Um the property is accessed directly off of um Highway 160. Uh we did hear back from S DOT. Um and they said it is their recommendation to move the existing access to align with the property, the nursery property um across the highway or move the access to the to the west as much as possible and have an easement to allow both parcels access. The uh landowner can make the decision. CD dot would accept either condition. How excuse me, however, this will require an access permit and a level two traffic assessment. Uh, and they also said uh they could contact um Kenny Gyos at Ced. Um actually uh after the planning department has done research um it should be noted that the Dolores State Bank access was approved and permit approved and permitted in 2007. Um the access opposite um on the north

side of the highway was approved and permitted in 2008 with no objections noted from CDOT. Um and also the opposite access is not owned by Cliff Rose uh nursery. It is uh owned by L and L Mini Storage LLC. Um all the infrastructure is already in for the um property uh with the bank there. Um and that's basically it. Okay. Okay. Anything to add to that? Uh no sir. Okay. Okay, bring it to the commissioners questions. So, um the city of Cortez is marked for municipal review. Um was anything received from them? No, it was not. That's it. Jason questions. No, my my questions initially were about the seat out access. Okay. Yeah. Um, so the new property obviously within will be zone commercial though, right? Correct. Because we're just split split zone. Okay. Okay. And the bank. So, as as as stated with C dot, they'd rather see the entrances align, though they permitted both of them separately before, and they're leaving it to the property owner to Yes, sir. choose to move or not. Yes, sir. Okay. So if the bank remains the same, which I'm sure it's pretty elaborate entrance, um if it's No, they're giving the way I understand the C dot deal is they're giving the bank two choices besides what it exists, right? Like so so they want them to move the the driveway. If if they do move it, then the both

properties are going to utilize that entrance. So there would need to be an easement for the new property. Correct. Okay, we understand that. And if they leave it the same, then then they're not going to get permitted through C do DOT. See, C do DOT does not want to leave it there. It's moving one way or another. Yeah. Didn't Didn't you say, Jane, that they gave him a choice? They gave him two choices to to move it or to leave. Two alternates besides what exists? Yeah, they can move it to two different areas, but it can't stay the same. Oh, okay. Okay. I have emailed them for clarification because they permitted both of them. Okay. I misunderstood. Okay. So then I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. They gave them two choices. Okay. Either to the west or align it with with the other one. Okay. So in other words, there would be two se two separate driveways if they go to the west. One for the new property. The other oops, sorry. No, there would be a dedicated easement for the other property. This driveway entrance is proposed to be closed. That's going to be replaced. Okay. So, they would move it over to the east or to be over the to the west. Yeah. If they move it to the east, it go into their building. That's what you call a drive-thru, right? Well, I thought well I thought they were proposing to align it with the one across the highway. I drew an orange line on this paper which would be the center of the easement or where they would have to move the driveway and the alternate is all the way to the west line of the property. Sorry. Okay. See if we can screw up. And I'm sorry that I did not show that.

I just had to get that together on my way here. So, okay. So, that is going to be one proposal. There it is. Yeah, we got it. Okay. So, that's option one. That's option one. Where's option two? the far west side of the property along along the fence. Okay. Way over there. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay. Now it's clear, but that's going to be one driveway for both parcels. That's correct. Okay. So, either or there's going to be an easement for either there'll be an easement to the bank or the bank will give easement to the tractor supply. Yeah. Yes. Okay. or maybe reconfigure the lot to where there's the bank does not want to share easement and they want the easement or they want all the access to be on tractor supply because they're burdened with more uh liability from people driving, right? So they they would prefer to uh not have traffic on the bank property. So, it probably be easement to the bank through the tractor supply property and the bank's okay with an easement. I That's the way they would prefer it. Yes. Okay. So, more than likely that we'll stay with the orange line with an ement going to the new property. Okay. Yep. Okay. Okay. And C do DOT didn't have any other problems with right left hand turns coming. Okay. I didn't mention anything. Cool.

Okay. Anything else, commissioners? Okay. We're going to open this up for public comment. Anyone wishing speaking for or against? Come to the podium, please. And seeing none, we'll close it and bring it back to the commissioners for discussion or a motion. I can make a motion to recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve a proposed two lot moderate subdivision application submitted by Tora State Bank agent Brian Mclofflin based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning and I don't have any conditions. Okay, second. I'll second it. Okay, we have a motion and a second. No further discussion. Call for the vote. Commissioner Hernandez. I. Commissioner Saunders. I. Commissioner Armstrong. Hi. Commissioner Lynch. Hi. Okay. Motion carried was unanimous. Good luck. Brian. I said I'll be in touch with you. Thank you, sir. That's interesting. I know. That's interesting. Okay, let the fun begin.

Okay, roll call now. Commissioner Hernandez here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Armstrong here. Commissioner Lynch here. Okay. Number five notice is hereby given. The Monizuma County Planning Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purposes for the purpose of reviewing and determining recommendations to be made to the board of county commissioners regarding a proposed general plan unit development application. High impact special use permit application submitted by Lewis Ranches LLC, agent Rimrock Outfitters Glamping LLC on property located at 12885 Road 44, Manus, Colorado, consisting of 15 acres more or less, located east of Road 42 north of Highway 160, situated in section 7 township 36 north range 12 west of the new New Mexico Prime Meridian. This is a public hearing. Was a public notice published? Yes, sir. Were evidence of letters to the adjoining neighbors and mineral owners submitted? Yes, sir. Was a sign posted? Yes, sir. Okay. Can we have the applicant come on down? Okay. Planning department find findings. Jane. Sure. Um the applicant is proposing to create an 8 to2 uh unit glamping site to provide for necessary commercial and

recreational facilities conveniently located to housing. um to encourage a more efficient use of land, public services and facilities, to conserve the value of the land. Um to provide a procedure that can relate to type, design and layout of commercial development to the site, therefore encouraging preservation of the site's natural and agricultural characteristics. Um the surrounding properties consists of agricultural and residential uses along with US Forest Land to the east and Weber Reservoir to the west and north. Um, also part of the property. Um, the access is uh off of road 44 uh just before it turns into Forest Service Road 566. Um, uh, there um, let's see. Um there um this area is not serviced by any water company. Um the applicant has stated water will be hauled from the town of Ma's water dog and stored on site for distribution to um guest facilities. Um, it also needs to be noted uh that even though the applicant has been in contact with Mustown administration, water is never guaranteed to anyone. Um, and that goes for the entire Moni County. Um the planning department did receive a letter of opposition from uh Weber Reservoir Company signed by all of the shareholders and concerned neighbors. Um and um

the wildfire adaptive partnership recommends a wildfire mitigation plan um if there are to be any structures or plans to build structures on the property. It's c uh categorized as moderate fire risk. However, due to the low amount of forest fuels, if there are no structures uh planned to be built on the property, then they will not need a to create a plan. Um and also um they will need to uh construct covenants and a business plan for this operation and that would need to be um recorded along with the plat. And I do have a letter of support for the town of Mus um if you would like for me to read that into record. of the letter. Sure, we can read that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There was the Was there an issue with with the sewage? Um, no, I don't believe so. Um uh the uh the property uh currently has a septic permit. Um and any new uh septic system would be required to be designed by a licensed engineer and permitted with the county planning uh county public health department. Okay, great. Thank you. Anything to add to that? No, sir. We'll answer any questions. Okay. Okay. Commissioners, questions. Are you to read this letter? No. No.

No. Okay. Okay. No. Did you Did you uh Did you mention anything about Ced? They seed dot had no issues because it's not directly uh accessed from Okay. Uh any state highway? Okay. That was one of my questions. Um, so I have a question about the water. So if in fact Mus needs to restrict use of the water dock just because of drought conditions, what's the backup plan for water for your operation? We would cease operations that for however long that takes. Okay. Water is not a given and we understand that. Okay. Absolutely. And and this isn't a life ordeath type, you know, it's not a home. It's a campsite. really Mike. Yeah, I've got a a few. Um, so on the first page of your narrative, you mentioned um the project will preserve open space, strengthen rural tourism, and ensure the ranch's working legacy continues for future generations. Are you using the term open space in the way the land use code is using that term? I'm not sure. I believe so. So in the land use code there's um the term open space and common open space and okay where I as I remember it that's what's um a that's a dedicated acreage for a subdivision in order to have um a nice place for people to walk and ride their

bikes and stuff from then on. It's a permanent setup in a subdivision. I I don't think that's what you're meaning when you say that. Right. So, what we're trying to do is because obviously this is in a larger parcel um and Rimrock Outfitters is already there. So, I'm trying to kind of create um this is the the businesses all in one. Yes. And and kind of next to the border or next to the Forest Service, right next to the road, the open space that I was talking about was kind of the rest of the property. Yeah. So, but it's not marked on a plat that this is dedicated open space. So, I'm I'm I'm going to assume that it's not being It was not my intention. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And then in regard to the utilities and permitting that in your narrative um for water supply, you mentioned where you plan to get it, but you don't mention how much you're going to need. So, we don't know for a fact, but I can I can tell you based on anticipated usage would be roughly um depending on how many units 100 gallons per or 100 gallons a day per unit. So, 1,200 potentially. Yes. 800 to,200. 800 to,200. Yes, sir. 6,000. And so our system will be 6,000 gallons once a week at least that we'll be hauling. Oh, per week. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Now, now I'm correct. I'm getting it. Um so in the past uh Commissioner Copenhafer who lives in the Mangus area um when other permits have come before the board of county commissioners the water has been an

issue and on parcels that um don't have a dedicated uh water pipe to um pull from um and would be wanting to use the water dock. Um if I remember correctly in those meetings um where I was attending uh basically and maybe you can Jason you can confirm for me um the water dock usage is at a maximum and they're not taking on any additional um users for the water dock as I understand it. Well I don't want to speak for the town of Mus. Um, I'm assuming you guys had conversations. We did. We spoke with the town administrator. We spoke to the town's attorney. Yes. Um, basically what the town attorney said is we own a water tap personally. We can pull out that water tap if need be. That that's where they left it at us. Okay. So, and and I I did submit that, but you know, rather than pull out of a water tap, we will pull out of, you know, the uh water dock. So in in the permit um you include a uh a threshold standard evaluation and uh on the first page of that number 12 is for water and beside that it says proof of availability and adequate flow and you have not provided proof. So that's a concern for me. you've talked about where and you just said that you talked to the this I actually submitted the email with this package from the attorney and through through the town administrator stating that they don't have a problem with me pulling water. Is that proof of service?

I I'm not sure if that is or not. Um and if it's not, what specific would you would make this proof of service to satisfy what that what that says on that page? proof of availability and adequate flow. Okay. So, um I'm imagining when I read that, I'm imagining a letter from the town of Megas saying that your um uh business can pull water from the water dock at the amount required, which is what I think you said 6,000 gallons per week potentially. Yes. Yeah. and and that's what it would need to meet not not some fraction of that it would be the maximum that you are thinking to have on need of and and it's not part of your I don't see it here but that's what I'm imagining I should see somewhere as proof okay um on the traffic summary Um, you describe what's going to happen on the glamping part of your property. Um, is there a residence on the property? There is no residence on the property. The the other part of the property that you were using before um in the other part of the business um are those traffic numbers included in this traffic assessment? They are not because that's been an existing business for 30 years on the entire ranch since they've they've used multiple portions of the ranch for their business over the past 30 years. So I I'm not understanding. When you say ranch, are you saying this parcel of land or are you saying this parcel is

part of a larger correct larger portion? Okay. Lewis Ranch consists of three different parcels. Okay. And individual parcels. Correct. And um 2001 2002 when the county did self-zoning, Rimrock Outfitters included all three parcels in this for camping, horseback rides, chuck wagons, whatnot. And they have used multiple parcels actually all three different parcels over the past 30 years for their business. And so I am not including including resc correct. I'm not including um their business in our traffic. Okay. And why not? Because it's a different business. Yeah. But it's on the same property. Correct. And utilize it. In other words, I wasn't aware that I needed to include that. We're happy to do so. But yeah, so yeah, it was only I thought for our business. I understand. Yeah. My I'm I may be the only one that thinks this way, but um my understanding is that when you apply for a permit, it applies to the entire parcel, not your not your entire ranch, the entire parcel that we're looking at, whatever that acreage is here, not not a fraction. So, was the previous what was the previous zoning including those numbers for Rimrock Outfitters? I don't know. I I'm I'm only looking at the permit that's in front of me tonight. Would you um I believe we are um going for a high impact permit for specific this reason for traffic because obviously eight is kind of right on the the border, but once we go more units and that is more than the 15 roundtrip, right? But the permit says 15. It doesn't say it's going to be exceeded. If I remember correctly, it says that we can count on 15, but it doesn't say it will be exceeded. So, there's no mitigation needed. the next level above 15 cars.

That's the only Would we have to apply? That's the only number that's in the land use code. Okay. That's a it's a threshold limit. So, does the permit allow us to go over the threshold? It it does. Okay. It does. Okay. If you um if it if that can be mitigated, if that issue can be mitigated, but it doesn't need to be mitigated if you meet 15 or below. it will be over if we're including both businesses. Yeah. So, in in my personal opinion, as I understand the land use code, you should be applying you should be in this application, you should be included including all the traffic for this parcel. Okay, that was narrow on my part. I I thought it was the company specific rather than two different companies, but absolutely. And so, with that being in mind, we will definitely be over the 15 per day. Yeah. So, and and if and if you imagine the extreme of this is you could have this same piece of property with four different businesses on there and each one having 15 or less, but in total having I I see exactly what you're saying. So, yes. So, do we need a a bigger number? Is that what you're asking for? I'm not telling you what you should do. I'm telling you that what I see, okay, is is a concern for me personally. Okay. So, how can we resolve that? It's not done yet. Okay. The entire commission needs to vote on it. And if the rest of the commission feels that it's not an issue, you're you're going to be okay. Okay. From here. Now, the board of county commissioners may bring it up, but personally, this is an issue for me or a concern for me. Okay. Okay. Um, another uh thing that I'd like to point out, not not to you but to the

commission is that um the type of PUD that's being applied for as a general PUD and under the general PUD um the way the land use code is written there's kind of a loophole because um that was as I understand from Commissioner Copenhager. Um, being able to do a general PUD on an agricultural zoned property was never intended to allow commercial businesses of this size. It was for smallcale um, commercial operations. Otherwise, what you end up having is the example I gave where you could have a large parcel and have four separate PUDs and all commercial or one or whatever. But that's it's a loophole that allows people the application the applicants to put a commercial operation in the middle of agriculturally zoned properties which to me is a loophole. Right. For the PUD, right? Yeah. And and I know in land use code it says it's there's a conditional it's a conditional use and it is permitted. That's right. Yeah. There is no definition of a level of small business or large business. Yeah. And as far as your traffic goes, you can amend this to say you'd like to cover 35 cars or 40 cars. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. It's because you're applying for the high impact permit. You just want to make sure that your traffic counts are included in that plan and that discussion. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. And and by the way, sometimes I come across differently than what I intend. I really like this idea. I just um uh I

can't ignore what my concerns are with the letter and intent of the land use code. That's all. I I like your project. I I hope it's successful. Um, but these are some of the things that that I'm I'm dealing with. The other thing was the um the uh letter from the uh Weber Reservoir group uh which identified potential safety issues in regard to Lewis Ranch is a member of Weber Reservoir that there's seven members of Weber Reservoir and we've been a member for forever. Yeah. And I completely understand um about no swimming, no access. I mean, I've grown up there. We've never swam. I have three boys who grew up there. You don't go swimming. Um up until this year, we didn't even have fish. The entire design is the mountains are right there. The Forest Service is right there. The horseback is right there. This this is a nice visual appeal that we're lucky to have, but we are adamant it is not part of the our project. Um our our project will be fenced simply because we have horses that are, you know, roaming around and so we want to keep the horses out. So we will have a fenced in area. Everything will be focused more on the mountains. So east versus west. Um I realize how how tempting it is. Yesterday, I specifically stopped five grandkids of a member from going swimming yesterday. I'm like, we don't have insurance. Um, Lewis Ranch is very concerned about it because part of the lake is on Lewis Ranch. So, not only would Weber Reservoir also be held accountable, but so would Lewis Ranch. Yeah. Regardless whose water it is. So, we are well aware of that. Um and we will do everything we can to keep it's not part of it to keep people away from it. Yes.

Um so um that was the cons one of the concerns raised by them and I know there's a timeline of events and maybe something happened afterwards to cover that but uh in the permit there's nothing that says that you're installing a fence in order to um mitigate that. I I think that could help your case if if you were able to work out something with them in regard to fencing that would keep the kids from going where they shouldn't go. Well, I think the question would be do they want fencing on the property line or or for us to fence off our lake off our water? I don't know. So So I'm happy to put a fence on the property line. Absolutely. Um you know, we have livestock that accesses the water. Um, so from that standpoint, I don't see us putting a fence in the middle of the lake. I am happy to do so on obviously, you know, the property lines. Yes. And and post it. You know, we have Weaper Reservoir has signs. I understand signs are only so good for a lot keeps an honest man honest. The sign keeps an honest person honest. We understand that. We've had poaching in there. We've had people um we will be villigent or diligent on everything. Um, we can't guarantee that it won't happen, but we will do everything in our power to ensure that it doesn't because it's not just our business, it's also Lewis Ranch that would take the hit versus the business. And Sure. So, and I believe that's all I've got. That's it. Yeah. Okay. My turn. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I I had kind of a another safety question. And you mentioned in your application that there's a secondary emergency road. So there's numerous. We have one through the forest service. There's also a road coming through uh Weber Reservoir that um was a longtime access. Okay. So it's that on this. Yeah. And then there's also um right next to the corrals. There's a road

coming out through the forest service there to the right um right on the the c the county forest service line. There's a road that goes into the kils. Okay. Okay, that was it. Yeah. Okay. So, you're you're proposing um a maximum of 12 sites? Yes, sir. Okay. And that's tents, including the covered wagons. Yes, sir. Okay. We're opening with eight. And you know, we're building the infrastructure for 12, but it's three years before we expand. And we've never done this, so we're not even sure that we'll make it that. But, but we are building the infrastructure for it. And we are obviously asking for the permit. But 12 is the for 12 max. Correct. Okay. Okay. My concern there's emergency services because you are a long way from Highway 160. Yes, sir. There's something if there's a problem out there. It's going to take Manus a while to get there. So, that's a real concern of mine. We had uh an application here three months ago and that was another that was a big concern for them that we don't have the services that can get to you fast enough. Um, so again, that's a real sore spot for me. One of the things in our employee and staff training is we're all going to be CPR certified and first aid first aid certified. Yeah, that was my next question. Your number of employees that you intend to have on site and would they be certified? So, what's the number of employees you're talking about? Currently, it's going to be family for the next couple years. So, just family. Family. Yes. And as we progress, we would like to hire one or two, three people. Okay? And and again, going back to everybody will be certified because just insurance purposes and things of that nature. So once this opens up, if it does open up, then families going to be certified in CPR and first aid. Yes, sir. Okay. And any employees when we have them.

Okay. Um also that Yeah, there was a statement on weddings and parties that are going to be made available. you know, I'm sure that that's a possibility. It's not something that we're really focusing on, but um we're here. I I I would prefer to ask for permission versus, you know, come back and ask for forgiveness. And um I'm sure somebody will call us and say, "Hey, can we do this?" And, you know, we do plan on having um other services down the road, but it's down the road. But but yes, we are anticipating this. We are not actively marketing for anything like that, but we're here and we fig might as well ask. Okay. And you're going to haul 6,000 gallons of water a week. We're actually going to work with the company um water on wheel or well on wheels that they're drinking based company. And um we are working with the state of uh Colorado public health because we're we have a sister and so we have to be regulated. Okay. um have to deal with uh the water hauler also has to be regulated. So um rather than us haul it, we will have somebody else do it and then we'll use their certifications for their tank from water dock to their tank to ours. I have to maintain our tanks. I have to um do monthly inspections and then keep them for submitted if the public health department ever asks for them. Okay. So you're going to be subject to the health department. Uh that is my understanding. Yes. Okay, that that's done. That's okay. Yeah, because they're going to be redistributing it to the public from their sister as opposed to a private residence. Okay. Okay. So, do you have any idea how many trips that water is going to be taken to get up there for? I'm hoping to, you know, so we have three different tanks basically and we're doing that for kind

of a fail safe as well, but um I'm hoping that uh we do it once a week rather than every two or three days. That that's not efficient. So um you know, all of our our units are going to be low flow. I mean, we're going to do everything we can. Um we don't allow food in in the units because we have a chuck wagon. That's what we want. So you'll have a cooler. We will have um coffee and tea inside the unit, but that's it. Um no refrigerator even. It's just right. So lowflow sink and we're actually kind of being crazy. And we're going to have a pole shower. So it's Yeah. like a cowboy shower. So it will not be going continuously and so we're hoping that cuts down on a lot of the water. Good old military showers. Yeah. Yes. Five minutes left. That's it. Okay. trucks with just Okay, now I will back up with Commissioner Lynch. My concern was um that lake um you could post all the signs in your world and you're going to have somebody in that water. It's inevitable. It's going to happen. It is. It will happen. Right. And and and again, I'm looking at your liability and and I'm looking at our liability because we're going to maybe approve this. So, are we overstepping by not trying to do everything we possibly can to keep people out? A fence is a great idea because then you can post as many signs as you want. You can't swim here. This is private property. Do not enter. All that good stuff. So, we're approximately 4 to 500 feet away from the bank. Again, we're not it's not part of it. I hear everything that you're saying. Um, and all I can say is we will tell people, we will instruct people, we will be diligent on telling them signage,

whatever we may need to do. That that's all we can say. We can't say that we will never have somebody go in there. You know, we don't allow dogs. No. Yeah. So, so dogs are not going to be running in there primarily. We don't allow dogs because we have horses. So, um, but somebody came with their dog, the dogs going to go swimming, people are going to go after their dog. So, again, just little things to try and minimize that. And also children, you know, I mean, we've we have three children are that we've raised in here in Mus and we know that the lake is an attractive nuisance. Very much so. It is, you know, and so we've we've had to work with our children. We've had to, you know, help Rimrock Outfitters at times and, you know, try. So, we've had some experience with this over the years. Last thing we want is anybody to get hurt. I'm sure you're good parents. Not all parents are right fit those shoes. So again, it's it's it's you hit the nail on the head. It's a it's it's a it's a nuisance and it's attractive nuisance and people are going to try to get out there. So that's really my I that's a big stickler for me. The safety and that water fencing would help. Fencing would help. Is is that something we can amend in our plan or in our application? We can make it if it make it a condition if it goes Yeah. to a vote and it gets approved that'll be a condition. Yeah. Okay. You have something else? The the other thing that I've seen is um when the P&Z commission recommend for approval and it goes before the county commissioners um sometimes what is presented to them has been enhanced after we've seen it. So um I don't know the rules. Don can probably answer that um definitively but uh that's at least

what I've seen in the past. So, okay. I know part of this is educational for us. So, thank you. Um, in the plat, uh, are in our, um, packet and that you've seen on the screen, uh, there it I'm a little confused because, um, you're mentioning that the water is more than 100t away from your lot line, from from where the campsites are going to be. Oh, from Okay. Yeah. So, uh I'm not When I look at the the plats that are in here and it shows that water into your property, correct? Is that a high water mark or is that That is a high water mark typically by it's an irrigation lake. So, in another month it's going to be off our property. Yeah. Okay. And so, all right. Thanks. So then there will be water on your property at some point where the campers are there. So the there's water still there now. Absolutely. Within the property. So okay. So fencing in that case is not going to help you because it's it's there. Yeah. Correct. On a good year we will have water on our property year round. Okay. But even tougher. Anything else? Okay, we're going to open this up to public comment. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record, please. My name is Oh, first off, thank you for letting me speak and uh express our concerns. I'm representing Weber Reservoir Company. My name is Turn Collier. My address is Manus, Colorado, 9801 Road 42, Manus. I do have a ranch up near uh whoever has four as well. There you go. There we go. Yeah. Mining.

Okay. You want me to start over? No, it's good. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, um yeah, I'd submitted the uh the petition and letter of opposition that I think you guys have. So, uh we've we've been discussing with our shareholders and that grew into concerned neighbors as well. As you can as you can see, we have quite a few signatures. Didn't even know we had that many people up up the road there. But um our main concern is liability. You know, the liability for Weber Reservoir Company, Weber Reservoir Company was originally built back in in 1904 and then expanded later for a water storage company for uh water storage facility for for irrigation and farm use only. We've never had people doing any recreational activity. Um, so we we don't have insurance and we are working on getting insurance, but at this as at this stage of the game, it's difficult to get insurance on something that's not been insured. We've never needed it. We thought, you know, because we don't we don't let people on that property. And as you can see, the, you know, the Lewis Ranch property encroaches onto the, you know, onto the water of Weber Reservoir, like you say, on a good year, it could be, you know, for several months into the summer. So, our concerns are were someone to be injured or god forbid, you know, have a fatality drowned, you know, the the the owners of Weber Resvoir Company could be personally liable for for litigation from that from that injury or death. And so, we're just we're strongly concerned about that, you know. And number two, we just don't want to see anybody getting hurt because it's just not set up as a as a recreational reservoir, nor you know, nor do we have plans for that. It's an irrigation reservoir and water storage only and maybe some pasture. Um, yeah. And so, so I'm a little confused. Last week when we talked to

Mr. Lewis, he said there's no plans for a fence. We said, you know, that would help. That would be good. He said, no, Colorado's a fence out state. And he said, I'm going to put up signs. And as we know, as you just found out yesterday, there was a group of a group of teenagers or 20-year-olds that should have known better, you know, uh, of a shareholder who should have known better and he didn't know they were going, but they did. They tried to go in and go get in the lake. And thank you, Donnie, for for for for putting a stop to that. So, yeah, it is. It's just a matter of time. That's good case in point of what happens. um you know so again web reservoir has never been used for campers visitors sightseers um so so some other concerns we have you know just looking at the at the application here I don't we don't think that 15 vehicle trips round trips per day is is realistic you know if you're thinking about the maximum of 12 12 campsites and staff Okay. Time. Time. Thank you. Thank you. Next. My name is Carrie Summers and I'm the I live at 38790 Road K4 in Mangus and I'm a the broker owner of Colorado Ranch and Home Realy and I'm also a property owner uh excuse me, property manager. Super tough. I know Perry and Lynn. Um, uh, Perry Junior's, uh, parents. Um, I've known them forever. Um, I'm the property manager of a property that to the west of this, which is 12677 uh, Cody Eubanks property and um, so

it's uh, the reservo the lake is here. The property is coming up um, Echo Basin. There's a sharp uh 90 degree turn there and and the property that I manage there. Um and so the lake is right to the north of that. This spring we had an emergency at the property and it took 30 minutes for Minkas to get up there. Not a good deal. My other big concern is yes, the lake is a big, you know, people want to go to the lake, but what about dogs? Uh loose dogs create problems and uh you know there's livestock around there. So the Eubank's brother lives right across from uh the proposed site. Uh Bobby and you know this is a quiet neighborhood. These families have been up there forever. Um, and I just don't think that a high impact with multiple cars going up and down a very steep and dangerous narrow road that's, you know, blind. It's not just you can see for miles going up one uh, road 44. So, I'd um ask you to just think about all the safety of all the different neighbors that use road 44. And, you know, and it it is we have, you know, that's the access to the forest. So, of course, we have more people in the summer going up there, which is which is wonderful. And I mean, I know Perry and Victoria very well. Uh they're my neighbors where I live. Um off of K4. Um I think the world of them. Uh and but my clients, the Eubanks, asked me to come here to bring up these concerns. So, thank you. Thank you. Next. Anyone else? I was asked to to

read a statement from one of the other property owners. You've no Yeah, we could we could accept that. If you want to give it to us, we'll accept it. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Then we're going to close the public comments and bring it back to the commissioners. Again, I'm just going to reiterate that, you know, my my concern is the lake and and the safety for the for people that, you know, god forbid, get injured up there. It's just a long way from Manus, you know, and you you're having functions possibly, and that's that's my concerns. I think there's risk associated with any outdoor activity. Say again. I I said I think there's risk associated with any outdoor activity and because our our responsibility is making sure that the EMS services have been notified. Yeah. Um you know people make choices on where they recreate. I feel that I just want to bring that up. Okay. You know as long as emergency services are notified and have it come to us saying they have a problem with it. I think I think that's important for us to acknowledge. It'd be very different if the town if make fire said like hard though because the last one that you brought up they mentioned that they hadn't talked to them which was really problematic. Right. Right. Yeah. So I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Okay. Well, I you know, I agree with the concerns around the water that Commissioner Lynch brought up, and I think it'd be good as a condition um to require something a little more, I don't

know, substantial from the town of Manus or the attorney about that predicted water usage. Just to interject, um, if they're using a public private water company, they can access water from any Monizuma water dock. If you're pulling 6,000 gallons in a 10,000gallon trunk, you're probably not going to Manus water dock. Fair enough. And that means Cortez. Most of it come from Durango. That's where the company's based out of. Okay. Oh, they probably pull out of Durango. Yeah. Okay. The big the big commercial trucks, they don't go to the private water. holding a lot of people up. Well, I can make a motion. Okay. To recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve as proposed general planning and development application high impact and special use permit submitted by Lewis Ranches LLC agent Rimrock Outfitters Glamping based on the following. The proposed use is in conformity with the code. The proposed use shall not not generate any significant adverse impacts on other property in the area and public utilities and services are available or can be made available to support uses consistent with the proposed zoning. Um I don't have specific condition but I'll let you all chime in. But I think Commissioner Lynch had a condition. I can't vote for it. So there's no condition. you had a condition. Um, well, there's a couple things that came up, so we can check in on these things. So, one was amending the uh the traffic in the high impact permit. Okay. To to reflect the multiple business activities that are on there um for the commissioners to review.

Um, I know you guys don't want to add the safety fencing that we've been talking about, but we should consider we're open to, you know, being good neighbors. Absolutely. Okay. So, so if we need a fence, you know, I I would like to start with fence on the property boundaries versus putting a fence directly across the water. Um, but absolutely, we'll put one up on on the property boundaries. Okay. And we will be going ahead with the fencing around our entire encampment. Again, the pro the problem with the fencing though is is is the water's going to come from the other side of the fencing. Sure. And I understand that, right? We're trying to make sure the horses don't go in as well. Okay. That's another purpose of our fence. Okay. Okay. Did you have anything else? Yeah, that was that's the fencing and then the traffic was my only So, if there's a second, we'll I'll second. Okay. Okay, no further discussion. Call for a vote. Commissioner Hernandez, nay. Commissioner Saunders, I. Commissioner Armstrong, I. Commissioner Lynch, nay. What we talked about don't happen. So, under Robert's rules of order, it requires a majority. And since there's no majority, it fails. It fails. It's there's no need to revote or talk about voting or whatever. It it had no majority, so it failed. Right. So, the only thing then it's um like I said, it's it's done as far as we're concerned. County commissioners. Yep. Now, it goes to the Yeah. Your your next move is is up there. But yeah, we we have come to an impass

and and there's a process for that. So um that would be the next step. Okay. Thank you. So the motion fails. No majority. Okay. Thank you much. Thank you very much for your time. [Music] Okay, takes care of that. Yeah, we're not done yet. Oh, fair enough. Okay, other items. Roll call first. Roll call first. Sorry, M. Uh, Commissioner Hernandez, Commissioner Saunders here, Commissioner Armstrong here, Commissioner Lynch here. Still, uh, discussion item would be the, uh, spec section of the land use code concerning alternate energy specifically relating to solar, but not strictly limited to solar, right? Because you can have wind. This would still fall under the wind. Right. Yeah. You can have wind, water, sun, hydro. Well, solar would be sun. What? Nuclear.

Nuclear. I'm so sorry, but I have to go. So, I'm going to excuse myself from the conversation, but I trust you to come up with something good. Good. Thanks, Jason. Did you have a proposed date for a public meeting? No, but I think that was the one thing I wanted to see if we could try to set some set some time aside to do that. Um, I'm not sure the best way to schedule with everybody here, but I feel like we need to just have an open comment with the community and just get their take on on on the egg bolted. Yeah. Okay. on the solar just generally and just get a better sense of what everybody thinks in the community about it. So, I mean, we're we're on the clock. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I'm out the month of August. If you need me, I will not be here. Okay. But September, I need surgery. So, Okay. Planning not to. Yeah, for sure. Okay. Okay. Um, I don't have an exact date proposed. I feel like we've tried to do this before and it was already in July. So, I know Commissioner Lynch has some other obligations uh like for school board and things like that. So, obviously, let's keep that in mind. What are the days that you absolutely can't do it? Uh, Tuesday nights are bad. Okay. Um, it'll be bad for me, too. I have public meetings. Monday nights are bad. Okay. Uh, I can I can try and work with pretty much anything else. Are you talking about day or night? Probably after hours, after business hours, just to make sure. I feel like that's most accessible. Yeah. So, it's after five you're talking. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. How about you?

Yeah. Friday's absolutely not. Okay. Wednesday's my other, but I can I can work around Wednesday. Okay. Just let me know so that I can post it. I have to do a public notice. I have to do a public notice. So, um I mean I'd like to have Commissioner Saunders be part of the conversation, but we're only we're already at the end of July basically. July. Well, middle of July anyway. So So we may need to just move forward. How much time do you need for public not? It does not have to be a 30-day public notice. No, it just needs to be what? A week. About a week. We could do a week. Why don't we do one in July? 10 days. We could do the 24th of July. Okay. My birthday. A good one. Sounds awesome. That's a Thursday. Yep. Okay. Here. July 24th. Two. What do you guys think? Like over a week? Five to yes five to because the newspaper only comes out once a week and I I'm on a time crunch because they told me I can only submit uh public notices at a certain time to get it into newspaper. So um can we make the 24th? Let me see here. Give you enough time. Um I'd have to get it in the newspaper on the 16th. Oh, good. So, that's fine. Okay, I can do it. Okay. Now, we just need to figure out time. What do you guys think? Like, what does the normal person get off work? I'm retired, so I don't have to go back. Well, you want to do it at six o'clock? Does that feel okay? Okay. Six. Okay. With me? Okay.

And this is a public hearing or a commissioner public meeting? Just a public meeting. Public meeting. Yeah. Not a hearing, a public meeting. Public information meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Public information for public input on solar. I guess the Yep. input, I think, is what we're looking for. Correct. Um it'd be great if we could get some industry people to come talk, but I'm not sure how that works in terms of setting that up. The only feedback I've had, um, most of them all seen Mesa County's, um, spec section, which is the basis for our spec section, and they they are all comfortable with it, fine with it. Okay. I mean, it feels like we're asking the community to comment on something, correct? And what are we providing them to comment on you know or is it just well we they know well or should know or maybe they don't about the um moratorum that the commissioners have you know placed on right solar so that's going to get lifted mortorium is going to get lifted we need your input to help us put something together in the land use code okay good I'm We had a a case, the Jubie case. Um, and that was voted on. Uh, you could use potentially that as an example and say, um, you know, what was it about that that you think could could have been done in order to make that pass? What what would have had to happen in order to make you okay with that passing? what what steps would have needed to take place, what size does it need to be limited to? I don't know. But yeah,

we could that that's an example of one I like that having something for them to like put it in context and and there were quite a few people here that might show up again. So yeah, I think that's a great way to frame that. Especially if you to me if you ask for input, you know, and those people came here to object, then now I want to come and give you money. Yeah. So, so we need to turn it around. So, this isn't an objection meeting. This is a what would you like to see in the land use? Yeah. To make this a possibility in our county? Yeah. What are your major concerns that need to be mitigated? Right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. What are your concerns? Okay. Sounds good. Got a jing. I think I'll try. Six o'clock to a definitive time frame or just open-ended. Yeah, it could if we're going to invite people in and make comment. I don't want to cut them off. Well, you figure you're gonna be here at least. We're gonna give everybody three minutes, right? There you go. We could do that. Or Yeah. Yeah. Because you're gonna have to have some organization to it. We're gonna have to. Yeah. Come speak. Got three minutes. Give us your No different than a No different than a public meeting. A public meeting. Yeah. Yeah, that's good. Okay. And as in a public meeting, um you can if there's too many people, you can limit the bring it down to 30 minutes. If it looks like it's going to be all night, you can say, "Sorry, please. Two minutes." And yeah, only new comments or whatever. Yeah. Just try to manage it as best we can. I don't I don't think you're going to get that volume. I didn't think you'd be lucky to get 15 people here. Yeah. Be lucky. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's going to pack the room because they're not you're not here to object to something. You're here to give information to Right.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's try it. That's a good plan. Okay. What else? Um let you go. There is a new law out. I don't know, every week there's a new law or something. I can't and don't try and keep up. Um that Colorado passed concerning EV charging stations. Um they gave counties till December to select one of three options. Options one and two have something to do with the regulations that they've come up with. Um, option three is to opt out and not change our land use code. Um, a primary charging facility would fall under a public utility which would be covered by a high impact permit, special use permit as it stands under our land use code. Um, I don't know with what's, you know, Cortez has six new ones. I don't see anybody putting a major one out in the county. Um, you don't have the power, you don't have much infrastructure there. So, my recommendation um was that we just opt out. Okay. There's going to be a workshop on the 28th of July with the commissioners. With the commissioners. Okay. It'll be at their 1:30 workshop. Um, if you guys have Yeah. something. It's just like you said, you know, to have a specific charging station. Um, and again, I'm thinking of the use people around here that have electric vehicles are going to charge at home. Okay? So, you're looking at the at the

at the transient that's passing through. So, he's he's charging If you're going south, he's charging in Gallup. If you're going west, he's charging in in Flagstaff. Um, well, my my idea is if you're charging, you're not going to be parked out in the middle of nowhere in the county sitting in your car. Well, that's you're going to be in town going to eat or going to shop and get groceries or Yeah, that's what's going to happen is you're going to get the lows. You're going to get the Mavericks, the big stations. they're going to put them in, which makes sense. Which makes sense. I mean, you could possibly have one in a big RV park, but yeah, that but again, that's that's more synonymous with them than a standalone one out in the middle of something. That's going to be nothing we have to deal with. Just they'll do it themselves. I don't think Areola is going to be a hot spot. Is there anything in the legislation that's like kind of like a incentive to for counties to opt in? I you know what I mean? Like access to grant funding and things like that. They didn't mention that. Don't know. I like I said, I didn't read through the opting in options. Yeah, because that's fine. I didn't see anything. Every time we opt if you opt into something and we start adopting regulations now, their plan is if you have adopted this now this new law makes you do this. They just keep dragging it on and leaprogging. Mhm. And per Travis this week, Colorado is now the sixth most regulated state in the United States. Really? Yes. Not surprised. Oh, that's that's sad. Time to move. So, I'm with you. It's I'm with you. I mean, I would be happy at 46. Then anything be above that, it's not a good direction. 46 is a good number. That's a good number.

But having being number six, six in the nation. That's That's cuz Polus and Newsome are buddies. They're buddies. We're still live out of California, John. We're still live. We're Yeah, that's that's why I got out of California. Okay. Uh so anyway, that that workshop will be uh 1:30 the afternoon of um July 28th. Okay. Anything else? That's all I got. Motion to adjourn. To adjourn. Second time. I heard him say second. Oh, no. He's a second. I have to say second. Um, 7 747. Yes, I did. Motion to adjurnn. 747. 747. All right. Okay.