[1:58] Good morning and welcome to the Board of County Commissioners Land Use meeting.

[2:02] Today is Thursday, September 24th.

[2:04] We do begin each of our meetings with an invocation,

[2:07] and this morning that will be given by Commissioner Williams.

[2:10] We invite you to stand and join us.

[2:15] Our Father in heaven, we're thankful for this beautiful day.

[2:19] We're thankful for the rain we've had, and we're thankful for the moisture.

[2:24] We are thankful for our free government,

[2:27] for the opportunity we have to meet here and to consider the matters of our,

[2:32] of our county and to participate in our government process.

[2:36] We ask thee to Please bless our law enforcement officers and our military that

[2:42] enforcement officers and our military that they

[2:42] may be safe. And this we say in the name of Jesus Christ.

[2:48] Amen.

[2:48] Commissioner Wysong, if you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[3:12] Item 3.

[3:12] Item number 3 is staff emergency items,

[3:15] and I'm unaware of any staff emergency items today.

[3:18] Item 4.

[3:19] Item number 4 is changes, postponements, and notice of the next meeting.

[3:24] I'm unaware of any changes or postponements to today's agenda,

[3:27] and the next meeting will be Tuesday, September 29th at 9:00 AM.

[3:32] Item 5.

[3:33] Item number 5 is the land use consent calendar, including item 5A.

[3:40] Okay, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on an item on the

[3:46] consent calendar? Please come forward.

[3:50] You'll need to introduce yourself and, um,

[3:55] Make sure that you do sign in, and then you'll have 3 minutes.

[4:01] Good morning. My name is

[4:07] Dean Couture. Um, I just

[4:12] want to make sure I'm—

[4:18] this is in reference to

[4:23] Needles Drive?

[4:27] No, sir, this is the consent calendar item

[4:31] 5A, so you can come back up in just a

[4:35] minute.

[4:35] Okay, sorry, sorry. Yeah, I'll wait.

[4:38] All right.

[4:39] Okay, okay.

[4:42] So, uh, just, uh, another quick ask if we have anyone who wants to speak on an item

[4:49] on the consent calendar. That would be 5A.

[4:52] Okay, seeing none, I will bring that up here for a motion from commissioners.

[4:58] Move to approve.

[4:59] Second.

[5:00] Okay, that's been moved and seconded.

[5:02] I'm going to call the roll beginning with Commissioner Wysong.

[5:06] Aye.

[5:07] Vice Chair Nelson.

[5:08] Aye.

[5:08] Commissioner Williams.

[5:10] Aye.

[5:10] And the chair votes aye. That passes 4-0. Item 6.

[5:14] Item number 6 is a map amendment rezoning, Needles Highway 83 rezoning,

[5:20] RR-5 to RR-2.5. A request by North Ranch LLC for approval of a rezoning map

[5:26] amendment of one property totaling 47.55 acres in size from RR-5 to RR-2.5.

[5:32] The property is located along the Colorado State Highway 83 and is 0.7 miles south

[5:38] of the intersection of Colorado State Highway 83 and Colorado State Highway 105.

[5:45] The item was heard as a regular item at the September 3rd,

[5:50] 2026 Planning Commission meeting and was recommended for approval with a split vote

[5:56] of 6-3. Planning Commissioners Brew, Casagrande, and Wolf voted against the

[6:02] Casagrande, and Wolf voted against the motion.

[6:03] Parcel number 6100000369, Commissioner District Number 1, file P26008.

[6:09] Joseph Letke, planner, Planning and Community Development. Good morning.

[6:14] Good morning, Madam Chair and Board of County Commissioners.

[6:19] My name is Joseph Letke, and I'll be presenting to you today the Project P-268,

[6:25] the Needles Highway 83 rezoning, R-5 to R-2.5.

[6:28] Brett Dilts was the staff engineer who reviewed this rezoning application.

[6:34] I'm going to begin my presentation just to go over the hearing procedures.

[6:39] We begin with presentation from staff as well as the applicant.

[6:44] We then turn it to the public comment period,

[6:48] so citizens in favor or against can come to the podium to speak,

[6:52] after which we turn to a rebuttal period by the applicant,

[6:57] and then we close out with final questions for staff,

[7:01] and then a decision is made by our elected officials,

[7:05] the Board of County Commissioners, to vote to approve or deny the application.

[7:11] So Planning Commission, they did vote to recommend for approval, split with 6 to 3.

[7:17] There was some brief discussion regarding the change in traffic.

[7:22] The 3 dissenting Planning Commission members were silent on reasoning,

[7:27] so unfortunately I do not have too much for you on the slide.

[7:32] It's to kind of explain themselves as what their decision was made upon,

[7:37] but it was recommended for approval.

[7:40] And that request before you today is by the North Ranch LLC for approval of a

[7:46] rezoning and map amendment, one property totaling 47.55 acres,

[7:50] from the RR-5 to the RR-2.5 residential rural zoning district.

[7:55] The property is located along State Highway 83,

[7:58] and it is a little bit south of the intersection of State Highway 83 and

[8:04] intersection of State Highway 83 and Highway

[8:04] 105. This next slide is the criteria of approval,

[8:08] and I do appreciate that this board is very familiar with this slide and the

[8:14] criteria, but for anyone in the audience today,

[8:17] I do ask you read through this section briefly to understand how these

[8:23] briefly to understand how these applications

[8:23] are reviewed by staff staff and how a final determination is made by the Board

[8:29] final determination is made by the Board of

[8:29] County Commissioners. Next is the dimensional standards of the 2 zoning

[8:35] dimensional standards of the 2 zoning districts.

[8:36] I made bold the ones that were changing.

[8:39] So we're seeing, of course, with the R-5, there's a 5-acre lot size minimum,

[8:44] and then with the 2.5 reduces to the smaller zoning requirement for—

[8:49] that would permit for additional lots on the property that are 2.5 acres or

[8:55] the property that are 2.5 acres or greater.

[8:56] As we move down, we see that side setback is slightly different from the 25 feet,

[9:02] and then the smaller zoning district, 15 feet, as well as that max lot coverage.

[9:08] With the larger zoning district,

[9:10] it does have that 25% as opposed to We're getting to that smaller zoning district.

[9:16] There's a none. We move on to a zoning map, um,

[9:20] to give some context to general development trend— trends in the area, um,

[9:26] when certain other subdivisions and rezonings were approved,

[9:30] and to give context to this project.

[9:33] So I want to start from the north at the top of the page and then go down south to

[9:39] the bottom. We see the Moss subdivision that was denied recently in 2026.

[9:44] As we move to the east or to the right of the page,

[9:48] we see the Walden subdivision as our 0.5 half-acre lots that was approved in 1968.

[9:54] As we move closer to the subject property,

[9:58] there are a mixture of R-5 planned unit development and then R-2.5.

[10:03] So you see to the west the Cherry Creek Crossing PUD that was approved in 1997.

[10:09] that does have a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres.

[10:12] And we move to the west or to the right, Majestic Pines, R-2.5, and above that,

[10:18] that was the Walden subdivision, uh, R-5, approved in 1965.

[10:23] Next, I, I provide my analysis of the master plan and how this project fits and

[10:28] master plan and how this project fits and is,

[10:29] um, striving for general conformance with the large lot residential place type.

[10:35] That large lot residential place type provides recommendation for lots that are

[10:41] provides recommendation for lots that are 2.5

[10:41] acres or larger, reflecting the area's intent and existing low-density

[10:46] intent and existing low-density residential

[10:47] character. So the application's request to rezone the property is generally

[10:53] consistent with the master plan place type,

[10:56] as the proposed R2.5 zoning district continues to support large lot

[11:01] continues to support large lot single-family

[11:02] residential development in conformance with this place type.

[11:06] And for the record, the Board of County Commissioners makes that final decision if

[11:12] the application is in general conformance.

[11:16] But as far as my analysis of how this project fits with that 2.5 acres,

[11:21] that is what is recommended for this area in this place type.

[11:26] The master plan area of change is developed The master plan recommends that

[11:31] developed The master plan recommends that if

[11:31] development is to occur in this area, that the general character is maintained.

[11:37] My next bullet point discusses some other relevant zoning districts that are 2.5 and

[11:44] have that lot size of— that we're seeing here with this application.

[11:49] Key area of influence is the Tri-Lakes area.

[11:52] This area, in my opinion,

[11:54] is a bit of a mixture between that Tri-Lakes area to the west,

[11:59] where we see the towns of Monument, town of Palmer Lake, and then Woodmore,

[12:04] the census-designated area within the county.

[12:08] And then if we look down to the south,

[12:11] we see more of that traditional Black Forest area of the county.

[12:15] And then And then if we go just a bit east, we see Eastonville,

[12:20] a much more rural area. So it is kind of a combination of those areas.

[12:25] However, the master plan defines this property within that Tri-Lakes area.

[12:31] The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with this key area and goal,

[12:37] as the surrounding area is characterized again with that rural residential

[12:42] development.

[12:43] Thank you.

[12:47] Next, uh, handful of slides are regarding traffic and engineering,

[12:51] so I'll turn it over to, um,

[12:53] your staff member to discuss those items.

[12:56] Good morning, Brett Diltz, El Paso County Department of Public Works.

[13:01] A transportation impact study was submitted with this rezone request.

[13:06] Uh, in that study, they anticipate this development to generate about 127 daily

[13:12] trips. Those trips will be served by an extension of existing Needles Drive that

[13:18] would turn to the north.

[13:19] An emergency access has been granted by CDOT to access Highway 83.

[13:24] That will be on the north end of the property.

[13:28] Road impact fees are applicable for this project.

[13:31] There was a slight discretion— slight issue with the traffic impact study.

[13:37] They had 125 trips identified versus 127.

[13:40] Okay.

[13:40] So it does show 200 trips versus 202 trips.

[13:43] 200 trips is our threshold for paving the roadways.

[13:46] When we get this in for a final plat,

[13:48] we will have a chance to re-review the traffic study submitted at that time.

[13:53] We will know their final number of lots and their actual number of trips at that

[13:58] time. If paving is required, we will determine it at the final plat stage.

[14:02] Any other questions for traffic for this project? Yes.

[14:11] Drainage.

[14:12] The project is located in the West Cherry Creek Drainage Basin.

[14:16] That basin is not part of the bridge fee programs.

[14:19] There are no bridge or drainage basin fees applicable.

[14:21] With the rezoning, we do not get a drainage report or grading and erosion

[14:25] drainage report or grading and erosion control.

[14:26] Those will be reviewed at the final plat period.

[14:28] Any questions on drainage for this project?

[14:41] My next slide is on the public input portion of this project.

[14:45] Just for the record,

[14:46] I believe we received 24 public comments of opposition located within EDARP.

[14:52] 2 of those came in in the last few days, and they have been provided to the clerk.

[14:57] Some key phrases and items I recognized—

[15:00] some of those concerns over challenges over the roads and traffic,

[15:05] increased density, removal of trees, fire protection, water supply, light pollution,

[15:11] and the general location.

[15:12] Madam Chair, just for the record,

[15:15] I want to let you know that a handful of these items,

[15:18] such as water supply and fire protection,

[15:21] are looked at more in depth during an actual subdivision application.

[15:26] So that's not what's before you today. Again, it's just the rezone.

[15:31] So those items will be reviewed to code and reviewed more thoroughly by the

[15:36] and reviewed more thoroughly by the Monument

[15:37] Fire Protection District at a later time.

[15:39] During the September 3rd Planning Commission hearing,

[15:43] several citizens spoke in opposition to the application.

[15:47] And then, um, small change with this last bullet point.

[15:51] The subdivision application has been received.

[15:54] It's currently pending payment of review, um, which I would anticipate, um,

[15:59] would come further down if this application is approved.

[16:03] Lastly, the hearing notification.

[16:06] On August 19th, 2026, the, um,

[16:08] Planning Community Development Department mailed out hearing notices to 36

[16:13] neighboring property owners,

[16:15] and then the property was posted with those notices of public hearing dates,

[16:20] as well as it was posted in the Gazette.

[16:23] Are there any questions for me before I turn it over to the applicant

[16:28] turn it over to the applicant presentation?

[16:29] Okay, no questions at this time, so we'll bring up the applicant.

[17:05] Nina— sorry, Nina Dossi with Vertex Consulting for the Needles Highway 83

[17:11] Consulting for the Needles Highway 83 rezone.

[17:12] Oh, my mouse doesn't work, but let me see if the arrow works.

[17:17] Nope, that doesn't work either. Okay, now it's working. Sorry about that.

[17:23] Okay, so Joe covered this.

[17:25] The item was heard at the Planning Commission on September 3rd. The vote was

[17:32] Commission on September 3rd. The vote was 6 to 3.

[17:32] Those that voted no actually did not speak at all during that hearing,

[17:38] so it has every appearance of being a capricious decision on their part.

[17:45] When the chair asked them to speak and explain their no votes,

[17:50] they had no words at that time either. Thank you.

[17:54] As Joe identified, there were some public comments.

[17:58] Those public comments were primarily based on issues that will be discussed and

[18:05] analyzed during the subdivision stage,

[18:08] so they're not part of the rezoning criteria or rezoning considerations today.

[18:15] The only one that was brought up that is really a part of the rezone is traffic,

[18:22] and the traffic study has been approved and accepted by El Paso County.

[18:28] So for the purposes of the rezone hearing, that issue has been closed as well.

[18:35] So again, this is a request to rezone the property to RR2.5 from the RR5 zone

[18:41] district. The property is 19.4 acres in size.

[18:45] If you look at the surrounding zoning,

[18:48] you'll notice that it's surrounded by 2.5-acre lots within the PUD zone

[18:54] 2.5-acre lots within the PUD zone district,

[18:55] to the west, and then to the east and north is the RR-5 zone district,

[19:01] and then to the south is the RR-2.5 zone.

[19:05] If you look even further out,

[19:07] you'll notice that within Walden there are 1-acre lots,

[19:12] and then there's also even 5-acre lots within the area.

[19:17] So a 2.5-acre lot size and overall density is absolutely within character for this

[19:24] Area.

[19:24] Commissioner Williams.

[19:25] I'm sorry, is that one by Ray Kilmer, is that a 0.5 or is that a point—

[19:31] It's 0.5, so that, um, so a half an acre.

[19:33] Yeah, so the— I don't know, it's— they, they both look yellow on that screen

[19:38] they both look yellow on that screen there,

[19:38] but the one that looks more yellow. All right, thank you. Half-acre lots.

[19:43] Okay.

[19:49] So for the first criteria,

[19:51] I do want to read this just because there's an or in there,

[19:55] and I saw in some of the letters from the opposition there seems to be some

[20:01] confusion about this criteria. So just give me a second here.

[20:05] So the application is in general conformance with the El Paso County Master

[20:10] conformance with the El Paso County Master Plan,

[20:11] including applicable small area plans,

[20:13] or there has been a substantial Substantial change in the character of the

[20:19] neighborhood since the last— the land was last zoned.

[20:22] So the or means that you don't necessarily have to meet both of those,

[20:28] but only one of them is required.

[20:30] With that being said,

[20:31] I actually think that they do meet both of these aspects of the criteria,

[20:37] and I'll explain why.

[20:38] So Joe already covered the master plan,

[20:41] so I'll very briefly go through unless there are any questions.

[20:45] So as he identified, it's within the Tri Lakes Key Area,

[20:49] which recognizes that there's a great need for housing within this key area.

[20:55] It also just outlines that if there's development,

[20:58] it should align with the existing character.

[21:02] And as you can see on the map here,

[21:04] the existing character does include lot sizes all the way from half an acre to 5

[21:10] acres. So 2.5 acres is definitely within character.

[21:13] The area of change, minimal change developed,

[21:17] and it identifies that isolated vacant properties may develop at a higher

[21:22] properties may develop at a higher intensity.

[21:23] That's actually not what's being proposed here.

[21:26] So even though the master plan would allow for a higher intensity,

[21:31] what's being proposed is an equivalent to what's already within the area.

[21:36] On the map off to the left-hand side,

[21:39] you'll see that this is an underutilized vacant piece of property.

[21:43] When you look at it compared to the surrounding development,

[21:48] you'll see that it's much larger in size than what's around it.

[21:52] There are a few vacant parcels within the area, but this is,

[21:56] is one of the few that are within the area.

[21:59] You'll see up along Highway 83 on both the east and west side,

[22:04] there are some remaining vacant parcels.

[22:07] The place type is large lot residential,

[22:10] which specifically recommends lot sizes of and a half acres,

[22:14] so they're in compliance there as well.

[22:17] So I want to go back to this slide here just for that second criteria.

[22:22] So the second criteria, which is not a requirement because it's an or,

[22:27] states that there hasn't been a substantial change since the area was last

[22:32] substantial change since the area was last zoned.

[22:32] So this piece of property was zoned in 1955 to the RR-5 zone district.

[22:37] You can see that all of these existing developments, the Cherry Creek Crossing,

[22:43] Settlers, Dancing Wolf, and Walden, so both the older Walden and the newer

[22:48] both the older Walden and the newer Walden,

[22:49] were all developed after 1955.

[22:51] So there actually has been a change in their character since it was last zoned in

[22:57] 1955. So even though it's not a requirement that they meet both,

[23:01] in this instance they actually do. Oh, I skipped over this.

[23:06] So it's also within the priority development area,

[23:09] which specifically recommends 2.5 acres.

[23:12] Um, the priority development area is, uh,

[23:15] within the master plan because these are areas that the county fully anticipates

[23:21] developing sooner rather than later.

[23:23] So the second criteria is regarding statutory requirements.

[23:27] As you heard Joe state, all statutory requirements have been satisfied.

[23:32] The third, the proposed land use or zoning district is compatible with existing and

[23:38] permitted land uses and zone districts in all directions.

[23:42] So if you look at the existing and permitted land uses in all directions,

[23:48] you'll see that they include rural residential development as well as

[23:53] residential development as well as single-family

[23:54] residential development.

[23:55] And with our 2.5 zone district, it's going to stay the same.

[24:00] So not only are they compatible, but in this instance,

[24:03] they are actually exactly the same when you look at the land uses.

[24:08] The only difference is the lot size.

[24:11] The site is suitable for the intended use,

[24:14] including the ability to meet the Chapter 5 requirements.

[24:18] So these will really be further analyzed with the subdivision at the next stage.

[24:24] So at the next stage,

[24:25] staff will review to make sure that each lot is 2.5 acres in size, each lot meets—

[24:31] not listed here, but there's a 200-foot frontage requirement.

[24:35] And then even later on at the stage of building permit,

[24:39] it'll be determined if the proposed structures meet the setback and height

[24:44] requirements. But there's no reason to believe that This proposed development

[24:50] believe that This proposed development won't

[24:50] be able to meet the standards. Are there any questions?

[24:54] Questions from commissioners at

[24:59] this time? Commissioner Wysong.

[25:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just kind of an interesting point.

[25:10] I've got a few. Questions.

[25:12] Um, everything is labeled a RR whatever except for what's to the

[25:17] immediate north and to the east, um, on the map,

[25:22] which I just kind of felt that that was interesting that that was, uh,

[25:28] overlooked.

[25:29] Commissioner, I actually did state that to the north and to the east is RR 5.

[25:34] It stated, but it's not on the map. On any of your maps.

[25:40] Okay, um, question, and this may or may not be, um,

[25:45] it could be part of the, the, um, transportation element,

[25:50] but there is the, um, easement, AT&T easement,

[25:55] running all the way through, uh, the property.

[25:59] How is that being, um, addressed?

[26:03] So that'll be addressed as part of the subdivision.

[26:06] It's not a part of the criteria related to the rezone, but during the subdivision,

[26:12] that easement would need to either remain in place or be relocated.

[26:16] It's pretty unlikely that it'll be relocated.

[26:19] AT&T is— has not historically been a fan of moving all of their lines,

[26:24] and that's expensive to do.

[26:26] So most likely during the subdivision stage, it'll be shown as an easement,

[26:31] which means it's no-build. But that's not for the rezone, it's for the next stage.

[26:37] Okay, it, it just may have an impact is why I was curious.

[26:43] Um, you make note in your packet that only 14 homes will be, um,

[26:49] added Or 14 lots, um, with an average of 3.17 acres.

[26:54] And then if you look at what was provided, um,

[26:59] there's only one lot that even exceeds that. Uh, the rest of them are smaller.

[27:07] Now that could be taken up because you've— according to the, the site,

[27:14] you've got a retention pond.

[27:17] Um, but I just thought that was interesting, that how that was written.

[27:24] It just made it seem like, okay, average of over 3 acres, when in reality,

[27:31] based on the supplied plot plan, which may or may not be permanent, that only—

[27:39] again, only one of those lots even exceeded the 3.17. Um, next question.

[27:46] Commissioner, can I ask, um, we haven't submitted a subdivision yet.

[27:52] So, um, what we're proposing is 14 lots,

[27:56] but this zoning action is not necessarily tied to 14 lots.

[28:01] I understand.

[28:01] I want to be careful, um,

[28:03] careful to make sure that we're sticking to the criteria for the rezone,

[28:08] which the specific number of, of lots isn't a part of that.

[28:12] But maybe I'll look to the chair and see if maybe I'm off there.

[28:18] No, I would just say,

[28:19] let's make sure we are sticking to the criteria and please ask your questions.

[28:23] If you have comments, there will be time for comments as we get through the

[28:27] for comments as we get through the hearing.

[28:27] This is traffic study question.

[28:31] I've got kind of 2 key questions,

[28:35] so I'm going to assume that you're familiar with the traffic

[28:42] study. On page 5, and again on page 4 is what I was looking at,

[28:49] but on page 5 it talks that there's nothing going to be done to

[28:56] Highway 83 until 2045, so approximately 20 years.

[29:02] And I, I just wanted to kind of get Your opinion on, um,

[29:08] with the traffic study, uh,

[29:11] stating that it's not going to be really looked at until 2045.

[29:18] Is that something that could ultimately have an impact on the—

[29:26] basically the doubling of the density of the proposed piece of

[29:33] property?

[29:34] Commissioner, I just pulled up the traffic study because I don't know every single

[29:39] page. So let me just make sure that we're talking about the same paragraph.

[29:44] You said page— what was it?

[29:46] You're on it.

[29:46] Okay. And then you mentioned 2045.

[29:50] I don't see 2045 on this bottom paragraph. The very bottom.

[29:57] Okay, let me look. Okay, so that's a CDOT. So that's CDOT's plan.

[30:04] So the traffic study, of course,

[30:08] has to take a look at CDOT's future plans.

[30:13] So CDOT's current configuration and their future plans.

[30:19] This applicant and nobody in the county has any control over the

[30:26] timing of CDOT's improvements.

[30:30] So just like in El Paso County,

[30:33] they have long-range plans that the county hopes to get there.

[30:40] There's no guarantees in 2045 of if they will have the widening

[30:48] completed. Is that what you're asking?

[30:52] It was just interesting that it's, you know, You know,

[30:56] almost 20 years out before it's even on the plan.

[30:59] And, and I understand the criteria, but—

[31:02] Yeah.

[31:03] It just— looking at the traffic information provided,

[31:08] that it was just stuck out at me.

[31:11] And I was just curious if there was anything else that potentially was to

[31:18] go along with that particular date. Because it's 20 years out.

[31:24] It's the same as El Paso County's MTCP,

[31:27] where the MTCP outlines different roadway widths depending on which year you're

[31:33] looking at. So the MTCP looks at, you know, 2045 and beyond.

[31:37] And so you may have seen subdivisions come before you,

[31:41] and I know we're getting outside of the subdivision— or sorry, rezone criteria,

[31:47] but I'll just answer this really quickly.

[31:50] You may have seen subdivisions come before you where there's right-of-way that's

[31:56] actually being dedicated, and then there's preservation,

[32:00] and that preservation is for a future state of widening.

[32:04] So CDOT does the same thing where they look at, okay, in the future,

[32:09] what does this road need to look like?

[32:12] And they've identified that in 2045, they think it needs to be widened,

[32:17] but it's the same same situation as El Paso County has, where it may be widened,

[32:23] it may not be widened. It's a future plan.

[32:26] El Paso County and specific applicants have no control over that timing,

[32:32] and individual subdivisions such as this one would have no control over that and

[32:38] certainly wouldn't be obligated to do a widening when it's Not required at this

[32:44] widening when it's Not required at this time

[32:44] and may not even be required at a later date.

[32:47] Okay, then on, um, I guess existing, if you just—

[32:53] whether you need to or not, it doesn't really—

[32:59] the next map kind of stops at Walden Way and it

[33:05] doesn't go any further north.

[33:08] But did this take into account, um,

[33:13] the school as far as class schedules, timing, etc.,

[33:19] etc.?

[33:19] The traffic study, the limits— and you can ask,

[33:23] you can confirm with staff because I'm not a traffic engineer, um,

[33:28] so I'll just give you my understanding.

[33:30] Uh, so the, the traffic study,

[33:32] there's specific criteria within El Paso County's adopted codes That identifies how

[33:38] far out you need to study based upon the anticipated traffic,

[33:43] and so for this particular study,

[33:45] it's determined that what you see here was as far out as they needed to go based on

[33:51] the anticipated traffic that would be generated.

[33:54] So just like you know,

[33:56] you wouldn't go all the way out to I-25 because then where do you stop?

[34:01] There's specific criteria in place.

[34:04] And so the county staff, when they reviewed the traffic study,

[34:08] they reviewed the scope of it and they reviewed to see if the traffic consultant

[34:14] reviewed to see if the traffic consultant had

[34:14] gone far enough out.

[34:15] And so it's been approved because based on the county-specific criteria,

[34:20] they have analyzed far enough out.

[34:23] Okay.

[34:24] Check with staff on that. I'm not a traffic engineer.

[34:27] I just didn't know where actually to kind of start on those questions.

[34:33] And I think we'll have another opportunity to check in with staff.

[34:37] And I do think staff already did say that they would take a closer look at traffic

[34:43] in a future stage. And so that's not as specific to the criteria here today.

[34:48] So let's keep it within the criteria for—

[34:50] within the legal bounds of what we are able to consider today, please. Okay.

[34:55] Do you have any additional questions from commissioners for the applicant? Okay.

[35:01] Thank you.

[35:02] All right. So we will now move to the public input portion of the hearing.

[35:08] And we will begin with those who are in support.

[35:12] So if you are here to speak in support, I'd ask you to come forward at this time.

[35:19] Okay. Seeing none, I will ask if there are those that are here to speak in

[35:26] opposition to come forward at this time.

[35:30] And as, um, is typical here, we do need to sign in.

[35:34] We need you to state your name for the record, and you will have 3 minutes.

[35:41] My name is Dean Couture.

[35:43] My wife and I have lived at the end— in the west end of Needles Drive for 33

[35:49] the west end of Needles Drive for 33 years,

[35:49] so we're probably one of the closest neighbors to this subdivision.

[35:55] Um, I did want to clarify something because it sounds like the traffic study

[36:01] because it sounds like the traffic study has

[36:01] already been kind of accepted,

[36:04] and you're talking about later that it'll be looked at further.

[36:09] In reference to what Bill was bringing up about Highway 83, um,

[36:14] we'd have to go back and look at the records, but I also subdivided Majestic

[36:20] records, but I also subdivided Majestic Pines,

[36:21] which is a property to the south of this.

[36:24] Um, I was required to give an easement to Highway 83.

[36:28] So that if and when they did widen it, it was there.

[36:33] So maybe that same thing should be happening here. Um, okay.

[36:38] Um, so like I said, my wife and I did Majestic Pines,

[36:42] so we're familiar with the process.

[36:45] This new development is about 200 or 300 yards north of Majestic Pines.

[36:51] Majestic Pines was 21 2.5-acre lots.

[36:54] Um, I don't know if I can have Nia or somebody put up a map,

[36:58] but I can probably just explain just as well. Um, Needles Drive comes off of

[37:05] well. Um, Needles Drive comes off of Walden.

[37:05] Blue Heron Springs, which is the subdivision that we attached our road to—

[37:11] or actually the road that we attached to Yeah, I don't—

[37:16] I'll probably just explain it easier.

[37:19] Um, so Walden Way and Timber Meadows are basically the same street that has changed

[37:26] names. So that road goes north and south, and Blue Heron Springs,

[37:31] which is Majestic Pines, goes straight west and dead ends. So does Needles.

[37:37] There's a couple swigs and swags, but otherwise they're identical.

[37:42] So So though it's been nice to live at the end of a dead-end street with very little

[37:49] traffic for the last several years,

[37:52] I don't have anything against the development except the amount of homes on

[37:58] development except the amount of homes on the

[37:58] dead-end street that's going to be dirt.

[38:02] I also have an issue with the requirements not the same.

[38:06] Please keep in mind that Needles Drive is currently a dirt road.

[38:12] And I believe this new project would add 14 additional homes plus the 13 that are

[38:18] already there, totaling 27, all on a dirt road.

[38:22] Also consider this proposal is asking for 2.5-acre lots.

[38:27] Like it was mentioned earlier, uh, the,

[38:30] the surrounding lots are 5-acre lots on 3 sides.

[38:34] And only Highway 83 is on the west side.

[38:37] To the north, east, and south are 5-acre lots. So do with that what we will.

[38:43] But across Highway 83, it is 2.5-acre lots. I understand that.

[38:48] When we did Majestic Pines—

[38:50] Thank you, sir. Your time has expired.

[38:58] That was 3 minutes?

[38:59] Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition?

[39:06] Hi, I'm John Boydston.

[39:08] Um, I've lived in this area for 40-some-odd years and in Walden for almost

[39:14] 40-some-odd years and in Walden for almost 20.

[39:14] Since we moved in, the amount of traffic and the reason I'm late here today on 83

[39:21] between Hodgdon and 105 is is crazy. The amount of of increase of traffic.

[39:27] Worse, those two intersections have had more accidents in the last five years than

[39:34] the whole time I've been here for almost a half of. You know, a decade.

[39:40] Why are you guys allowing more congestion in an area that's having so many problems?

[39:47] I mean, people are dying at those intersections because you guys are just

[39:54] intersections because you guys are just letting

[39:54] more and more and more houses in there.

[39:58] You know, they put that school in there originally.

[40:02] The school wasn't even supposed to be there because they were having so many

[40:08] problems with, like, congestion and the fact 83 wasn't widened.

[40:14] When they put in Flying Horse,

[40:16] they made the developers widen it because of problems with traffic,

[40:22] because of death. You know, we almost got burned up with fire,

[40:27] and now you guys are allowing this to happen.

[40:31] I'm disappointed because you guys are elected officials and you're supposed to

[40:38] represent us.

[40:39] Bill Wysong.

[40:44] You're doing a good job. We appreciate what you do.

[40:47] We really do.

[40:49] The rest of you guys, I wish you would just kind of look at what's happening

[40:53] just kind of look at what's happening here.

[40:53] You're, you're siding with developers and people that are turning our neighborhood

[40:58] into something terrible. That's all I have to say.

[41:00] Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition?

[41:04] I'm just going to ask, please direct your comments to the criteria, please.

[41:08] That is what is helpful for us since that's what we need to make our decision.

[41:12] Thank you. My name is Tom Tijerina.

[41:15] The conceptual site plan shows the 47 acres divided into every shape to maximize

[41:23] the number of 2.5-acre lots, 14.

[41:26] This approach is to maximize profits as part of the real estate process.

[41:32] I think we can all agree upon that.

[41:36] As a result of the conceptual site plan,

[41:39] the first reason I'm opposed to this rezoning is due to safety.

[41:45] First, the gravel road closely parallels Highway 83 with no barriers.

[41:51] It's just a matter of time until an accident on the gravel road and the yard

[41:58] accident on the gravel road and the yard of

[41:58] lots 7 to 14 due to a vehicle from the highway.

[42:03] Thank you.

[42:04] Second, the Needles gravel road extension is not likely to be plowed during the

[42:10] winter months and therefore not receive emergency services.

[42:14] Third, part of the Needles extension appears to be in the detention pond.

[42:19] The second reason I'm opposed is because the rezoning is not coordinated with the

[42:25] future expansion of Highway 83.

[42:27] For the BOCC to continue approving these individual rezoning applications without

[42:33] coordination with public infrastructure is irresponsible. Thank you.

[42:38] And if there's anyone else who would like to speak,

[42:42] I'd ask you if you could move forward so that we can just minimize transition time

[42:50] and maximize everyone's time here today.

[43:25] I oppose the Needles rezoning P-268.

[43:28] The applicant cites the master plan's direction to use and extend existing

[43:33] infrastructure and strengthen established neighborhoods.

[43:37] Those words should have consequences for the decision before you.

[43:41] The limit for leaving Needles Drive unpaved is 200 trips a day.

[43:46] That is exactly what the traffic memo projects.

[43:49] But other figures in the same memo add up to 202.

[43:53] Staff said corrected studies had been requested,

[43:56] and this may have been addressed in the staff report I could not hear,

[44:01] but nonetheless, that discrepancy must be resolved before the board accepts the

[44:07] conclusions that paving is unnecessary.

[44:09] At Highway 83 and Walden Way,

[44:11] the memo says a southbound left turn lane may be required because projected Turning

[44:17] traffic exceeds the threshold at sites,

[44:20] yet no public road improvements are recommended.

[44:23] Planning Commissioner Eric Moraes raised a broader concern even as he voted to

[44:29] recommend approval. When do repeated reductions in lot size stop maintaining a

[44:34] neighborhood's character and begin replacing it?

[44:38] Here, land zoned for 5-acre lots adjoins the site to the north and east.

[44:43] Smaller lots would allow more homes besides those neighbors.

[44:47] The applicant says the neighbors' letters do not address the criteria.

[44:52] The letter of intent itself quotes the code's definition of compatibility.

[44:57] It names noise and landscaping,

[44:59] and it ties compatibility to maintaining the character of existing development.

[45:05] Neighbors wrote about highway noise and the trees that buffer it.

[45:10] Those are compatibility concerns.

[45:12] The county can gradually replace a neighborhood's character while claiming to

[45:17] preserve it. Each rezoning points to the one before it as justification.

[45:22] The draft resolution is already written to declare that this change serves the

[45:28] health, safety, and welfare of community residents.

[45:31] The board must show how the evidence supports that finding.

[45:36] Approving now would decide the density before the road questions are answered.

[45:41] before the road questions are answered. Mr.

[45:41] Moraes's question reaches beyond this one application.

[45:45] I would have raised it in general public comment,

[45:49] but today's meeting offers no time for items not on the agenda,

[45:53] though some land use meetings do.

[45:55] Last week, the county's Constitution Day post said We the People includes you and

[46:01] invites us and invites residents to learn how they can participate.

[46:06] With the Land Development Code rewrite under public review,

[46:10] please include that time at every land use meeting. I ask you to deny P-268.

[46:15] You are not prepared to— and if you're not prepared to deny it,

[46:20] please continue this hearing until those concerns are addressed and the supporting

[46:26] evidence Is available for public review.

[46:30] Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this

[46:36] application today? Okay, seeing none, I will— sorry about that.

[46:42] We will move on from the public input portion,

[46:45] and we will proceed to the rebuttal portion from the applicant.

[46:50] Nina Dossi with Vertex.

[46:52] So many of the comments provided were again related to the subdivision and not

[46:59] again related to the subdivision and not the

[46:59] rezone. So the specific layout, the need for dedicating or preserving right-of-way.

[47:06] Fire-related concerns, things like that will all be handled with the subdivision.

[47:13] That's not something that we can discuss today because county staff hasn't reviewed

[47:20] it to see if I were to respond if we're in compliance or not.

[47:25] That'll be at a later date.

[47:27] There were concerns regarding the compatibility of 5-acre lots adjacent to

[47:33] compatibility of 5-acre lots adjacent to 2.5-acre

[47:34] lots. A 5-acre lot is absolutely compatible with a 2.5-acre lot.

[47:39] If you look at the uses permitted within the RR 2.5 zone district and the RR 5 zone

[47:46] district, they are essentially the same.

[47:50] So typically when you're looking at compatibility,

[47:54] you look at the use to use and you look at the potential impacts and the bulk and

[48:01] scale standards. And in this instance, the only difference is the lot size,

[48:07] so 5 acres versus 2.5 acres, and then the side setback of 25 feet versus 15 feet.

[48:14] Those are absolutely compatible.

[48:16] So the 2 zone districts are compatible with one another.

[48:21] Not necessarily related to the criteria,

[48:24] but I do just feel the need to respond to this.

[48:28] Somebody had identified that they were disappointed in that you're not

[48:34] disappointed in that you're not representing

[48:35] the county. I would just like to remind everyone that there's specific criteria in

[48:42] place that you are obligated to follow and to make all of your decisions based upon

[48:49] that specific criteria so that you're not making arbitrary and capricious decisions,

[48:56] and so that everyone is judged based upon the exact same criteria.

[49:01] And you know what you're going into.

[49:04] So I just— I know that's not related to the criteria,

[49:09] but that's something that keeps on coming up. So I just felt the need to say that.

[49:16] There were also comments regarding maintenance of Needles and that it's not

[49:22] maintenance of Needles and that it's not perhaps

[49:23] not being properly maintained. This is a county roadway.

[49:27] So the county has accepted this road and is maintaining this road.

[49:33] So the road is being maintained per El Paso County standards.

[49:38] That shouldn't be a consideration for today.

[49:41] Any future road for the subdivision would be reviewed for design,

[49:47] and then it would be determined at that time if it's going to be a public road or

[49:54] time if it's going to be a public road or a

[49:54] private road through that review process.

[49:57] If it becomes a public road,

[50:00] then it would be maintained just like Needles Drive under the same criteria that

[50:06] Needles Drive under the same criteria that the

[50:06] county's outlined. I wanted to just— this keeps on coming up,

[50:12] and it is somewhat related to the criteria, so just bear with me.

[50:17] I'm just going to go into eDERP real quick.

[50:21] Okay, so what you see here is the comment response from our traffic engineer to the

[50:28] county. So this is publicly available. It's already on eDERP.

[50:33] The issue keeps on coming up of having 202 trips versus 200 trips,

[50:38] and the traffic engineer actually did address that in a comment response.

[50:44] So let me just get to the page. I'm sorry, it's going so slow here.

[50:50] Oh, it was— let me see. These page numbers are not the same. Oops. Here we go. Okay.

[50:57] There we go. Okay. So this is the comment provided.

[51:01] We're still Staff has identified 127, and what you see is 125.

[51:06] And the traffic engineer responded by saying trip generation volumes are

[51:12] saying trip generation volumes are estimates,

[51:13] therefore ADTs are rounded to the nearest 5.

[51:17] So you've heard many comments about 127 versus 125.

[51:21] The reason for that is it's an estimate.

[51:24] You'll notice that every single number on this sheet is rounded to the nearest 5.

[51:31] So it's not in fact an error, it's the way that this study has been drafted,

[51:38] and it would not have been approved by county staff if it were an outstanding

[51:44] county staff if it were an outstanding error.

[51:45] Again, on— this is page 23 of that, which is publicly available.

[51:50] This is our comment response.

[51:52] The same comment you'll see here: 75 plus 127 equals 202.

[51:57] The traffic engineer has provided a response,

[52:01] which again is identifying that there's existing ADT 70 background because they

[52:07] always increase for anticipated background 73 and the actual trip generation for the

[52:14] proposed development 127, which equals 200. So there actually is not an error.

[52:21] There's no conflict either. The numbers are consistent.

[52:26] Throughout the document,

[52:28] and it's it's general practice to provide an estimate on this specific sheet.

[52:34] You'll look at many traffic studies and see that they're rounding to the nearest

[52:41] five for this specific sheet, but in the actual data of the traffic study,

[52:47] they provide more specific numbers. I think I covered everything.

[52:52] Oh, there's one last thing here, which is regarding replacing the character.

[52:59] There were comments.

[53:00] That the county may eventually be replacing the character through each

[53:06] replacing the character through each zoning

[53:07] action. Let me just go back to my presentation. Okay.

[53:11] I'm going to just go to this sheet here. So the master plan was adopted in 2021.

[53:18] And so that's what this application is reviewed based upon.

[53:23] In 2021, All of the subdivisions that you see there were already in place.

[53:29] So Cherry Creek Crossing already in place, Walden Preserve already in place,

[53:35] the R-0.5 already in place.

[53:38] This is actually the first zoning action in this particular area that the county

[53:44] in this particular area that the county and

[53:44] board is reviewing since that master plan.

[53:48] So it's not the case of, sure,

[53:50] it's in character because the county has changed things over and over and over

[53:57] again. This is the first one that's being reviewed and potentially approved by the

[54:04] county with— under this new master plan.

[54:07] So I don't think that that's a fair statement either. So are there any

[54:13] statement either. So are there any questions?

[54:14] Did I miss anything?

[54:16] Any questions from commissioners? Okay, thank you so much.

[54:21] I will now see if we have any additional questions for staff.

[54:27] Okay, so if we can have staff come up to answer traffic

[54:32] questions.

[54:33] Thank

[54:37] you,

[54:41] Madam

[54:45] Chair.

[54:50] Uh, just a couple of clarifying questions.

[54:54] On page 2 of the traffic, where it said access comments 3, um, they said,

[55:00] please clarify these 3 access permits are needed as the development is only

[55:06] proposing changing 1 existing access to Highway 83.

[55:10] I didn't see any kind of an answer to that statement, so I was just curious.

[55:16] So the access permits there are for CDOT.

[55:19] Uh, they did indicate in their response letter, their comment letter,

[55:23] that 3 access permits will be required.

[55:25] Um, one of them will be for the emergency access at the current driveway location.

[55:30] One of those will be to close an existing field access, as they called it,

[55:34] which is just north of the existing driveway.

[55:37] And then the 3rd access permit would be for the access, I believe, at, um,

[55:41] Hodgdon and Highway 83 on the south side of the project.

[55:44] Okay, I just didn't see a response, and so that's why I was just curious.

[55:51] Because it was kind of open-ended.

[55:54] And then I guess back to the—

[55:57] I think it was page either 5 or 7 of the traffic study.

[56:02] It listed the hours, AM, PM.

[56:04] And I— this is just, I guess, kind of a general question that—

[56:10] Are traffic studies typically Um,

[56:13] incorporate when you have school in a close proximity and look at the hours of

[56:20] close proximity and look at the hours of the,

[56:20] the school when they, they, you know,

[56:23] students are supposed to be there and when they get out.

[56:29] And is that something that we typically look at?

[56:33] So, you know, we— this traffic study stated started at 4 for the PM.

[56:39] Um, Um, when does the school get out?

[56:42] Because are you missing potentially traffic that has a daily impact during

[56:49] traffic that has a daily impact during school

[56:50] session?

[56:50] Sure, we do have a lot of projects that do analyze at the school release,

[56:54] so they'll start analyzing at 3 to 5 or from 2 to 4, something along those lines.

[56:59] This project did not do that with the school not in immediate proximity.

[57:03] I do realize the school is to the north some degree,

[57:05] but this is not directly adjacent to the school site.

[57:08] So we do have some projects where they will, and we ask them to,

[57:12] but it is not required by our criteria for that.

[57:14] And when you ask, or it's further to the north,

[57:19] what is your typical, uh, boundary? Um, you go a quarter mile?

[57:24] Do you go that just one intersection up,

[57:28] not including that intersection?

[57:31] It's just kind of a curiosity question as So part of our criteria does state that

[57:36] any pedestrian routes within 2 miles of a school to be included.

[57:41] Overland route— I'm trying to see the criteria.

[57:44] Morning,

[57:50] Commissioners.

[58:02] Dan Torres with Department of Public Works. Chime in a little bit on the

[58:07] Works. Chime in a little bit on the school.

[58:08] Primarily, we will look at when there's direct impacts from the development to the

[58:13] school where they would add to that traffic.

[58:16] A good example would be the previous zoning application just north next to the

[58:21] Monument Academy School that came in where their direct traffic would impact the

[58:26] school traffic.

[58:27] Okay.

[58:27] And that's where that traffic study would analyze both the peak hour of the

[58:32] development and also the school traffic, and they would include that.

[58:36] In this case, as Brett said, there's not direct impacts to that,

[58:40] and also the peak hour traffic for these single-family homes wouldn't align with

[58:45] that. So you would have less traffic typically from the development that would

[58:50] impact during that time of day that the school is coming out.

[58:54] Okay, what about coming into the development though?

[59:00] From either in or out, that time period,

[59:03] you're going to have a different peak hour for that development in

[59:07] comparison to the school's peak hour.

[59:09] Okay, um, that, that

[59:13] is all at this point.

[59:17] Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

[59:21] Okay, any other questions for staff before— okay,

[59:25] so we are going to close this public hearing.

[59:28] We will bring it up here for deliberations.

[59:32] I'll ask, um, for a motion or comments at this time.

[59:36] Uh, you know, this is in my district. I do have a few comments.

[59:41] Um, I do think it's important.

[59:43] I know 20 years down the line, um, I,

[59:46] I believe Highway 83 will have specific access points,

[59:49] and I believe that CDOT will come down and state that,

[59:53] much like Powers has specific access points.

[59:56] I'm not even so sure that Needles, um, in 20 years from now,

[1:00:01] they'll probably just have a ride-in, ride-out, would be my guess.

[1:00:05] Um, it's— it is a major road.

[1:00:08] It will be a major road, and I suspect that Um, in the future,

[1:00:12] El Paso County will be having to work closely with CDOT to determine what those

[1:00:18] access points are. But more importantly to this application, um,

[1:00:22] my requirements in a quasi-judicial manner—

[1:00:25] and I know that the opposition will disagree with me here—

[1:00:29] is to consider that it meets the master plan, it meets our land use code.

[1:00:35] It meets requirements. I'm sorry, I'm reading my computer.

[1:00:39] It meets the requirements listed in the resolution, and it meets—

[1:00:43] and that the conditions and the notations are met. I believe that it does.

[1:00:49] I believe that with surrounding acreage around the properties,

[1:00:53] I think that the 2.5-acre standard has been in our master plan listed as a

[1:00:58] been in our master plan listed as a standard

[1:00:59] that we will accept in this area.

[1:01:01] Um, as some of you may be aware,

[1:01:04] a couple weeks ago I was not happy with the proposal that came in front of us.

[1:01:09] And, um, I try to come in with an open mind, listen to both sides,

[1:01:14] but I truly do believe that this application meets the criteria.

[1:01:19] And in my role as commissioner, I do believe that when I see it meets the

[1:01:24] believe that when I see it meets the criteria,

[1:01:24] I will vote yes. So, um,

[1:01:26] I didn't know if there were any other comments before I make a motion.

[1:01:31] Commissioner, can anybody— can still make comments if they want.

[1:01:35] If you'd like to make the motion, that's fine. We can still have comments.

[1:01:39] We're not going to—

[1:01:40] someone gets comment.

[1:01:41] Yeah, did you want to make a motion then?

[1:01:44] Sure, I'll move approval of the application including the, um,

[1:01:48] 2 conditions, and I believe there were 4 notations,

[1:01:51] but let me check.

[1:01:52] I, I don't think we have— I think it automatically includes them,

[1:01:55] so I don't think we have—

[1:01:56] I'll move approv— approval of the Second.

[1:02:01] Okay, it's been moved and seconded. And any additional comments?

[1:02:04] Commissioner Wysong.

[1:02:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. Could, could we get that map back up that was showing?

[1:02:10] Maybe—

[1:02:20] do you—

[1:02:21] which specific map are you referring to?

[1:02:22] The one that was up before they put the agenda back up.

[1:02:29] There we go. Thank you.

[1:02:32] In, in looking at the map, to be consistent, um,

[1:02:39] with the criteria, we have to come back to neighborhood, um,

[1:02:47] and I, I don't consider a substantial change change in this

[1:02:55] particular neighborhood because if you look at the subject

[1:03:02] property, it is zoned RR-5 surrounding.

[1:03:08] It's not there in the white box there.

[1:03:13] Walden subdivision RR-5 surrounds it.

[1:03:18] It's a triangle, so it only has 3 sides, 2 sides, which,

[1:03:25] you know, that really kind of creates a neighborhood.

[1:03:32] And I find it, um, that it— in order to be consistent,

[1:03:39] that that's part of the neighborhood.

[1:03:44] Crossing a major highway isn't part of the neighborhood.

[1:03:52] And so I'm looking at this subject property and the Walden

[1:03:59] subdivision as a neighborhood,

[1:04:03] and I don't see a substantial change.

[1:04:08] Um, and I think it should stay, uh, RR5, um,

[1:04:14] and I'll be voting no on this, um, amendment.

[1:04:20] Any other additional comments? Commissioner Nelson?

[1:04:27] I find that all of the criteria have been met.

[1:04:31] Uh, there's conformance with the El Paso County Master Plan in stating that, um,

[1:04:38] 2.5 is expected to be developed in this area.

[1:04:43] Um, there are plenty of 2.5-acre lots surrounding this, um, request,

[1:04:49] this application, and not to mention even up to 1, uh,

[1:04:54] 1.5 or half-acre lots within this, um, community.

[1:04:58] Uh, the application is in compliance with applicable statutory provisions.

[1:05:05] The land use and zone district is compatible with, as I mentioned, the

[1:05:12] compatible with, as I mentioned, the surrounding,

[1:05:13] um, acreage that we're seeing in this community, and, um,

[1:05:18] the criteria within our land development code have been met.

[1:05:24] So it's very clear to me that this should be approved.

[1:05:29] I'll just make a few of my own comments as well.

[1:05:32] I appreciate the comments of my colleagues noting that this is very clearly in

[1:05:38] conformance, general conformance with the master plan.

[1:05:42] I think the applicant did a good job of pointing out it does not have to be both,

[1:05:49] that I do think it also meets both. Compatibility does not mean the same.

[1:05:54] All of these things. Um. 2.5 acres and 5 acres.

[1:05:58] This is all very clear both in our master plan and I think common sense that, uh,

[1:06:04] those are compatible with each other.

[1:06:07] And that, um, that it is clear that it—

[1:06:10] our master plan specifically says 2.5-acre lots.

[1:06:13] Um, so it'd be very difficult for me to say how we could say that's not in general

[1:06:20] conformance when it is very explicit in our master plan.

[1:06:24] And it doesn't have to meet both.

[1:06:26] I think that some of the questions that were brought up, and I do understand,

[1:06:32] you know, we all have concerns about traffic.

[1:06:36] There is going to be growth, and that's not a bad thing.

[1:06:40] But we do have to make sure that we are appropriate looking at those things.

[1:06:46] We've heard from our traffic folks.

[1:06:48] Very specifically that they are meeting these requirements and that some of the

[1:06:54] comments around the dirt road,

[1:06:57] that will be decided if it has met when we get down the road on this.

[1:07:02] So it is our legal responsibility and quite frankly an ethical responsibility to

[1:07:08] only apply the criteria that is in front of us. That is what is fair.

[1:07:13] I understand It won't matter, but I'll say it anyway.

[1:07:17] If any commissioner is here representing anybody, they are not in legal compliance.

[1:07:24] The requirement for commissioners here is to be neutral and not represent any party

[1:07:30] on this dais. That is our legal responsibility and our ethical

[1:07:35] responsibility and our ethical responsibility to be

[1:07:36] fair to a property owner.

[1:07:38] It is not the government's job to decide what we like and what we do not like.

[1:07:44] It is our job to apply the rules as written. That's what makes this process

[1:07:50] written. That's what makes this process fair.

[1:07:50] That is why it is quasi-judicial, in the same way that it would be wholly,

[1:07:56] wholly inappropriate for a judge across the street to represent any party in front

[1:08:02] of them. And that is the difference.

[1:08:05] We wear many hats as commissioners when we are dealing with legislative issues.

[1:08:11] We can have that hat on where we are representing the people of our district in

[1:08:17] representing the people of our district in the

[1:08:17] decision that we are making.

[1:08:19] But the law is very clear when it comes to these quasi-judicial matters that that is

[1:08:26] not our role. And you may dislike that, but it is the law.

[1:08:30] And so I find that this has met that.

[1:08:33] And I understand that there are frustrations about what you want.

[1:08:38] And what you want to happen. But, but we have to follow the law.

[1:08:43] It's incredibly important, and I think it's very clear, with zero doubt to me,

[1:08:49] that this meets the criteria. So I will be voting yes.

[1:08:53] With that, are there any other comments?

[1:08:56] Okay, we will begin the vote with Commissioner Wysong.

[1:09:00] No.

[1:09:02] Vice Chair Nelson?

[1:09:03] Aye.

[1:09:03] Commissioner Williams?

[1:09:06] Aye.

[1:09:06] And the chair votes aye. That passes 3-1.

[1:09:11] Item 7. Item number 7 is department and

[1:09:17] committee reports, non-action items,

[1:09:22] and there are none.

[1:09:24] Item 8.

[1:09:26] Item number 8 is the addendum, and there are no addendums.

[1:09:29] Item 9.

[1:09:31] Item number 9 is the executive session,

[1:09:33] and there is no requests for executive session.

[1:09:35] Okay, with that, we've come to the end of this agenda. This meeting is adjourned.

BOCC Land Use Meeting

Transcript