November 13, 2019

Commissioner Koenig

Assessor Parcel Number Board of County Commissioners Capital Improvement Plan Conditional Use Permit Federal Emergency Management Agency General Commercial Manufactured Home Nye County Code Nevada Revised Statues Pahrump Regional Planning District Public Works Right-of-Way Regional Planning Commission Single-Family Residential Zone Change Pledge of Allegiance/Call to Order Meeting called to order at 6:02 pm

Mr. Waggoner

stated the signage bill was rejected and they have conducted several workshops and have asked for everyone to submit their comments by the end of the month to the Planning Department in written form. Commission/Committee/Director Reports: a. BOCC Liaison Report - BOCC Liaison — John Koenig None. b. Director’s Report Total Planning applications 138, decrease of 27 from last month. Applications processed 154 a decrease of 27 from last month. Building permits, 28 SFR permits, decrease of 10, no multifamily, 31 MH 6 more than last month. Total permits 225, 4 more than last month and total inspections 535 inspections, decrease of 111 from last month, Code Compliance had 31 new complaints, 35 more than last month, they closed 26 which was 44 less than last month. Previous items heard by the RPC. Signage bill was rejected by the BOCC and they have been conducting workshops and once comments have been received the RPC will receive another draft to review. ZC-2019-000040 was recommended for approval by the RPC at the September meeting and heard by the BOCC on 10/15 and it was approved by the BOCC. Ex Parte Communications and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statements

Commissioner Turner

recused himself from Item 11 a and b. He is the representing real estate agent for the buyer and seller.

Commissioner DeAnda

stated for item 11 a and b, Michael Selbach was her real estate agent and for Item 13, the agent is her next door neighbor. SITTING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 7. For Possible Action: Discussion and Direction on Capital Improvement Plan Status Update. (DL)

Commissioner Lee

stated in regard to the timeframe for updating the CIP there is NRS 278.B.290 stating each local government which imposes an impact fee shall review and may revise the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least once every 3 years. The 3-year period begins upon the adoption of the capital improvements plan by the local government. Celeste Sandoval stated Mr. Lacy has additional back up that needs to be accepted into the meeting.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to approve additional back up. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Beth Lee, Carol Curtis, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Pamela Tyler, Robert Blackstock, Tom Duryea, Walt Turner. Darrell Lacy stated that he has been working on the assumptions. They are looking at a 10-year view on what needs to be done. We are going to follow the 2005 Tichler Bise Study and update it as needed. The categories are Parks, Fire, Streets, Police/Sheriff, Drainage and flood. The drainage and flood were not adopted in the 2005 report. There was a moratorium on impact fees in 2012-2014 time frame. We need to identify the projects for the next 10 years, calculate the percentage to new development that is based on population growth vs current population to get an allowable cost. Number of service units that will be there, residential is the number of roof tops. The total number of costs divided by the number of service units will be the maximum allowable costs. A key assumption is growth, the state demographer population estimate for 2017 is 39,734. They use 1.8% growth in 2016-2017. Mr. Lacy will be using that for 2020-2030 which puts us around 42,000 population and 17,000 Page 2 of 13 rooftops. The last few months have slowed, he guesses growth should be between 500-600 units, with a growth rate of 2.9 to 3.5%. He would like the board to give comments on what they recommend for a new growth rate going forward.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed all the current projects currently on the wish list and in the works. They have done a valley wide flood drainage study that identified over $300 million in projects. The flood and drainage plan was not adopted by the County Commission. PW has developed a lower cost alternative that utilizes a shared cost with the east road bypass to divert Wheeler Pass storm water towards the existing gravel pits. Plus, smaller projects for flood retention in East and North and drainage on west side at State Highway 372 and Bannavitch.

Mr. Lacy

asked the board for their comments on a 10-year growth outlook.

Commissioner Turner

stated in his industry they are seeing a rise in sales and projects, he would suggest staying with closer to the 4%.

Mr. Lacy

stated for 10 yrs. starting at 42,000 - 2% puts us at 51,000, 2.5% - 54,000, 3% - 56,000 and 3.5% is 59,000 in 10 years. The Groundwater Management Plan done 3 — 3.5 yrs. ago they used 2-2.5% and things have picked up since then.

Commissioner Turner

states he would stay at 3.5%.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the lights are done at Simkins park so that can be pulled from the list.

Mr. Lacy

stated the fairgrounds multi-sport field site will need water irrigation and dirt moving and he thinks he has under estimated that number.

Commissioner Lee

stated the Fire Chief has stated he needs another station in the South.

Mr. Lacy

asked if they need to add in Wilson/Hwy 160 and additional access to Postal road. Is that a priority and needs to be looked at?

Commissioner Duryea

stated there are issues at Postal and Hwy 160.

Commissioner Curtis

stated Hwy 160 and Wilson would be a great location for a roundabout.

Mr. Lacy

stated they currently have about $1.7 million in balance and currently collecting about $1 million total between the four accounts, We have the ability to utilize a consumer price index inflation adjustment on an annual basis. If we have been doing that the road fees could have been increased by 40% over the last 15 years. If interested, we can include that for discussion.

Commissioner Lee

stated she would like more information on that to discuss. Another question per the study on the Flood and Drainage the cost was about $12,000 per home. How do we go about starting the drainage and flood?

Mr. Lacy

stated we are calculating the maximum allowable fee that is what the state law says we have to identify. We can always come in with something less, engineering fees are in the 10% range for a project. He doesn’t have a good estimate on phase I engineering fees but assuming it is $10-$15 million the engineering fees would be 10% of that.

Commissioner Lee

asked if that would be imposed as an impact fee with everything else, not the tax. It would only apply to new construction or when they pull building permits.

Mr. Lacy

stated the way the calculation is done is you calculate the total cost of the project then you apply which percentage of the capital project is contributable to the new project. The study looked at this as a population growth perspective. Page 3 of 13

Commissioner Lee

asked if they go forward with a plan for the flood and drainage study will they be able to change the FEMA flood maps, will it have an impact on that and flood insurance for the valley.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is the long-term goal. Either eliminate it or reduce costs with having a plan in place.

Commissioner Koenig

stated first we have to implement the impact fee for flood. Two years ago, Mr. Osborne did a study on collapsing the number of impact fees categories we have. It needs to be looked at again.

Mr. Waggoner

stated in regard to the consumer price index escalator for inflation one thing to take into account is the prevailing wage threshold was lowered to $100,000 now. Nothing will be done for less than that.

Commissioner Curtis

asked what consideration has been given for public transportation.

Mr. Lacy

stated impact fees are strictly for capital construction. Even the fire department it doesn’t apply for fire trucks, just buildings.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if there is an impact fee or lease fee long term for utility companies that encroach into the County ROW.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is a franchise fee and isn’t part of the CIP process. His goal is to have a draft of this CIP by the end of the year. For Possible Action — CU-2019-000083: Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a rental dwelling unit (tipi/teepee) and to allow various events including church groups/youth ministries, photography shoots, educational/teaching and other related type of activities, on 5.0 acres located at 221 West Mesquite Avenue, within the Rural Homestead (RH-4.5) zoning district. Assessor Parcel Number 035-051-07. Susan Carole Jay Trust — Property Owner. Susan Carole “Pepper” Jay — Applicant. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.) (SO) Cheryl Beeman stated the applicant has requested a continuation to the next RPC meeting.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to continue to the December RPC meeting. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Beth Lee, Carol Curtis, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Pamela Tyler, Robert Blackstock, Tom Duryea, Walt Turner. For Possible Action — AP-2019-000022: (Non-Public) Hearing, discussion, deliberation and possible action on an Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination that an Artificial Body of Water, Pond or Lake was created without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), in violation of Nye County Code Section 17.04.740, located at 1281 N. Leslie Street. Assessor Parcel Number 036-031-28. Coyote Sunrise Ranch, LLC - Property Owner. Bill Clark, Manager — Appellant. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.) (BW)

Mr. Waggoner

stated the applicant has asked to withdraw this appeal.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the applicant asked to withdraw the application with or without prejudice. She believes this means you can’t apply again for 6 months and without prejudice means you are free to reapply at any time. Bill Clark, appellant. He stated he won’t be appealing the decision, they came to an understanding of what he meant so he will be complying.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to approve withdraw without prejudice. Seconded by Commissioner Duryea. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Beth Lee, Carol Curtis, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Pamela Tyler, Robert Blackstock, Tom Duryea, Walt Turner. Page 4 of 13 10. a. For Possible Action — CU-2019-000085: Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on a Conditional Use Permit application to allow an Off-Premise Sign for Pedley Family LLC (Desert Greens subdivision) on undeveloped property located at 500 E. Nevada Highway 372. Assessor Parcel Number 035-311-09. Property Owner - Bolling Enterprises. Applicant - Michael Selbach/Pedley Family, LLC. For Possible Action — WV-2019-000103: Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on an application for Waivers from NCC 17.04.770, Signage Requirements, to allow an Off-Premise Sign to have three (3) support columns where a maximum of two (2) support columns are allowed, to be located less than five hundred feet (500') from a residential zone boundary, to be located more than one hundred feet (100”) from Highway 372 or Highway 160, to be located within 200 feet from a street intersection, on property located at 500 E. Nevada Highway 372. Assessor Parcel Number 035-311-09. Bolling Enterprises - Property Owner. Michael Selbach/Pedley Family LLC - Applicant. (These items are Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.) (CB)

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report stating they are wishing to use this as an off-premise sign. The sign was originally part of the Ishani Ridge subdivision and was supposed to be removed once all houses in the subdivision was sold but the sign structure remains illegally. Staff is recommending approval of both applications subject to the conditions of approval as stated. Although the sign does not comply with all of NCC it is in the GC zoning district that allows an off-premise sign with a CUP. This is a temporary sign and will have no advertising on it.

Commissioner Duryea

stated there is one closer to Blagg, and one a block to the East. Which one are we talking about?

Ms. Beeman

stated this sign is located at the corner of Red Butte and Highway 372. There is a sign attached to this for Nevada Realty and is a code violation in itself.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Duryea

asked how far off HWY 160 is the sign.

Ms. Beeman

stated 45 feet.

Commissioner Lee

asked Public Works if the sign will block the clear sight triangle at the intersection if anything gets developed there. Cody McKee stated he would have to see a better representation of the location of the sign. Distance from the HWY and the edge of asphalt to make the determination.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if this goes into the problems, they were having with the sign ordinance with allowing people to change the signs out. That is what we are trying to prevent in the future.

Ms. Beeman

stated in this instance we have conditions of approval allowing us to remove the sign from the property.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked how many lots are left for sale there.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he had a conversation with them, and they had just shy of 50 lots left.

Ms. Beeman

stated the staff report does say 30 days after completion of all lots in Desert Greens owned by the Pedley family LLC or any other entity or two years after the CUP, whichever occurs first.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they were to expand by the property next to them, this wouldn’t apply to that, it would only be for the 50 lots. Page 5 of 13 11.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if they are selling the lots or leasing them at this time.

Ms. Beeman

stated some sold and the Pedley Family LLC are leasing the lots.

Commissioner Turner

stated they are selling the lots, or they can lease them for 99 years. They offer different options.

Commissioner Duryea

stated he mentioned the two signs but if you go down Hwy 372 there is a third sign that is a sign design and same stacked sign all within 100 feet of 372, that is a lot of signage for one turn.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on the front of the agenda it does state any person with an action item must be represented at the meeting to answer any questions or the item might be tabled.

Commissioner Turner

motioned to table the items to the December 11 meeting. Seconded by

Commissioner Turner

has left the meeting. a. For Possible Action: MP-2019-0000014: Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on an application for a (Major) Master Plan Amendment to change an approximately 28-acre parcel from Rural Density Residential (RDR) to Community Development Area (CDA), located at 4801 S. Homestead Road, Assessor Parcel Number 045-041-04. Imogene Andersen LTD Partnership — Property Owner, Patrick and Karen Rily — Applicants, Walt Turner - Agent. For Possible Action — ZC-2019-000041: Public Hearing, discussion and deliberation on an application for a Zone Change to change an approximately 6.05-acre portion of the 28.0-acre parcel from Village Residential 20,000 square feet (VR-20) to Commercial Manufacturing (CM) and change the remaining 21.95-acre from Village Residential 20,000 square feet (VR-20), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Community Facilities (CF) to General Commercial (GC) on property located at 4801 S. Homestead Road, Assessor Parcel Number 045-014-04. Imogene Andersen LTD Partnership — Property Owner. Patrick and Karen Rily — Applicants. Walt Turner - Agent. (These items are recommendations by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to take Final Action on these items on December 17, 2019, or otherwise announced.) (CB)

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated this is for a major masterplan amendment to allow commercial development of the property. The proposed plan of development wouldn’t be allowed to proceed as it is currently designated. Staff is recommending approval of the applications. The conceptual site plan indicates a construction yard on a portion of the property and the applicant’s intent to move their current construction company to a portion of the property. The property will need to be annexed in to the Great Basin Water Company and there are no water rights allocated to the property. The development of the construction yard probably doesn’t need community water or sewer, but the commercial shopping center would be required to tie into those facilities. Public works comments did not get added into the conditions of approval, those will need to be added as Page 6 of 13 conditions of approval. Public Works request for dedication of right of way and an encroachment permit need to be added as well.

Commissioner Duryea

asked if they will need a commercial well to support the commercial construction yard.

Ms. Beeman

stated the applicants are only planning on parking their vehicles there so there would be development done for that. The facility may not be required to have water and sewer. If they plan on putting in restrooms or an office that would change.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they would need it for fire suppression.

Mr. Waggoner

stated to our knowledge it would only be to park their equipment, dump trucks and tractors. Patrick and Karen Rily, applicants. Mr. Rily stated their main objective is to have the construction yard and they understand there will be issues with the water and sewer and that there will be a three-year limitation for the future commercial development. The future commercial development is reliant on being annexed into GBWC. They don’t need water or sewer in the construction yard, it is to put their equipment there. Future development on the commercial corner they will deal with when it comes along.

Commissioner Lee

stated if this does get approved you do have an opportunity to file for an extension of time. It isn’t just three years and it is done.

Commissioner Duryea

asked if GBWC has given them estimates on running water and sewer out there?

Commissioner Curtis

asked if they plan on putting a green belt or fencing around the construction yard.

Mr. Rily

stated they plan on putting an encroachment off of Homestead in the 30-foot easement to access the yard and then a chain link fence around it. The lot where they store their equipment will be type 2.

Mrs. Rily

stated on the NE corner there is a tree line that is behind the VFW that would block the construction yard and it won’t be visible by Mr. Falls.

Commissioner DeAnda

asked if type 2 is an adequate dust mitigation for the construction yard.

Ms. Beeman

stated not at this time in the code. Parking areas require asphalt pavement.

Mr. Rily

asked for clarification on the remoteness of the construction yard and there is a fire hydrant on Romena, and he could put a hydrant meter there if necessary.

Ms. Beeman

stated it can be discussed at site development.

Mr. Waggoner

stated any type of development wouldn’t be part of this zone change, it would be part of site development. If they have an alternative to asphalt, they can present it and they can make a determination at that time. If they want to do type 2, they can go through the waiver process.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked what can be done to keep rocks off Homestead can a portion be paved.

Mr. Rily

stated the 30-foot encroachment coming off Homestead would be the paved portion.

Commissioner Blackstock

stated they may want fire suppression because you will have equipment with diesel, and it is close to the VFW.

Ms. Waggoner

stated there is a scrivener error on the agenda for item B, however the notices that went out were correct, but the staff report does have a typo on the APN for item B. The APN reflects 045-014-04 the correct APN is in Item A. Page 7 of 13 12.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicants if they have read, understood and agree to the conditions of approval listed and the added Public Works conditions.

Mr. Rily

stated they would like more time to digest them.

Mrs. Rily

stated she read through them all.

Commissioner Lee

stated their motion is to take a recommendation to the BOCC and that will give them additional time to review and if there are questions or modifications it can be brought up with the BOCC.

Mr. Rily

asked for clarification if they find issues with the conditions tomorrow it can still be addressed.

Commissioner Lee

stated yes. Public works requirements are on page 4 of the staff report. They request 50-foot ROW dedication for the Northern half of East Manse Road and a 10-foot ROW dedication for the Eastern half of South Homestead Road and an encroachment permit for the driveway onto South Homestead.

Mr. Rily

stated he doesn’t have a problem with those. Public comment opened at 7:20 pm. John O’Brien stated he is an adjoining property owner. He has no problem with the development, but there needs to be conditions they should consider. There needs to be some type of retention, this area has a flooding problem even though it isn’t in a designated flood area. He doesn’t think the 30-foot pavement to Homestead is sufficient to shed rocks or dust to keep it from entering the area. Homestead will then become another dust factor. Their needs to be a contingency plan put in place. Gravel doesn’t eliminate dust.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to recommend approval of MP-2019-000014 and ZC-2019-000041 to the BOCC subject to the conditions of approval and adding the Public Works conditions for ROW dedication and the requirement for an encroachment permit. Seconded by Commissioner Duryea.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated staff is recommending approval subject to the findings outlined in the staff report. The property doesn’t have any improved access to the property. The roads are ingress, egress and utility easements and have not been dedicated to Nye County and not maintained by Nye County. Public works is requesting additional ROW dedication on the Eastern half of North Panorama road and the development go through site development. Adding condition #13 for additional ROW as listed in the staff report. Heather Wilson, applicant stated she has nothing to add.

Commissioner Duryea

asked if the existing well has commercial water rights. Roy Mankins, agent stated yes, it is a commercial well and septic and they do have commercial water rights.

Commissioner Turner

asked what the volume of vehicles will be monthly. Page 8 of 13 13.

Ms. Wilson

stated there isn’t a lot of volume that goes through.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if the Nevada Business License for Nevada Crest LLC will be renewed. It expired July 31%, 2019. The department of Agriculture permit expires December 31°.

Ms. Wilson

stated she didn’t know about that, she has a compliance officer she should have already fixed that. If it isn’t she will get that fixed right away. The Department of Agriculture permit expires every year on December 315. She holds 11 permits and has to reapply by December 20".

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if she has read, understood and agrees to the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Turner

motioned to approve CU-2019-000087 with a condition that they update the Nevada State Business license.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that the motion adds the PW request for ROW dedication.

Commissioner Turner

stated yes, adding PW ROW dedication.

Commissioner Tyler

seconded and stated for clarification to the applicant the secretary of state website shows the Business License to be active.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they have been able to vet the additional street name.

Commissioner Lee

stated she doesn’t know if they can make an agreement on Camp tonight.

Ms. Lamm

stated their second request would be for Findlay Lane.

Ms. Lamm

asked how long it would take to research Camp Lane.

Mrs. Medici

stated they researched the street index. Camp sounds too much like Campana in Mt. Falls.

Ms. Lamm

stated they are okay with Vista Crest.

Commissioner Lee

asked if their preference is Vista Crest Lane.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to approve SN-2019-000016 with Vista Crest Lane. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Mr. Waggoner

stated this is being brought to them because of some zone changes they have had and concerns on the smaller size parcels. Generally, they have domestic wells if they have an existing well and it is hard to regulate if they have sufficient water rights. To address concerns, we were asked to bring a draft to the board trying to remove commercial growing of crops out of those areas. It would still allow someone to grow a private garden, just trying to stop the RE-1 and RE-2s for Hemp production.

Commissioner Tyler

asked how it would affect someone who has an existing crop, for example wine grapes. If it is existing and someone wants to buy their crops.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it would be considered a grandfathered use if it is existing, unless it ceases to exist for 6 months or more. If it is a seasonal crop that could be considered but changing hands and someone wanting to do it two years later wouldn’t be a grandfathered use.

Commissioner Turner

asked if we could move it down to permissive with a CUP, protecting the wines, and policing water rights.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it wouldn’t solve the water right issue, that is regulated by the state. There is always a waiver that would do the same thing.

Commissioner Blackstock

stated you can keep livestock for commercial or household use. You can’t grow hemp, but you can have 18 head of cattle.

Mr. Waggoner

stated you can suggest that as an amendment.

Commissioner Blackstock

stated it needs to be brought up, or just remove commercial and amend for just household use.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they can remove the commercial use.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if there is anywhere there is a limit on cattle. Page 10 of 13

Mr. Waggoner

stated that there is a limit on animals he doesn’t recall what it is. It is a very easy amendment.

Commissioner Turner

asked what zoning does it leave open for Commercial use Hemp, the RH zoning districts?

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, the RH zoning.

Commissioner Turner

stated he would like to see that address separately.

Commissioner Koenig

believes it needs to be addressed separately, it isn’t agendized for it. He asked for clarification if someone growing tomatoes and takes it to the farmers market, is that considered a commercial use. It will be brought up, so how do we get around it.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if it is asked to bring us a solution to it. How do we define commercial?

Commissioner Duryea

asked how the ADA defines commercial. Marla Zlotek stated it is recommended to be defined, there are multitude of places to define commercial. There are clearly different definitions of commercial, like exchange of money, business. When a term is very specific it should be defined, or this is what a court usually ends up deciding.

Commissioner Turner

asked if there is anything against, spelling this out and putting hemp in there.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, that would be discriminating against one agricultural product.

Commissioner Lee

stated not all of our zoning districts match up with the size of the actual size of the lot. Will this require us to review of any lots to bring zoning more into compliance. Or do we deal with it as it comes up?

Mr. Waggoner

stated we deal with it as it comes us.

Commissioner Lee

asked if staff wants direction to move this to the BOCC or re-agendize with some of the recommended changes.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there was only one in regard to the livestock, they can look at it as a separate item.

Commissioner Turner

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if you would like to make a suggestion for an amendment removing commercial livestock it can be done here too.

Commissioner Turner

asked if it would be a separate item or together, he would like to separate the arguments.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that would be a separate draft. You can suggest making an amendment to this draft.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the livestock would be noticed at the same time as the removal of the commercial growing.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he would like to see it separated. Page 11 of 13 15. 16.

Ms. Zlotek

asked for clarification on the motion.

Commissioner Turner

stated he motioned to recommend approval as written to the BOCC. Seconded by Commissioner Duryea.

Mr. Waggoner

asked for clarification that the draft, as presented is going on to the BOCC.

Commissioner Lee

stated yes. For Possible Action: Discussion, deliberation and possible action regarding the PRPD Master Plan Update; defining sub-areas / neighborhood planning areas.

Ms. Beeman

stated she has additional back up needing to be accepted.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to accept the additional back up. Seconded by Commissioner Duryea.

Ms. Beeman

stated she did reach out for ideas from people and get historical information. She isn’t sure the Manse Ranch is depicted properly on the map provided. There are logical areas when you look at it and drive through it, as neighborhood areas. Some of the other areas she isn’t very familiar with and would like the boards expertise on boundaries that may be appropriate and names.

Commissioner Duryea

stated his friends who live in what she calls mid-town call it Calvada Ranch.

Commissioner Turner

stated if we start with a workshop for the public it will build the involvement. He would like to see the gateway one focused on first. It has the least amount of current buildout so we wouldn’t be changing anything existing structure wise.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they did all of that when they did the Master Plan. They had 5 public workshops and two people came. When it got to the BOCC they sent it back, the RPC they re-did it, then it went back to the BOCC and they had people still screaming and yelling. No one came to the workshop and they didn’t want to talk about it until it was too late. ’

Ms. Beeman

stated if anyone knows of what a defined neighborhood is that she doesn’t have please email it over to her.

Commissioner Turner

asked if there have been any comments on any areas that are about a specific area that is a common problem for the MP or multiple ZCs in a specific area?

Ms. Beeman

stated they could map out where they have had numerous changes occurring. There is one gentleman around Kellogg road that has shown interest to changes in the neighborhood. Future Meetings/Workshops: Discussion and Direction Concerning Items for Future Meetings/Workshops; Set Date, Location and Time. Next meeting is December 11" at 6pm.

Commissioner Turner

directed staff to make the changes to the Commercial livestock edit and submit to the RPC for the December meeting. Page 12 of 13

Commissioner Koenig

stated livestock includes horses, there is no limit to livestock and there has not been a County Commissioner here that has taken that to a meeting. People will not be happy.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they should bring back the definition of commercial at the same meeting.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, he has tried to find a definition that would split apart the two scenarios, but he has been unsuccessful but will continue to look. The more we define things sometimes we close loop holes and others we open loop holes.

Commissioner Tyler

stated it is a slippery slope, this could impact 4-H and Future Farmers of America or any other rural child that raises an animal and shows it, if they have to sell that animal it could be considered commercial.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they are thinking commercial is someone who raise a heard of cattle for slaughter versus to someone who has a horse they race.

Commissioner Blackstock

stated that is what he was thinking it was raising cattle, or pigs to be slaughtered. He understands the horses, he isn’t trying to eliminate that but if you have 5 acres and feeding cattle there are a lot at one time. They are only there a few months and then they go away. Horses you are raising as pets as animals that may be commercial because they show them.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they do have definitions in the code for feed lots. Those are not allowed in RE zones today. If you are raising 30 cattle for slaughter or sale, that he does believe would be considered a feed lot. He will look at the definition and fix the problem.

Commissioner Lee

directed staff to put together the parts of the code that already do address these things so they can start the discussion. It can show what zoning districts do and don’t do and what we already have defined.