Elko County Planning Commission ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 Elko County Planning Commission 540 COURT STREET, SUITE 104, ELKO, NV PH. (775) , FAX (775) ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, JUNE 16, :15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Judd called the meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission to order at 5:15 p.m. on June 16, 2011, in Suite 102, of the Nannini Administration Building, Elko, Nevada. Members Present: Absent : Others Present: Mike Judd, Chairman Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen Milt Grisham David Hough Wilde Brough arrived at 5:17 p.m. Dena Hartley, Vice Chairman John Kingwell, Associate Planner Kelly Watson, Planning & Zoning Administrator Kristin McQueary, District Attorney s Office Lou Ash, self Jack Skivington, self Ken Krater, Ruby Vista Ranch Bruno Carr, self Mike Murphy, NDOT Assistant District Engineer Thomas Johnson, self Bob Milligan, self Kevin Sur, self Kris Jones, self Christina Curry, self Jason Hill, self John L. Groff, self Colleen Hill, self Marian Groff, self Mary Sheen, self Sheri Baker, self Chara Sur, self

2 Page 2 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance was pledged. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION ITEM May 19, 2011 Regular Meeting MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve the minutes as written and Commissioner Grisham seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VOTE: AYE: NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Mike Judd Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Milt Grisham None Dena Hartley Wilde Brough None Commissioner Brough arrived at the meeting at 5:17 p.m. III. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: NON-ACTION ITEM There was comment by Lou Ash regarding the preliminary hearing for Timothy W. & Serenity K. Orr and discussion regarding the item took place (see comments under the item). IV. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION ITEMS NONE V. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: ACTION ITEMS , Timothy W. & Serenity K. Orr ACTION ITEM A preliminary hearing for a change of zoning from C-2 to R-1 for the construction of a single

3 Page 3 family dwelling on a.62 acre parcel being Lot 3, Block 18, Tract 403 and a.61 acre parcel being Lot 4, Block 18, Tract 403, of the Spring Creek Subdivision located in Section 33, Township 33 North, Range 57 East, M.D.B. & M., Elko County, Nevada. Both parcels share a common side yard lot line. Applicant and owner is Timothy W. & Serenity K. Orr. Lou Ashe provided information during the public comment period regarding the disapproval by the Spring Creek Architectural Board and his interpretation that the Spring Creek Architectural Board had no authority to disapprove of the request for the rezoning of the property and requested the application continue to be considered. Mr. Kingwell indicated Elko County Code provides for approval from the Spring Creek Architectural Board before the Planning Commission can take action and indicated they had turned down the request previously but the item remained on the agenda to provide the applicant the opportunity to proceed with the application if he could obtain approval from the Spring Creek Architectural Board which he was unable to do and the item would be pulled off the agenda at this time. Mrs. McQueary quoted a portion of Elko County Code that provides for approval from any architectural board in existence before the Planning Commission can take action on any application regarding property within the jurisdiction of the architectural board. Chairman Judd read the item and indicated the item had been pulled and there would be no action taken on this item. Mr. Kingwell reiterated that the Planning Commission may not take action on any application without first receiving approval from the Spring Creek Architectural Board which denied the request so the request will not need to be considered. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ACTION ITEMS , Robert M. & Terry J. St. Louis ACTION ITEM A public hearing regarding a conditional use application for the placement of a one hundred twelve foot (112 ) steel lattice self supporting wind tower and turbine with a twenty-three foot (23 ) rotor rated at a maximum of ten (10) kw. The property is located in an Open Space zoned district within Section 23, Township 33 North, Range 56 East, M.D.B.&M., being Lot 6, Block B, of Ruby Mountain Estates, known as 115 Dingo Lane, Spring Creek, Nevada. Applicant and Owner is Robert M. & Terry J. St. Louis Mr. Kingwell indicated the applicant had submitted a request for withdrawal of the application and the item would not be considered at the meeting. There was no action taken on the item.

4 Page 4 Chairman Judd moved the order of the meeting to item , Ruby Vista Ranch, Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan under public hearings , Scott D. & Sheri M. Baker ACTION ITEM A public hearing regarding a conditional use application for the placement of an approximately sixty-six foot (66 ) guy wire steel lattice wind tower and turbine with a twenty-three foot (23 ) rotor rated at a maximum of ten (10) kw. The property is located in an Agricultural Residential zoned district within the NW ¼ of Section 17, Township 34 North, Range 55 East, M.D.B.&M., being Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map for Jerry R. Burmeister and Sharon C. Burmeister as File No , known as 3483 Sundance Drive. Applicant and Owner is Scott D. & Sheri M. Baker Mr. Kingwell read the following Staff Report into the record:

5 Page 5

6 Page 6

7 Page 7

8 Page 8

9 Page 9

10 Page 10

11 Page 11

12 Page 12

13 Page 13 While reading the Staff Report Mr. Kingwell identified a few errors including a statement that the structure is free standing and that a letter of approval from the Adobe Heights Homeowner s Association is in the file, when in fact the structure is guy wire supported and a letter from the Adobe Heights Homeowner s Association is not required. Mr. Kingwell read letters of opposition and support of the request received by Staff prior to the meeting into the record. He indicated he had Mr. Brown, Elko County Engineer, provide a noise calculation for a 65 tower and the distance from the center of the hub to the 100 setback would be 44.2 decibels at full speed of the turbine and Mr. Brown also calculated for a 90 setback which would be 46.5 decibels. Mrs. McQueary read NRS along with the reviser s note which is currently on the books and Senate Bill No. 122 that amends NRS which was adopted and signed by the Governor on June 2, She indicated in reviewing the NRS and the newly enacted ordinance she felt the ordinance was well within the intent of the Legislature to balance wind resources with the needs of communities and can reasonably restrict the different items contained within NRS. She also indicated that the State Legislature has not given the County the right to regulate based on aesthetics. Commissioner Larason asked Mr. Kingwell for clarification regarding the measurement of noise being decibels not feet when he was providing information from the Elko County Engineer. Mr. Kingwell provided the information the Elko County Engineer had given again and indicated sound levels would be measured in decibels. He commented that he had a depiction of the information and it was available for inspection if anyone was interested. Chairman Judd opened the item up to the general public and commented that the Planning Commission had been meeting for approximately the last six months on wind energy before the final regulations and ordinance was created and had learned a lot about wind energy. Thomas Johnson, 1910 Royal Crest Drive, stated him and his wife, Karen Johnson, recently built a new home and was present to contest the application and they were concerned about placing a tower of this type in a residential area affecting homes in the City of Elko as well as Elko County. He further indicated there are twelve residences and three vacant building lots within approximately three hundred yards of the proposed tower. He continued stating the size and height of the tower will become a permanent skyline feature and will affect many more homeowner s. He added that the tower does not sit there like a radio or cell tower but has moving parts that attracts attention. He further added that the Baker s commercial power venture should not supersede the neighbor s rights to peace and tranquility and negatively affect their property values. He gave some information of the noise levels that he had observed at a location that currently has an operating 10kw energy system concluding that the noise would be a nuisance and an annoyance to the neighboring property owners He continued indicating if the applicant was successful in obtaining the permit, building the tower and placing it in operation, it would only be a matter of time before the affected neighbors in the County and the City will institute a lawsuit due to loss of peace and tranquility as a direct result of the noise emitted from the tower and their affected property values. He continued asking that the Commission safeguard the neighbor s rights and deny the application. He gave some further information about the noise levels being an annoyance even if they aren t very loud because they are constant.

14 Page 14 Chairman Judd asked Mr. Johnson where the generator was located that he had observed. Mr. Johnson indicated it was located up Mountain City Highway over the top of Adobe Summit off to the right. Commissioner Galyen asked Mr. Johnson what the estimated wind speed was the day he observed the existing wind tower. Mr. Johnson answered the wind was approximately fifteen (15) miles per hour at a constant with gusts up to twenty (20). Commissioner Hough indicated NRS and a County Ordinance provide guidance to the Planning Commission on wind energy systems and asked Mr. Johnson if he had a legal argument that would give the Planning Commission the ability to override the State Statute or County Ordinance. Mr. Johnson indicated he did not receive a notice of the meeting until a week ago and did not have much time to prepare for the meeting. He also indicated he did not have a law to use but he did have his ears and he was amazed at what he heard when he observed the existing system. Bob Milligan indicated his property is about forty-five feet away from the property where the proposed tower would be located. He added his daughter owns property in the area and he was also at the meeting to represent her. He further indicated his daughter had received a phone call about signing a waiver so the Bakers could erect a one hundred foot tower and she had said no. He continued stating he researched NRS and Elko County Code over the past week and it was hard to get a hold of a copy of (County Code) Title 4. He further indicated he had come across some confusing and conflicting issues concerning wind energy and had tried to get some clarity before attending the meeting. He continued stating there were reasons why he thought the Planning Commission should deny the conditional use permit. He read portions of the Elko County Code that he felt were contradictory and confusing regarding the wind energy systems. He continued indicating to the visual and auditory affect of something so large and close to other people s property will cause a negative impact on the property values and would provide information he found that would prove this point. He continued indicating he could not understand portions of the code on wind energy and called Mr. Kingwell for clarification of different sections of the code. He continued by giving some information on different terms used when measuring noise levels for wind turbines and stated he had read numerous articles that indicated the neighbors of wind farms or wind machines were initially in favor of renewable wind energy but once the system was in use could not believe the amount of noise created. He further indicated there is no sound testing done by the County and when he asked Mr. Kingwell about testing he was told that the County does not test the machines they go by the manufacturer s specifications and if they state it is within the range limits then it is. He continued providing information about EnergyCo no longer being in business and the amount of the rebate available from NV Energy for the placement of wind energy systems. He presented some information from a research article written by an individual from Lawrence Technical University and the conclusion of the article. He added that he had posted a video taken from his Casio camera on YouTube of the existing wind turbine that he and Mr. Johnson had visited and stated it creates a lot of noise that he would find offensive. He asked Staff if they could play the video and Staff asked about the relevance since the camera would not depict the sound accurately.

15 Page 15 Staff attempted to locate the video on YouTube but was unable to under the names given by Mr. Milligan. Mr. Milligan indicated visually the shadow flicker the windmill presents can be a visual nuisance as well as reflections of the spinning rotors and the system he observed was at sunset and it was illuminated like looking into the blade of an airplane. He continued stating there are twenty potential lots located in the area and people wanting to live in a quiet rural setting will be subject to an obtrusive structure placed in their community and compared the placement of the proposed tower to the placement of a freeway. He also summarized from an article by an appraisal company that states when a person tried to sell their home next to a wind farm it had a twenty-five percent (25%) lower value. Chairman Judd asked if the article referred to one wind turbine or a wind farm and Mr. Milligan answered it referred to a wind farm. Mr. Milligan further explained the premise by which the article was written. He stated that the residents moved out to the area to have more space and quiet neighborhoods just as the code has set forth as Agricultural Residential zoning makes it and request the Planning Commission deny the request for the wind turbine. Kevin Sur, 1880 Janie Lane, stated he lives right behind the proposed wind turbine site. He stated in an answer to Mr. Milligan s question why there aren t five, six or seven because he thought the code only allowed for one wind turbine for every forty acres. Mr. Kingwell clarified the code for private wind energy systems being one or a combination of machines with the maximum capacity of 100kw. Mr. Sur asked Commissioner Hough if he was looking for a specific ordinance or something to deny the request. Commissioner Hough clarified that he is looking for a basis in law that would enable the Planning Commission to deny the permit so if they deny the permit and the Bakers sue, will the court overrule the Planning Commission. Mr. Sur indicated in the commercial portion of the Elko County Ordinance that was just adopted there is specific requirements for noise against any commercial turbine that states any home or residence that is within one mile of the turbine must have a sound reading within fifty feet of the house. He further indicated if he walked out of his house fifty feet he would be one hundred forty feet away from the proposed location of the turbine which is closer to his house than the applicant s house. He stated if the sound reading was taken at one hundred forty feet it would be over the limit of what is allowed in the code which is fifty in the daytime and forty-five at night and the information provided by Ms. Royce indicates the wind turbine will be at fifty-five which he stated he will notice. He provided comments in response to the letter received by Ms. Royce that addressed the letter of objection he had submitted. He continued indicating the tower will be placed in a topographic low and when he walks out on his back porch at the lights on the hillside through the blades there will be a constant strobe effect from the blades that are turning and this is not addressed and can affect someone which is a medical issue. He provided further comment in response to Ms. Royce s letter and stated he thought noise levels and property values would be an issue. He further

16 Page 16 stated he thought the wind turbine is an anticipatory nuisance and would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of his property and the Planning Commission is here to protect all of the people from one neighbor from destroying values of their homes. He continued providing information from a study regarding the impact to the value of property related to wind energy projects. Kris Jones indicated he lives west of the proposed location and every morning he would receive the flicker because of the orientation of his house, the turbine and the mountains, in addition to all of the noise. Christina Curry, 1914 Janie Lane, stated her property is on the backside of the proposed location of the wind turbine and she objects to the wind turbine. She provided details of the improvements she has made on her property and she objects to the noise and the sight of the turbine that will be noticeable from her backyard. She further indicated she would go to court and fight against the proposed turbine. Jason Hill, 1831 Royal Crest, indicated his property backs up to property to the north and provided some details of the elevation of his home in relation to the proposed wind turbine. He stated he believes within reason a landowner has the right to do what they can on their property but he also believes that everyone has a responsibility to their neighbors and all of the homes in the area are nice and have been invested in financially. He continued stating he had a valid concern about the resale value of his home being affected. He further indicated an incident happened in Lander County in Antelope Valley on an agricultural establishment that has four wind turbines and explained how one of the wind turbines came apart. He concluded and asked that the Planning Commission to consider not allowing this to happen in their backyard. John Groff indicated in looking at Ms. Royce s letter it states the average wind is miles an hour and he added in the Royal Crest area the wind whips down the mountains, 65% to 75% of the time the wind is miles per hour which would make the turbine turn faster which would increase the decibels of the noise. He gave an example of a wind farm in California being located at the top of a mountain and no homes are close in the area and stated for wind towers that is the way it should be and they shouldn t be in a residential area. He further expressed concern with failure and damage due to a failure and stated it doesn t make sense to have one in a residential area. Colleen Hill asked if the Baker s have considered using solar power and if the parties in favor of the request live in the area. Chairman Judd indicated no one has asked the applicant if they would prefer solar power and that is not the position or right of the Planning Commission to ask. Mr. Kingwell answered that they do live in the area and are neighbors. Mrs. McQueary stated there is a tax credit that has generated the issue and it was for wind energy. Ms. Hill gave some further comments about the applicant looking into solar power instead of making the entire neighborhood upset with them. Marian Groff stated her biggest concern is the health issue with the flickering. She added that they

17 Page 17 have a young man that comes to their house that can not go by the airport when the strobe lights are flashing and has a concern regarding the flickering that could be created. She continued stating that the turbine could be an issue for someone with seizure disorders. Mary Sheen indicated they live on Janie Lane and they have a disabled daughter that is wheelchair bound and she is concerned about the possible damages due to failure. She further indicated the area is more of a residential area than an agricultural area and she would hate to see something like the proposed come into the area. Sheri Baker, 3483 Sundance Drive, gave an overview of the reasons behind their decision to pursue a wind turbine including the research they had completed before making their decision. Bruno Carr stated he is probably the oldest and experienced with wind in the County and he is currently on wind power and has been for about twenty-five years. He further stated he is the coauthor on several papers on wind power and understand the people and their economics for their house but values of property can not be considered on any zoning issue. He provided comments on information provided during the hearing and stated he is not aware of any legal remedies for denying the permit and the only one he is familiar with is under the nuisance ordinance. He stated there has not been any instance when a complaint has been brought under the nuisance ordinance that it has been upheld to his knowledge. He commended the Planning Commission for creating an ordinance for wind energy. Chara Sur stated she lives with her parents at 1880 Janie Lane and added that the Planning Commission was elected by constituents to represent them and they have provided legal legs to stand on and asked the Planning Commission to represent the constituents, them, because they do not want the wind tower. Commissioner Grisham asked about the measurement of sound levels. Mr. Kingwell explained how American Wind Energy Association is an independent group that puts wind turbines through a battery of tests and criteria to certify them and the proposed wind turbine has gone through the tests and meets the criteria. There was some discussion about what measurement was being used for the noise levels and the description contained in the County Wind Ordinance was read. There was also discussion on the measurement of the noise levels being able to take into consideration the existing levels in the area. Commissioner Larason provided some comments in response to questions and concerns mentioned by the general public. He continued stating flicker and seizures are a problem and do occur but there is no occurrence recorded by home systems and the issue has been addressed by the manufacturers. He continued stating with the price of energy going up there are going to be more wind and solar power systems and that could be used as a selling point. He continued indicating there was reference to appraisals but the reference was to commercial wind machines which are different than the private wind machines. He further indicated he could not find one recorded injury by a homeowner s machine in records maintained by numerous state and federal agencies. He concluded stating many issues were taken into consideration when developing the wind energy code and one of the issues is

18 Page 18 the fact that when it comes to aesthetics, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Kingwell commented that he received a phone call regarding the wind turbine noise on the operational tower in the Gourley division so he went out and did a site visit and with the County truck running he could not hear anything but once the truck was turned off he heard a quiet whishing noise and he made the sound. He provided some additional information about the elevation of properties in the area in comparison to the proposed tower. He continued by providing information contained in the code and specifications of the wind turbine by the manufacturer. Commissioner Hough quoted some information from NRS and some facts about noise levels and how they would need to be considered by the Planning Commission in making their decision. Commissioner Grisham commented that the noise levels could be considered soothing or offensive depending on the opinion of the person. Commissioner Galyen agreed with Commission Hough and stated there had not been any legal reasons presented at the meeting to give the Planning Commission the authority to deny the request. Commissioner Brough stated he wanted to respond to the lady that had stated she was his constituent and clarify that she is not his constituent and that the Planning Commission members are not elected positions but appointed ones by the County Commission which is the place the decisions of the Planning Commission can be appealed. Mrs. McQueary asked Mr. Kingwell to put on the record when the letters of notification went out. Mr. Kingwell answered that the thirty closest property owner s notifications were sent out on May 25, 2011, and the requirement is to have them mailed out at least fifteen days before the meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Larason moved to approve item be approved for the Conditional Use with notations made by Staff. Commissioner Brough seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. VOTE: AYE: NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Mike Judd Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen David Hough Milt Grisham Wilde Brough None Dena Hartley None

19 Page 19 Chairman Judd read the appeal process into the record , Ruby Vista Ranch ACTION ITEM Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan A public workshop hearing to reopen the Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan for the sole purpose of considering the relocation of the proposed round about at the Corral Lane location as depicted within the Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan to the Boyd Kennedy Road location and the realignment of commercial and residential zoning districts related to the above mentioned relocation within the NE ¼ of Section 3, Township 33 North, Range 56 East, M.D.B.&M. Mr. Kingwell read the following Staff Report into the record:

20 Page 20

21 Page 21

22 Page 22

23 Page 23

24 Page 24

25 Page 25

26 Page 26

27 Page 27

28 Page 28

29 Page 29

30 Page 30

31 Page 31

32 Page 32

33 Page 33

34 Page 34 Mr. Kingwell read the following letter submitted by Ronald and Patricia Moon into the record:

35 Page 35 Mr. Kingwell also read the following letter from Nevada Department of Transportation into the record:

36 Page 36

37 Page 37 Commissioner Galyen indicated the agenda indicates the item requires action and the Staff Report indicates it is a workshop and asked if a recommendation to the County Commission was being sought at the meeting. Mr. Kingwell answered yes. Commissioner Galyen asked whether the realignment of Corral Lane to bypass the wetlands includes the portion being shown on the map or if there would be two different roads being called Corral Lane. Mr. Kingwell answered the short leg of Corral Lane that accesses SR 227 will remain and continue to Boyd-Kennedy. There was discussion about the names of the roads being changed to avoid any future confusion and Mr. Kingwell recommended that Commissioner Galyen hear testimony from the applicant and the representative from NDOT before asking any further questions because he felt they could address his concerns. Commissioner Galyen indicated the Staff Report states Staff is awaiting comment from several agencies and asked if the Planning Commission can constructively move forward with the workshop and make a decision. Mr. Kingwell answered yes, because all of the agencies have been notified and normally only respond if there is a concern. He further gave explanations of why some of the agencies don t respond to the request for comments. There was continued discussion about the policy of notifying the different agencies and that the lack of response was interpreted to mean the agency didn t have any concerns at this time. Jack Skivington stated he thought the proposed commercial zoning is spot zoning and stated that the map being shown depicts his property as R1 when he had rezoned his property to Commercial. Mr. Kingwell indicated specific zoning was not being addressed at this time but the roundabout and the changes due to the relocation of the roundabout would need to be discussed. Mr. Skivington asked if the applicant could change his zoning from Commercial to R1. Chairman Judd asked the applicant to make his presentation and if Mr. Skivington had any further questions after the presentation he would be allowed to address them. Ken Krater, one of the owners of Ruby Vista Ranch, stated they have been working for a long time on their main access to the project and their previous plans conformed to the Master Plan which called for the realignment of Corral Lane to line up with the main entrance to the high school. He added that the plans were submitted with the point of access and things changed when they had to obtain permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. He continued stating they had a consultant do detailed wetlands analysis and submitted a permit to the Army Corps of

38 Page 38 Engineers who initially agreed with the analysis in the correspondence received by the applicant. He added that the Army Corps of Engineers was required to notify the EPA which designated the twenty-two acres of wetlands that lies in front of the high school an aquatic resource of national importance (ARNI) and the wetlands could not be touched and because of that designation the current Spring Creek Master Plan could not be followed. He continued stating they started looking at alternatives and it appeared that it made sense to shift the realignment from the main entrance of the high school to Boyd-Kennedy because it would avoid the wetlands completely and satisfy the concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency. He added that he had met with different agencies that would be affected and took into consideration their concerns when revising their development plan and presented the revisions to the School Board who was basically in favor but felt it was NDOT s jurisdiction and ultimately up to NDOT to make the decision. He gave an overview of the initial development plan and what revisions had been made due to the EPA ARNI designation so the plan would be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. He further stated the plan was presented to NDOT and they had received the letter from NDOT that Mr. Kingwell had read into the record. He answered the question about the existing Corral Lane stating it would ultimately become an emergency gated access into the property. He explained one of the other reasons for the realignment of Corral Lane to Boyd-Kennedy being the primary access would be because of poor sight distance when entering SR 227 from the existing Corral Lane. He concluded his presentation indicating they have no authority to change the zoning on Mr. Skivington s parcel and the new roadway would provide much better access to his property. Commissioner Galyen clarified that the existing Corral Lane will be an emergency access only and not accessible to everyday travel. Mr. Krater stated he would like to work with the State on leaving the existing Corral Lane in place until people become accustomed to the new access to the roundabout and then within 6-12 months convert the road to a gated emergency access only. Chairman Judd asked if the existing Corral Lane can remain in the wetlands. Mr. Krater answered it can remain where it is located because it is existing. There was continued discussion about impacts due to the wetlands determination. Mr. Skivington indicated he is in favor of keeping the existing Corral Lane open to provide an additional access to the homes in the area. Commissioner Brough asked whether it would be up to the Planning Commission to keep the existing Corral Lane open or not. Chairman Judd suggested Commissioner Brough s question be addressed after the public had the opportunity to comment on the item. Bruno Carr commented on Ruby Vista and thinks it is an excellent idea and felt Boyd Kennedy is ideal for the primary access. He commented on the roundabout and because it will be a high traffic area with considerable amount of pedestrian traffic and consideration for the amount of pedestrian traffic should be a high priority in the design.

39 Page 39 Commissioner Brough asked if Corral Lane was a dedicated County road. Mr. Kingwell indicated it is a County road. Commissioner Brough asked if it would be up to the County to decide what happens to the road. Mrs. McQueary suggested Mike Murphy from NDOT answer questions from the Commission on the requirements of access permits on State highways. Mike Murphy, Assistant District Engineer for NDOT, stated anything that is brought into their right-of-way doesn t necessarily have set rules but they will work with any developer to achieve access as best they can. He added their emphasis of their decision will be on what they have to do to achieve that access. He continued stating in this case one of the things NDOT is requesting is restricting the number of intersections coming on the state highway to achieve the goals of maintaining a reasonable speed on the highway. He added that they agree with retaining the existing Corral Lane for emergency purposes only and at the time the developer has their final plans NDOT is going to base the required improvements on their standards and what is in effect at the time. He further added that the developer would be responsible for the costs of the access and he gave some information regarding what some of the requirements of NDOT could be at the time of development. Commissioner Galyen asked Mr. Murphy if there are any statistics on increases or decreases in amount of accidents after the current roundabout in Spring Creek was installed. Mr. Murphy indicated NDOT did not have any hard statistics because to do a statistical analysis they would need three to four years of data to make it accurate. He added that roundabouts usually reduces accidents in the range of 70%-90% and when it comes to major injury accidents it is in the 90%-95%. He further indicated they have seen a downturn of accidents in the Spring Creek area since the existing roundabout has been installed. Commissioner Grisham asked about the development being prohibited since it only has one access because in the past any development would have to provide two accesses in case of a road closure due to an emergency. Mr. Murphy answered that will be addressed with the emergency access on the existing Corral Lane and there is additional access from other internal roads that tie it into Licht Parkway and Wells Lane. He gave further examples of developed areas in Spring Creek that only have one access into the area and the impacts of too many or too little accesses to State highways and adequate traffic flow seems to be maintained by placing accesses a mile or two apart. Mr. Skivington asked if there are 5,000 houses built in the area what the vehicle count would be on the roundabout. Mr. Murphy stated the roundabout would be designed to fit the traffic and a single lane roundabout can carry in the average of 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles a day efficiently and could be increased with a double lane roundabout.

40 Page 40 Mr. Skivington commented on the possible traffic counts being significant at the intersection with the proposed roundabout during certain times of the day. Commissioner Galyen asked Mr. Krater about an entrance from SR 228 to the development upon full build out that had been proposed in the initial plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Krater indicated that was correct and the end of the development shown on the submitted map is only a quarter of a mile away from SR 228 that crosses land owned by the BLM. He continued stating that a sewer treatment plan will need to be constructed with the first phase and he is going to start applying for the necessary easements and permits from the BLM because it would be more economical to access the treatment plant from the Jiggs Highway. Commissioner Brough moved to approve with Staff s recommendations. Commissioner Larason seconded the motion and the motion passed with Commissioner Hough abstaining due to a fiduciary reason by being a stockholder of Chilton Engineering that provides services to the applicant. VOTE: AYE: NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Mike Judd Jack D. Larason David A. Galyen Milt Grisham Wilde Brough None Dena Hartley David Hough Chairman Judd called a recess at this time. Chairman Judd called the meeting back to order and moved the order of the meeting to , Scott D. & Sheri Baker, under public hearings. VII. OTHER BUSINESS: NON-ACTION ITEM NONE VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: NON-ACTION ITEM Mrs. McQueary stated she had provided a copy of a Supreme Court case regarding ethics but it would not change the way she approaches the ethics law for the Planning Commission.

41 Page 41 Commissioner Galyen asked why there were two items on the agenda for Comments by the General Public. Mrs. McQueary indicated a law would go into effect on July 1 st for the change and it was included on this agenda as practice. IX. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: NON-ACTION ITEM There were no comments by the general public at this time. X. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Judd adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m., as there was no further business. Minutes Clerk, Kelly Watson Date Approved, July 21, 2011