DOING? OKAY. YEAH, I SEE 701. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL BEGIN OUR PLANNING AND ZONING 
          [Call to Order]
          [00:00:11]
MEETING ON MAY 6TH, 2025 AT 7 P.M. FIRST OFF, WE'LL HAVE A REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 1ST MEETING. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? EDITS, CONCERNS? YES, SIR. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO BRING THIS UP IN THE MEETING, BUT I DID MENTION IT EARLIER. YOU KNOW IT'S NOT AN OPEN QUESTION, BUT SHE'S LISTED AS ABSENT. OH, OKAY. YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE GOOD. OKAY. YEP. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS SO. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY ABSENT THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE COMMITTEE. OKAY. ANY OTHER CHANGES OR EDITS. THANK YOU. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO 
          [Minutes: April 01, 2025]
APPROVE THE MINUTES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED. AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. ANY SECONDS. SECOND. THANK YOU. WE'LL JUST TAKE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          [1. PLT24-061: PRELIMINARY PLAT for Creekside Townhomes. SE ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E 33rd North, east of N Boulevard, south of Recycle Road, west of N 5th East.]
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, FIRST WE'LL HEAR ITEM NUMBER ONE, A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE TOWNHOMES, SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION SIX, TOWNSHIP TWO. FIRST OFF, FROM THE APPLICANT, KEVIN GOOD. WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YEAH. SORRY, I'M JUST SINGING THAT SONG. TRAVIS PAYNE 2295 NORTH YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY, UNIT SIX, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. SO TODAY WE'RE PRESENTING A PLAT THAT'S GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF 33RD, NORTH AND EAST OF NORTH BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF RECYCLE ROAD. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 31.56 ACRES. IT HAS 149 LOTS, WITH 148 LOTS THAT ARE BUILDABLE. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED LC AND HC. AS SEEN THOUGH, THE COMMISSION IS ALREADY HERE HEARD THE APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PORTION OF THE HC TO LC. SO ONCE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT GOES THROUGH, IT WILL BE HOMOGENIZED AS JUST ONE ZONE. CURRENTLY, THE LAND SITS VACANT WITH THE HATCHET PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND OTHER VACANT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, AND THEN SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT RESIDE IN THE COUNTY ON THE SOUTH, NOW THE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS HELD FOR THIS PROJECT BACK IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. WE HAD SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO CAME AND EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT MAINTAINING THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF WILLOW CREEK AS IT EXTENDS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROJECT AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT, AND WE MAINTAINED THAT WILLOW CREEK, IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, WILL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED IN ITS CURRENT ALIGNMENT FOR THE ID REQUESTS. SO THAT SEEMED TO ADDRESS THEIR MAJOR CONCERNS. SO BESIDES THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT NOW, MR. SCOTT, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE ACCESS OFF NORTH 33RD. OKAY. IS NORTH BOULEVARD CURRENTLY THERE IS THERE IS THERE A STREET THERE? NO, IT IS PART OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SHOW NORTH BOULEVARD AND ITS FUTURE EXPANSION. BUT IT IS NOT CURRENTLY THERE. BUT IT WILL BE AT SOME POINT. I MEAN, WHAT IS BECAUSE IT DOES SAY ACCESS OFF OF 33RD. NORTH. SO IT IS PLANNED. YEAH. OKAY. AT WHAT POINT? I MEAN WHO'S BUILDING THAT ROAD IS THAT. THAT'S A CITY. THAT'S A CITY ROAD. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT. SO? THERE IS SOME EXISTING CITY RIGHT OF WAY ALONG NORTH BOULEVARD, THAT NORTH BOULEVARD USED TO BE THE ORIGINAL ACCESS TO THE LANDFILL. AND SO THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS PROVIDED AT THE TIME WHEN THAT WAS THE ACCESS STILL REMAINS AND IS STILL CITY RIGHT OF WAY, WITH DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING IN THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT ALONG THAT ROAD WOULD DEDICATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY AND CONSTRUCT THE ROAD TO CITY STANDARDS. AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. GO AHEAD. THIS NORTH BOULEVARD SECTION, DOES IT GET BUILT OUT WITH THIS PHASE ONE OR A FUTURE PHASE? AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS PRELIMINARY, YOU KNOW. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GAUGE. SO IS THIS I GUESS MY QUESTION IS PHASE ONE HERE. DOES IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO ONLY HAVE ONE ACCESS OFF OF RECYCLE ROAD. AND THEN PHASE TWO WOULD THEN PLUG INTO NORTH BOULEVARD? OR DO WE NEED THE NORTH BOULEVARD SECTION 
          [00:05:02]
FIRST ALONG WITH PHASE ONE. SO WE WOULD COORDINATE WITH FIRE AND PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ADEQUATE ACCESS, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THIS DIVISION THAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT HERE. AND WE DO HAVE A RELEVANT STATEMENT OF CRITERIA STANDARDS IN THE PACKET, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO IT. I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO REVIEW THOSE. THANK YOU. WE'LL DO THAT DURING DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. DO WE HEAR FROM STAFF? IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU SHARED WITH ME THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. YES, YES. SO MAYBE LET'S GO THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LEFT OVER WE'LL START THERE. SO JUST TO POINT OUT THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS WILL NOT GO TO CITY COUNCIL. YOU ARE THE DECIDING BODY IN THIS SITUATION. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AT IN IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PHASES BETWEEN 1992 AND 2020 AND 2021. THE PROPERTIES, MOSTLY LLC AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, AND THE COMMISSION DID HEAR THE APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PORTION THAT IS HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO LC, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LC ZONE MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE R3 MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE PLAN FOR AT LEAST THE EASTERN PORTION OF THIS IS TO BE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN A MOMENT, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS MOSTLY GENERAL URBAN, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS. 
          GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT DENOTES RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND SERVICE USES CONVENIENT TO RESIDENTS, AND THE MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS. TRANSIT DENOTES AREAS WHERE PEOPLE TEND TO SHOP, EAT, AND GATHER, BUT ALSO INCLUDES ALL HOUSING TYPES, BUT GENERALLY IN A MORE INTENSE SCALE THAN OTHER AREAS. IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE. THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH TRANSECTS THAT IT'S IN, AS WELL AS THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AS WAS MENTIONED. THIS IS EAST EAST OF NORTH BOULEVARD. LET ME SEE. 
          NORTH BOULEVARD IS ON THE WEST SIDE, EAST OF NORTH BOULEVARD, NORTH OF EAST 33RD, NORTH AND SOUTH WEST OF RECYCLED ROAD. AND THE PRIMARY ACCESS WILL BE COMING OFF OF RECYCLE ROAD. IT IS JUST SOUTH OF THE HATCH PIT, AND ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS TO FIND THAT EXTENSION OF NORTH BOULEVARD AND RECYCLE ROAD, WITH THE INTENTION THAT RECYCLE ROAD. 
          THIS EXTENSION WILL BE NAMED JACK JENKINS ROAD, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL NAME FOR THAT ALIGNMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE AIRPORT OVERLAY. IT'S IN THE CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE, ANY OF THE ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT WOULD BE MORE A HEIGHT THING, WHICH PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT. BUT BUT JUST YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S THERE. FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN ITSELF. AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE ARE 149 LOTS WITH 145 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE INTERNAL STREETS ARE ALL PRIVATE STREETS, AND ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT FRONTS A PRIVATE STREET WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. I CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT IS GOING TO BE EXTENDED WEST TO CONNECT TO NORTH BOULEVARD AS PART OF THE FUTURE PHASE. AND THEN THERE THERE IS A PLANNED DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG NORTH BOULEVARD AND JACK JENKINS ROAD. THE SECONDARY ACCESS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED AFTER 30 UNITS IS PROPOSED TO COME DOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH YOU DON'T SEE ON THIS ONE, BUT THEY THE APPLICANT IS WORKING ON CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT TO ACCESS RIGHT HERE TO 33RD NORTH. WITHOUT THAT, WITHOUT THAT SECONDARY ACCESS, THAT ONLY 30 UNITS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT AND NO MORE THAN 30 UNTIL THAT ACCESS IS GRANTED. AND IT'S CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY SERVICES. FOR PHASE TWO, THOUGH, IT IS PLANNED TO CONNECT TO THE WEST 
          [00:10:05]
TO. NORTH BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN IN THE FLOOR LIKE THAT. OKAY. AND HERE IS AN IMAGE TAKEN FROM RECYCLED ROAD OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE CURRENT IMAGE. SO IT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR OR AT LEAST IS CURRENTLY IRRIGATED. AND SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FIND IT COMPLIES WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. IF YOU HAVE. AND AS FOR THE REASON STATEMENT, IT SAYS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING, BUT I CLARIFIED THE EXTENSION OF RECYCLE ROAD TO THE WEST. THAT EXTENSION RECYCLE ROAD WILL BE TO THE WEST. AND EARLIER I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING INDICATING WHERE IT WAS BEING EXTENDED. AND ALSO THAT IT WILL BE THE IT'S INTENDED TO BE RENAMED TO JACK JACOBS ROAD. AND SIX IN THE REASON STATEMENT IN YOUR PACKETS AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU STILL HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THANK YOU. AS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL NOT GIVE OUR NORMAL SPIEL BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS. SO WE WILL JUST OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CONTINUE NOW WITH DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION. 
          ANY THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS OR ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS REQUIRED? IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN READ ITEM NUMBER SIX AS IT VARIES FROM YOUR PACKET. RECYCLED ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED WEST. AS A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR WITH THE NAME JACK JENKINS ROAD, SO IT WOULD BE JACK JENKINS FROM THE MAIN ROAD ALL THE WAY THROUGH, SO RECYCLE WILL GO AWAY COMPLETELY. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THAT'S OKAY. YES, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. PERFECT. YOU DON'T MIND? SORRY. I'M JUST LIKE YOU'RE BULLDOZING THROUGH. SO THIS IS IN THE LC ZONE, CORRECT? ALL OF IT. WELL, EVENTUALLY ALL OF IT IS IT? IF I HEARD THIS CORRECTLY, THE NEXT PHASE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT COULD OR COULDN'T BE, BUT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A COMMERCIAL USE. CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. OKAY. AND IF IT BECOMES MORE RESIDENTIAL, WILL IT REQUIRE MORE ACCESS POINTS? OR IS I MEA, OBVIOUSLY WE MIGHT ACCESS INTO ANOTHER ROAD INTO JACK JENKINS AND EVERYTHING, BUT. WILL IT NEED TO COME DOWN FURTHER DOWN? AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T FULLY RELEVANT. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF THIS PHASE TWO HERE, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE LEFT WITH A MESS LATER. RIGHT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE THAT CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT, SO THAT PHASE TWO CAN UTILIZE THAT CENTER PRIVATE STREET FOR THEIR OWN SECONDARY ACCESS. OKAY. THE LIMIT, I GUESS AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE LIMIT IS 30 RESIDENTS LIKE SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS OR 200 MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS THAT HAVE A SPRINKLER BEFORE YOU NEED A SECOND ACCESS. IF THERE'S A THRESHOLD FOR A THIRD ACCESS, WE HAVE NOT EVER REACHED IT, BUT IT MIGHT BE THERE. BUT YEAH, FOR THIS FROM WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING. YEAH IT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. SO THESE LOT WIDTHS THEY RANGE FROM ANYWHERE FROM 24 TO 30. WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED I GUESS MULTIFAMILY OR I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE ATTACHED UNITS. RIGHT. SO THESE IN OUR OUR DEFINITIONS ARE GOING TO BE SINGLE UNIT ATTACHED AS THEY ARE ATTACHED UNITS ON THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL LOTS. OKAY. THEY'LL BE THEY'LL BE BUILT TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE WHICH MEANS NO SPRINKLERS, WHICH MEANS YOUR MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS ON A SINGLE AXIS IS 30. OKAY. ONCE YOU HAVE YOUR SECOND ACCESS, THAT OPENS IT UP TO A LOT MORE. GOTCHA. AND THEN WITH THE LC ZONE, IS IT POSSIBLE HAVE YOU SEEN IT DONE BEFORE WHERE THEY KIND OF INTEGRATE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TOGETHER? I KNOW THAT LC IT FALLS UNDER THE R3 ZONE IF IT WANTS TO BE RESIDENTIAL, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO MIX THOSE? YES, YES. AND EVEN LIKE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND EVEN WITH THE PUD THERE'S, THERE'S IT'S AVAILABLE IN THE CODE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A PORTION OF YOUR COMMUNITY AS 
          [00:15:06]
COMMERCIAL. IF AN APPLICANT OR LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER WISHED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, IT IS IT IS PERMITTED BY THE CODE TO DO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. WE HAVEN'T SEEN LC USED THAT WAY, BUT IT IS. THERE. IT IS POSSIBLE. OKAY, SWEET. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CANTU, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. CREEKSIDE TOWN HOUSE HOMES. THANK YOU. DO WE NEED TO ADD THE STATE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA TO THAT MOTION? YOU WOULD DO IT AS A SEPARATE MOTION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. CREEKSIDE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANKS, COMMISSIONER SCOTT. WHY DON'T WE DO THE ROLL CALL? VOTE? COMMISSIONER CANTU. HI, SCOTT ISLER. HI. OGDEN, MEEHAN, A STORE I MOTION PASSED. THANK YOU. AND WE ALSO NEED A VOTE ON THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION? I CAN MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE. SINCE I'VE GOT IT, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE STATEMENT OF RELATIVE CRITERIA. I'LL SECOND THAT, COMMISSIONER. SAME ROLL CALL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CANTU, I SCOTT ISLER, I OGDEN, I MEAN I STORE I MOTION PASSED THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT ITEM TWO AMENDMENT TO 
          [2. RZN25-004: Amendment to Sections 11-2-6 Standards for allowed Land Uses; (L) Day Care, Center and Day Care, Group and (R) Home Occupation; 11-7-1, Definitions of Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Code.]
SECTIONS 111 .-216 STANDARDS FOR LAND USE OF THE DAYCARE CENTER DAYCARE GROUP. WE HAVE AN APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT CITY VITAL POLICY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK DOUBLE DUTY TONIGHT. YEAH. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. COMMISSION. SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. SO THE OVERALL ZONING ORDINANCE, THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST EIGHT HERE TONIGHT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. SO I'M GOING TO START KIND OF WITH THE COMMENTS FIRST. SO THE STATE OF IDAHO LEGISLATURE, IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING ALONG, PASSED THIS LAST MARCH WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1ST, 2025, CHANGES TO THE LICENSING OF DAYCARES. SO THE CITY THE PREVIOUS LAW, THE CITY WAS ABLE TO ADMINISTER LICENSING FOR DAYCARES AND THEN AND SO WE HAD A SEPARATE PROGRAM FOR THAT. THE LAW HAS CHANGED NOW, WHERE ONLY THE STATE WILL BE ABLE TO ISSUE THOSE LICENSES FOR DAYCARES BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGE. IT ALSO REMOVED A CITY'S ABILITY TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE. SO THE FIRST PART OF THAT PROCESS WAS THE CITY HAS ALREADY REPEALED OUR DAYCARE LICENSING ORDINANCE. THAT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH THOSE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT. THE SECOND PART IS OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DOES NEED TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE. BECAUSE OF THIS RECENT CHANGE. SO DAYCARES WILL STILL BE REQUIRED, THOUGH, TO GET APPROVAL OF LOCAL COMPLIANCE FROM ZONING, BUILDING AND FIRE. 
          SO THE USE TABLES THAT YOU SEE IN THE BACK, THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THAT. I JUST WANT TO INCLUDE THAT. SO YOU KNEW WHERE DAYCARE IS GOOD AND COULD BE PERMITTED. AND THE TYPE OF DAYCARES, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN STILL REGULATE. BUT SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL FEATURES THAT WE HAD, SUCH AS LIKE WE ARE REMOVING STANDARDS FROM DAYCARE FACILITIES SUCH AS TIMES WHEN THEY'RE PICKED UP, REQUIREMENT FOR OUTDOOR AREAS, THOSE ARE BEING REMOVED FROM THE CODE. 
          THESE STANDARDS, THEY RARELY APPLIED TO THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES. REMOVAL OF THESE STANDARDS WILL WILL SIMPLIFY A REVIEW. AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE LICENSING AS WELL. AND R-1 ZONE, WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT A DAYCARE CENTER WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THAT WOULD BE THE GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT STANDARDS WITH A SPECIFIC TO THE SITUATION, SUCH AS PICK UP TIME OR OUTDOOR PLAY. WE COULD STILL DO THOSE ON OUR ONE CUP. THE. 
          AND IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL DAYCARE THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE CIVIL ENGINEER SITE PLAN. SO THERE ARE STILL SOME OF THOSE THINGS THERE. THE OTHER PART WAS REMOVED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION. 
          YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WAS A SECTION WHERE WE KIND OF POINTED OUT THAT A DAYCARE COULD HAVE ONE NON RESIDENT AS AN EMPLOYEE, USUALLY HOME OCCUPATIONS, YOU CANNOT HAVE SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN THE HOME WORK THERE. THIS BE MOVED TO THE DAYCARE STANDARDS JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY IT. RIGHT. SO DAYCARES DAYCARE DOESN'T QUITE FALL UNDER ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCCUPATION. IT'S A LITTLE BIT SEPARATE. AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGE WE MADE WAS IN THE DEFINITIONS. WE JUST MATCHED THE STATE. THE STATE LAW WAS CHANGED FOR THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PER 
          [00:20:06]
THE TYPE. AND SO WE JUST CHANGE OUR DEFINITIONS TO MATCH THAT. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CHANGES WE DID FOR THE DAYCARES AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. SO THIS IS YOUR RECOMMENDING BODY FOR THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE. BUT STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1126 STANDARDS FOR ALLOWED LAND USES L DAYCARE CENTER AND DAYCARE GROUP AND HOME OCCUPATION. AND YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE THIS. SO I'LL I'LL LEAVE THIS UP. ANY NEW QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. SO THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED AT THE TOP SECTION, THAT REMOVAL WAS BECAUSE IT CONFLICTED WITH STATE LAW OR YES. SO WE CAN'T BE MORE STRICT THAN THE STATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. HAVE A COMMENT. YES PLEASE. COMMISSIONERS. IS THIS NEW THAT THE CITY CANNOT BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE WITH REGARD TO. YES, THAT'S EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST. SO I CAN ANSWER A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, I. I'VE BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN TRYING TO GET SOME CHANGES MADE TO OUR DAYCARE ORDINANCE. IT WAS ALL FOR NAUGHT WHEN THIS ALL OCCURRED. BUT ULTIMATELY THE CHANGES THAT ARE BASICALLY BEING MADE ARE REALLY YANKING CITY'S ABILITY TO BE MONITORING AND REGULATING DAYCARE OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THEM, AND REALLY JUST GIVING IT TO THE STATE. SO YEAH, THERE WERE A LOT OF BIG CHANGES THAT WERE MADE THIS PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, PARTICULARLY AS IT PERTAINS TO DAYCARE. SO AT THIS HOUR, COME JULY 1ST, IT WILL EFFECTIVELY BE ALL IN THE STATE'S HANDS AS FAR AS LICENSING AND REGULATION. A LOT OF THE REGULATION OVER THAT. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE CITY DID EFFECTIVELY MOVE TO JUST TAKE TO TAKE OUT ITS ORDINANCE, DAYCARE ORDINANCE, PERIOD, JUST TO GET THINGS ROLLING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. OKAY. SO I'M NOT POLITICAL HERE, BUT ARE WE OKAY WITH THIS? I MEAN, IS THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER YOU ARE OR NOT, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD AND YOU SHOULD WRITE YOUR LEGISLATOR. IF YOU'RE NOT, I WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COUNCIL THAT AREN'T AS EXCITED ABOUT IT. YEAH, BUT IT'S KIND OF OUT OF OUR HANDS AT THIS POINT. FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE. I UNDERSTAND WE'RE WE'RE ADJUSTING THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A DAYCARE IS TO MEET STATE STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN THE NEW LAW. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE MIGHT WANT TO COME BACK AT SOME POINT AND DETERMINE WHETHER THAT THE NEW DEFINITION OF A DAYCARE IS APPROPRIATE WITH THE LAND USES, WHERE OR THE ZONING AREAS WHERE IT'S ALLOWED NOW, BY OUR CODE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. I DON'T SEE THAT BEING THE CASE. IF THERE ENDS UP BEING A LOT OF PUSHBACK, IF ENOUGH PEOPLE END UP WRITING THEIR LEGISLATION, THEN THINGS CHANGE DOWN THE ROAD. MAYBE WE WILL. BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, I DON'T SEE ANY IMMEDIATE CHANGES HAPPENING. SO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A DAYCARE IS ISN'T CHANGING ENOUGH THAT WE WOULD NEED TO REEVALUATE WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE. NO. AND THE DEFINITIONS, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S THEY'RE PRETTY SUBTLE, RIGHT. RATHER THAN MORE THAN OR 13 OR MORE 12. THEY'RE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT IT PROBABLY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED LAND USE WISE. THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ADDING THE ALLOWED LAND USE COMMERCIAL ZONING CODES SO THAT WE COULD SEE THAT THAT WAS HELPFUL TO KNOW YOU DON'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE. RIGHT? OKAY. YEAH. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW IF THE STATE HAS SET UP ANY MECHANISM FOR ENFORCING THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE? IN PARTICULAR, I'M INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF THE ENFORCEMENT WILL COME FROM BOISE OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL SET UP REGIONAL OFFICES OR. NO IDEA. SO I WE'VE BEEN I KNOW THIS REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING STUFF, BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THE THERE IS A REGIONAL DEPARTMENT, I WANT TO SAY DISTRICT SEVEN. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR HEALTH AND WELFARE IS INVOLVED. I THINK THERE'S A ANOTHER ORGANIZATION. I'M DRAWING BLANKS ON THE NAME, BUT THEY'RE HEAVILY INVOLVED AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COLLABORATION ON LIKE, HOW DO WE DO THIS SEAMLESSLY? HOW DO WE HELP INDIVIDUALS GET ON THE RIGHT TRACK WITH GETTING THE PROPER LICENSING? THERE? THERE 
          [00:25:03]
HAS BEEN A BASICALLY AN AGREEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE THAT THEY WOULD HONOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN RECENTLY LICENSED BEFORE THE CHANGE, BASICALLY HONORING THEIR CITY LICENSE HERE, LICENSING FOR ABOUT A YEAR. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH STATE LICENSING STANDARDS. WE DECIDED TO JUST KIND OF PULL THE PLUG ON IT RIGHT AWAY, JUST TO GET ANYBODY WHO'S REALLY GETTING GOING WITH THIS, TO GET THEM GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IMMEDIATELY, RATHER THAN WAIT UNTIL THAT JULY 1ST TIMEFRAME. 
          OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR. OKAY. AND THE CITY HAS ALREADY SENT NOTIFICATION TO ALL THE DEVELOPERS, HAVE BEEN LICENSED UNDER THE CITY ABOUT THE CHANGE. I THINK THERE WAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 OF THEM. SO THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT PROCESS. AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY CLERK, OUR DEPARTMENT, AND WITH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M DRAWING BLANKS ON THE NAME OF THAT OTHER ORGANIZATION. I WANT TO SAY, I DO WANT TO SAY DISTRICT SEVEN, BUT I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION. 
          THANK. I MOVE THAT THIS COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. 
          AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 11 TWO SIX STANDARDS FOR ALLOWED LAND USES FOR DAYCARE CENTER, DAYCARE GROUP AND OUR HOME OCCUPATION 11 SEVEN ONE. DEFINITIONS OF TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE. 
          WELL DONE. WE HAVE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. IT'S UNANIMOUS. NEXT UP, ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO CODE. OH I BLANKED IT A LITTLE BIT, SO PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THAT WAS A PUBLIC HEARING. DID YOU OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? NO, I DID NOT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO BEFORE WE VOTED. GOOD CATCH. I'M JUST MOVING ALONG RIGHT DOWN MYSELF. NOPE. THANK YOU. WE FAILED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM TWO. THE AMENDMENT IS READ CORRECTING SECTIONS 11 .2.6, AND WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ISLER. WE DO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE 
          [3. RZN25-005: Amendment to Sections 11-4-5 Off-Street Parking and Loading; (F) Parking and Parking Lot Design of Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Code.]
LAW ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. JUST TO VERIFY YOUR GUYS'S VOTES DON'T CHANGE, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. 
          BASED ON THE CONTENTS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO THANK YOU. SO SINCE WE'RE CHANGING CODE, WE DECIDED TO CHANGE QUITE A BIT. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS IS SECTION 11 DASH FIVE OR EXCUSE ME, 11, FOUR FIVE, WHICH IS OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING. WE'RE ADDING SOME LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH FIRE CODE. THIS IS THE WRITING IN THE BLACK. AND THE TABLE IS WHAT HOW THE CODE CURRENTLY READS. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ADDING SECTION E, WHICH IS THIS TEXT IN THE BLUE. SO FIRE CODE REQUIRES THAT FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS BE A MINIMUM OF 26FT. OUR CODE SAYS 24. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT 24 BECAUSE NOT ALL ACCESSES ARE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESSES. AND WE JUST WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. WE FEEL LIKE DEVELOPERS ARE IN THE ZONING CODE MORE SO THAN THEY'RE IN THE FIRE CODE. SO JUST ADDING THAT WILL HELP STREAMLINE SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND QUESTIONS. SO THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. STAFF HAS IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11 FOUR FIVE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A 26 FOOT DRIVE AISLE FOR A FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IS THAT A TYPO ON THE RECOMMENDATION? THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO SECTION 11 4 OR 5 FOUR, WHEREAS DOWN HERE. 
          CORRECT. THANK YOU. IT SHOULD BE 11 4-5 OKAY. AND I'M SEEING THEM I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED 
          [00:30:05]
I'M SORRY. STANDARD CONFLICTS WITH INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE REQUIRING A 26 FOOT DRIVE AISLE. 
          BUT I DON'T SEE ANY CHANGES. I STILL SEE A 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLE. CORRECT. AND THE CHARGE JUST ON THE BOTTOM PART RIGHT IN THE TABLE. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE OUR STANDARDS, AND THEN WE'RE JUST ADDING THE LANGUAGE AS A SUBSECTION E. OKAY OKAY. SO SECTION B IS THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE CORRECT. GOT IT. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT WAS SUFFICIENT. SO OKAY I CAN I PLEASE COMMISSIONER I KNOW YOU EXPLAINED IT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DUMB IT DOWN FOR ME. SO I KNOW WE ADDED SECTION E, RIGHT. BUT WE'RE KEEPING THE 24 EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD BE 26. 
          PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME. I GUESS THE DIFFERENCE IF ALL DRIVE AISLES NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE FIRE ON THEM, BUT THEN ONLY SOME ARE FIRE APPARATUS. I'M JUST CONFUSED WITH THE LABELING. SO WE STILL NEED A MINIMUM STANDARD. WE STILL NEED A MINIMUM FOR A TWO WAY STREET. 
          THAT'S NOT A FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. NOT ALL DRIVE AISLES ARE A FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. 
          NORMALLY, YOUR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS IS GOING TO BE THROUGH A SECTION OF THE PARKING LOT AND AROUND THE BUILDING. SO IF YOU HAVE, LET'S SAY WALMART'S PARKING LOT, THANK YOU. CARRIE, LOOK AT THAT. THEIR FIRE APPARATUS IS ACTUALLY THE ROAD HOUSTON ROAD OR HOUSTON STREET THAT GOES AROUND THE PARKING LOT AND WRAPS AROUND THE BUILDING. AND THEN THAT FRONT ACCESS ALONG PARALLEL WITH THE BUILDING IS A FIRE APPARATUS. BUT THE DRIVE BUT THE DRIVE AISLES IN BETWEEN SOME OF THOSE PARKING STALLS ARE NOT. SO WE STILL NEED A MINIMUM STANDARD FOR THOSE FOR TWO FOR TWO WEEKS. FOR SOME REASON I WAS SEEING ALL THESE AND I WAS THINKING STREETS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD I I'M I WAS NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT PARKING LOTS OF BIG BOX STORES. OKAY, SO THIS IS MOSTLY FOR PARKING LOTS. IT'S ALL FOR PARKING LOT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT THAT WHOLE SECTION JUST ADDRESSES PARKING, PARKING, PARKING. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE SAYING DRIVE AISLES, I'M LIKE, ARE YOU NEIGHBORHOOD? STREET? YEAH. WHY WOULDN'T A FIRE TRUCK GO DOWN THERE? YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. SORRY I KICKED IT OFF. I JUST YEAH. NO, NO. YOU'RE FINE. I JUST I WAS CURIOUS, WOULD IT NOT BE EASIER TO ADD ANOTHER SECTION TO THE GRID FOR FIRE APPARATUS OR FIRE MARSHAL ACCESS? WE COULD, RATHER THAN I JUST THINKING BECAUSE I, I LOOK AT IT LIKE A FIVE AND WOULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY, GOOD, WE'RE GOOD AT 24. NO, WE COULD ADD ANOTHER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE MORE CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC, POSSIBLY UNDER CIRCULATION PATTERN. WE COULD JUST ADD FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AND THEN THEN PUT A JUST BLANK THE PARKING. AND THEN ONE OF THE REASONS WE DIDN'T PUT 26 IN IS BECAUSE IT IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD CHANGE. AND WHERE IT'S IN ANOTHER CODE BOOK AND THE FIRE CODE, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS BETTER JUST TO REFER TO IT IN THAT WAY. IF THE FIRE CODE CHANGED BUT WE WERE UNAWARE OF IT, WE WOULDN'T BE OUT OF SYNC WITH OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE THEN. YES. SO HE IS ESSENTIALLY REFERENCING SEPARATE FIRE, RIGHT? TRYING TO POINT THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. YEAH. WONDERFUL ANSWER. THANK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. WHAT IF YOU ADDED LIKE ONE OF THOSE LITTLE LIKE REFERENCE STARS NEXT TO THE 220 FOURS AS WELL? BECAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT ZONING CODE, I'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR JOB. I JUST KNOW THAT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT YOUR ZONING CODE, WHENEVER I SEE A LITTLE STAR NEXT TO LIKE THE LITTLE REFERENCE STAR NEXT TO ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS, I THEN KNOW TO LOOK DOWN IN THE OTHER TEXTS, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE JUST LOOK AT THE TABLE AND GO, OH, OKAY, BUT HAVING JUST A LITTLE REFERENCE STAR TWO E MIGHT BE HELPFUL, YOU KNOW? YEAH, YEAH. 
          AT LEAST SO THEY SO THEY DON'T JUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION AT THE TABLE AND NOT EVEN BOTHER TO GET TO IT. NOW, I'M NOT A FULL FLEDGED DEVELOPER, I JUST THAT'S JUST HOW I THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER TABLES IN THE CODE. YEAH I MEAN I DO YEAH I SEE A LOT OF OTHER TABLES LIKE THAT WHERE THERE IS A, LIKE A WHAT IF YOU HAVE A STAR NEXT TO IT. SO SURE WE CAN DO THAT. GREAT, GREAT. OKAY. AND YOU ARE TECHNICALLY SUPPOSED TO TELL ME HOW TO DO MY JOB WHEN IT COMES TO THIS STUFF. YOU'RE WAY SMARTER THAN I AM. BUT. VERY GOOD. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.4 .5-450 PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH. GOODNESS SAKES, WE'RE STILL IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THREE MORE ITEMS. GLAD OUR LAWYERS HERE. THANK YOU. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S ACTUALLY A BUSINESS ITEM. I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S THE FIRST TIME A 
          [00:35:05]
BUSINESS ITEM. NO APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER TYLER CAUGHT THAT. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.4 11 4-5. SEEING NO, NO ONE IN THE PUBLIC HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND NOW, ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION, OR I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT STAR IDEA DO DOES THAT NEED TO BE MENTIONED OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING YOU GUYS I THINK THAT'S INTERNAL. THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU GUYS OKAY. YOU CAN EITHER YOU WITH THAT. UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT PART OF A MOTION, YOU CAN INCLUDE IT IN THE MOTION. YOU CAN INCLUDE IT TO JUST DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK INTO IT. AND IF IT MAKES SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. OR YOU COULD JUST IMPLY THAT THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED HOWEVER YOU'RE MOST COMFORTABLE. OKAY. AND THEN WASN'T THERE ANOTHER CHANGE THAT ALSO MADE JUST IT'S JUST IN THE CORRECTION IN HERE IN THE BODY, NOT IN THE UPPER PART. SO WHEN YOU READ THAT WHOEVER READS THE AMENDMENT FOR THE MOTION, IT SHOULD BE CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE WELL UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE ELSE. NO. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND TO SECTION 11 4-5, OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO ADD LANGUAGE REGARDING FIRE APPARATUS. ACCESS CODE WITH THE CONDITION OR RECOMMENDATION, OR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. STAFF LOOKS INTO THE FORMATTING OF THE LITTLE REFERENCE STAR AND IF IT SEEMS FIT OR NOT, THERE WE GO. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THE VOTE WAS 
          [4. RZN25-006: Amendment to Section 10-1-5 General Subdivision Standards; (F) Lot Improvements; (4)(i) residential corner lots of the Subdivision Ordinance.]
UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP. AMENDMENT TO SECTION TEN DASH ONE FIVE. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION, THANKS FOR LETTING ME COME BEFORE YOU. IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO SEE YOUR SMILING FACES. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION TEN .1.5, GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, F LOT IMPROVEMENT OR I RESIDENTIAL CORNER LOTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. SO BASICALLY WE HAVE A RATHER COMPLICATED FORM OF FIGURING OUT 10% FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND TO SIMPLIFY THINGS SO THAT WE HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE AND EASILY LIKE A QUICKER BUILD TIME WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BASICALLY SIMPLIFY THIS. THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CURRENTLY REQUIRES CORNER LOTS TO BE 10% LARGER THAN OTHER LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE A LARGE LOT, BECAUSE CORNER LOTS MUST MEET FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON BOTH PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO THE STREET. LET'S SEE. ARE WE THERE, CARRIE? YEAH. OKAY, SO YOU ALREADY MOVED ME. 
          THANK YOU. MUST BE FRONT YARD SETBACKS IN BOTH PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO THE STREET. THE CURRENT METHOD WORKS WHEN SUBDIVISIONS WERE LARGELY CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME SIZE. 
          LOTS WITH SAME SIZE AND HOUSING TYPE. WITH THE IMPLEMENT OF THE IMAGINE IF AND THE GOALS OF CREATING MULTIPLE HOUSING OPTIONS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CURRENT METHOD OF CALCULATION HAS BECOME MORE COMPLICATED. NEW SUBDIVISIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A VARIED LOT SIZE AND MULTIPLE HOUSING PRODUCTS. PRODUCTS. DEVELOPING DEVELOPERS NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS HAVE HAD TO REDESIGN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SLOW DOWN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND CREATE CONFUSION. THIS CAN LEAD TO THE HOUSING THAT IS LESS AFFORDABLE TO THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT BEING PASSED ON THROUGH THE TO THE FINAL PURCHASER, SO THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL STILL REQUIRE CORNER LOTS TO BE 10% LARGER TO DEAL WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BUT RATHER THAN BEING LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL NEED TO BE 10% LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THEY ARE IN. SO I KNOW THAT'S A MOUTHFUL, BUT BASICALLY WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY. WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE LARGER CORNER LOTS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT FOR THE ZONE. RIGHT. AND THESE ARE ALL FAIRLY LOW HANGING FRUIT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT TO TRY AND ACCELERATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING. SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE TO ADD THERE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE ONE. SORRY. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SCOTT I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT TABLE 4.2 WHERE SOME OF THESE ITEMS ARE HIGHLIGHTED. WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS. TABLE 
          [00:40:08]
4.2. SO THOSE ARE OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RIGHT. SO THESE SO THIS CHANGE IS BASICALLY AFFORDABILITY AND AVAILABILITY. SO I WENT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I PULLED THE GOALS THAT WE AS A CITY CREATED. RIGHT. AND THEN I PUT THEM INTO THIS DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT WHY WE WOULD WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RIGHT. SO THE HIGHLIGHTED ONES ARE THE ONES THAT SPECIFICALLY TALK TO IT. RIGHT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO EXPAND ON IT SOME MORE? I DO HAVE TO EXPAND ON MY QUESTION HERE. THE FINAL ITEM FOCUS ON SPECIFIC NEEDS ACTION TO REVIEW CODES AND POLICIES TO IDENTIFY AND REMOVE THOSE WHICH ENCOURAGE EXCLUSIVITY. AND I'M JUST SORT OF CURIOUS WHAT EXCLUSIVITY MEANS. WHAT ARE WE EXCLUDING TO WHAT DO I MAKE MY POINT? WELL, SO. LET'S SEE. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SOME ZONES THAT REQUIRE LARGER LAND MASSES THAN WHAT WHAT WE HAVE STUDIED, WHICH IS THE MISSING MIDDLE FORMAT. SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THESE AMENDMENTS AND OR ASKS FOR CHANGES COMING OVER THE COURSE. SO WE'VE HAD A CITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TO TRY AND HELP BUILD MORE HOUSING. WE KNOW WE HAVE A SHORTAGE. AND SO ULTIMATELY WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THINGS WHERE THERE'S MORE DIVERSITY AND VARIETY AND GIVE THE DEVELOPER THE ABILITY TO BUILD OTHER THINGS THAN A HOMOGENOUS ROW OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. RIGHT? YOU THEY MAY LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, BUT OR SINGLE UNIT HOUSING, BUT THEY MAY HAVE TWO DOORS OR TWO UNITS, BUT IT MAY LOOK LIKE A MANSION. REALLY. RIGHT. SO THIS JUST HELPS BRING THINGS INTO ALIGNMENT WITH WITH THE MISSING MIDDLE. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT. AND THAT MAKES SENSE. I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY TO ME WHAT THAT MEANS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A DEFINITION BUT SO EXCLUSIVITY EXCLUSIVITY, HOW I INTERPRET IT, I MEAN, THIS IS ALL JUST IN THE COMPREHENSIVE IMAGINE I HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ON HOW I INTERPRET IT IS IT'S MOSTLY JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT BRIAN WAS SAYING, MOSTLY JUST HOMOGENOUS NEIGHBORHOODS OR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE JUST ONE TYPE OF THING, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. SO LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT BECAUSE BACK THEN, 20, 30 YEARS AGO, WE WERE GETTING NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE STONY BROOK AND. SOUTH POINT. WHILE, YES, THOSE ARE VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY ARE SOMEWHAT EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE OF THE INHERENT ZONING THAT WAS APPLIED TO THOSE AND THOSE ZONING CODE. 
          IT MADE IT EXCLUSIVE TO ONLY BE ONE TYPE OF HOUSING. AND SO THIS CODE OR REDUCING THE THESE CODES HELPS ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF REDUCING THOSE BARRIERS FOR DEVELOPERS. 
          SO THAT WAY THERE'S MORE DIVERSITY IN HOUSING STOCK. THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT. AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. SO I WOULD JUST GO ALONG THE LINES OF WE DON'T WANT A SINGLE TYPE NECESSARILY. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE BROADENING OF HOUSING TYPES SO WE CAN AGE IN PLACE. 
          RIGHT? I CAN I CAN STAY IN MY SAME NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I CAN AGE IN PLACE. SO I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING, RIGHT AS I GO THROUGH MY LIFE CYCLE. BUT ULTIMATELY, THIS IS ABOUT THE 10% AND THE CORNER LOTS, AND IT'S BEEN RATHER COMPLICATED. AND THE MORE WE SEE A VARIETY OR SO WE NOW HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY PLATS THAT MAY HAVE SMALL ATTACHED HOUSING UNITS AND THEN SINGLE OR SINGLE UNIT. AND SO IT CAN CREATE SOME COMPLICATED MATH. YEAH. THE, THE REAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IS REALLY JUST TO SIMPLIFY THE PLANNING PROCESS, CORRECT? YEAH. BECAUSE WHEN INHERENTLY WHEN YOU SIMPLIFY IT, IT THEN MAKES IT LESS GOING INTO WHAT THIS IS SAYING, LESS EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE 
          [00:45:02]
YOU'RE LOOSENING RESTRICTIONS. SO IT'S MAKING IT MORE FLEXIBLE. SO IT'S MULTIFACETED. YEAH. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER. SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE SIMPLIFYING THE CODE THAT MAKES IT CHEAPER AND EASIER TO DEVELOP ANY PROPERTY, EVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. RIGHT. AND THEREFORE REDUCES THE FINAL COST THAT A HOME BUYER IS GOING TO PAY. 
          BECAUSE WE'VE SIMPLIFIED THE PROCESS FOR THE BUILDER. CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. ESPECIALLY WITH TIME, BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER TIME IS MONEY. AND IF THEY HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH FOR A REVISION, THAT'S MORE INTEREST THEY'RE PAYING ON LAND THAT THEY HAVEN'T TURNED INTO. YEAH. SO THAT REALLY IT REALLY DOES TRANSLATE TO DOLLARS FOR HOMEBUYERS. SO THIS IS REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING STOCK IS BEING BUILT, IT'S JUST ALL HOUSING IN GENERAL GETS EASIER TO BUILD IN IDAHO FALLS. YEAH. THIS AND I'M ASSUMING THIS IS ONE OF MANY CODES THAT WE MIGHT SEE, SIMPLIFIED OR REVISED OVER TIME WHEN WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF PRELIMINARY PLATS GET SENT BACK TO FIX THIS SPECIFIC TASK. RIGHT. AND WE'VE WE FEEL IT'S UNNECESSARY. RIGHT. AND THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BUILD LOTS THE SIZE TO FIT STRUCTURES THAT THEY THINK ARE MARKETABLE. YEAH. SO ONE FINAL QUESTION I HAVE TO THE NEW THE NEW WORDING, ALL RESIDENTIAL LAW SHOULD BE 10% LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED FOR THEIR ZONING DISTRICT. THAT'S THE ZONING DISTRICT, AS I'M UNDERSTANDING, IS THE ZONE IT'S CURRENTLY IN. 
          DOES THAT IMPACT ALREADY PLATTED LOTS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, I JUST PURCHASED A CORNER LOT SOUTH OF ME AND IT'S SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE ZONE IT'S IN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A CORNER LOT. 
          IS THAT UNBUILDABLE OR DOES IT GET GRANDFATHERED IF IT'S ALREADY AN EXISTING PLATTED? IF IT'S AN EXISTING PLANNED LOT, THEN IT'S GOING TO REMAIN AN EXISTING PLOT. AND THE LOT WITH DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. IF IT'S I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF IT'S SMALLER THAN THE ZONE. THAT'S A QUESTION. I MEAN, IT'S NOT AS LONG AS IT'S A PLATTED LOT ON THE PLAT THAT'S RECORDED, AND IT'S NOT AS A DIVISION. RIGHT? A LOT SPLIT. THEN WE SHOULD BE GOOD. OKAY, GREAT. NO, THAT THAT WAS GOOD INSIGHT BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW. I MEAN, I THINK IT WORKED WITH THE OLD DEFINITION, BUT MAY NOT WITH THE NEW. THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS. OKAY. WITH THE NEW DEFINITION, ALL OF THE LOT SIZES SHOULD BE DRAMATICALLY SMALLER, RIGHT? RIGHT. MOST I THINK IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER UNLESS YOU'RE RAY OR SOMETHING. MOST DEVELOPMENTS NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING AN AVERAGE OF THE PHASE THAT YOU'RE IN. THE LOT SIZE IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM THE ZONE REQUIRES. SO CHANGING THIS IS THREE LOTS. SO THAT'S AND THAT COULD BE I MEAN EACH LAND IS AN EACH LOT IS UNIQUE. SO THAT COULD BE PART OF THAT OKAY. THAT HELPS ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          COMMENTS DISCUSSION OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING I DIDN'T FORGET. UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARING OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE JUST STAYING THERE BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING TO BE PUBLIC. NOW I HAVE THE NEXT. AND WE'LL I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO AMEND SECTION 10.15. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. THANK YOU. I RECOMMEND THAT WE. THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION TEN DASH ONE FIVE. GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, SUBSECTION F, LOT IMPROVEMENTS, SUBSECTION FOUR I RESIDENTIAL CORNER. LOTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. WELL DONE COMMISSIONER. ANY SECOND. I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CANTU. WE'LL JUST TAKE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. ALL 
          [5. RZN25-007: Amendment to Sections 11-2-6 Standards for allowed Land Uses; (O) Dwelling, MultiUnit of Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Code.]
RIGHT, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR DWELLING MULTI UNITS CITYWIDE. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO READ THROUGH HERE. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE ENTIRE THING. I'M JUST GOING TO HIT MY HIGHLIGHTED POINTS. AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. BUT THE CURRENT CODE LIMIT STRUCTURES WITHIN THE R-2 ZONE TO NO MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS WITHIN A SINGLE STRUCTURE. THIS REGULATION IS A HOLDOVER FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING ORDINANCE, AND WAS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS A 
          [00:50:01]
TYPICAL FOURPLEX STRUCTURE TWO UNITS ABOVE AND TWO UNITS BELOW THE R-2 ZONE ALSO WAS PREVIOUSLY MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR THREE STORY CONSTRUCTION. FOURPLEX STRUCTURES ARE NOT GENERALLY BUILT TO THREE STORIES. THIS, ALONG WITH A WIDER RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES BEING PROPOSED, HAVE MADE THIS REQUIREMENT OUTDATED. AMENDING THE DWELLING MULTI UNIT PORTION OF THE CODE WILL HELP WITH SEVERAL CHALLENGES BEING FACED BY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS IN THE R-2 ZONE, AND THEN I GO INTO SOME OF THESE. BUT INCREASING INCREASED HOUSING SUPPLY AND DIVERSITY, IMPROVED AFFORDABILITY, ECONOMIC BENEFITS, ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITIES ECONOMIC BENEFITS. AND IN CONCLUSION, REMOVING UNIT NUMBERS RESTRICTIONS FROM ZONING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A POWERFUL TOOL FOR INCREASING HOUSING SUPPLY AND IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY, CREATING MORE VIBRANT COMMUNITIES AND FOSTERING ECONOMIC GROWTH. HOWEVER, SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION REQUIRES CAREFUL PLANNING, CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL CONTEXT, AND PROACTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS. AGAIN, THIS THIS IS FAIRLY SIMPLE. THE RULE WAS WRITTEN PRIMARILY FOR FOURPLEXES AND WE'VE NOW CHANGED OUR OUR ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR OTHER THINGS. WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT. AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THIS AS IT GOES ALONG. RIGHT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. OR COMMISSIONER HEATHER. SO JUST BASED OFF OF THE LAST OR SECOND LAST PAGE HERE. SO WE'RE JUST GETTING RID OF THE VERBIAGE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T BE NO MORE THAN FOUR DWELLINGS. SO WHICH THEN MEAN PER STRUCTURE, WHICH THEN MEANS WE CAN NOW HAVE AS MANY DWELLING UNITS POSSIBLE PER STRUCTURE WITHIN THE OTHER ORDINANCES, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO SETBACK ORDINANCES, THERE'S UNITS PER ACRE, WHATEVER. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOW SAYING, OKAY, AND YOU CAN BUILD THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ON THIS R-2 LOT. WELL, THERE'S ALSO HEIGHT RESTRICTION AND HEIGHT THREE LEVELS. SO IT'S ONLY THREE LEVELS. SO THREE STOREYS IS THE HIGHEST IN OUR. OKAY. CORRECT. BUT EVEN JUST GETTING RID OF THAT THOUGH REALLY OPENS THE DOOR TO REALLY SOME CREATIVE SOLUTIONS HERE. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A SKINNY LOT. DOES THE R-2 ZONE ALLOW LIKE CONDO PLANNING TO WHERE YOU CAN HAVE ONE UNIT ON THE MAIN AND THEN ANOTHER UNIT ABOVE IT, AND THEY TRULY COULD BE LIKE TECHNICALLY THEIR OWN LOT OR SO. CONDO PLANNING IS AT THE STATE LEVEL, RIGHT? SO THAT WE. YES, I MEAN TO SAY R-2 DOES ALLOW MULTI UNITS AND GETTING RID OF THIS WOULD HELP CONDOS BECOME EASIER PER SE. I KNOW IT'S AT A STATE LEVEL, BUT IT'S JUST ONE LESS RESTRICTION. OKAY. YOU KNOW AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO WE'VE BEEN CHARGED WITH PORTABILITY AND. NO RIGHT AND EXPEDITED PROCESS. AND SO WE'RE WE'RE MAKING THESE CHANGES. AND THIS IS A LOW HANGING FRUIT TO HELP FACILITATE THAT. RIGHT. WE THINK THE DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO BRING A GOOD PRODUCT TO MARKET. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HELP THAT VARIETY COME TO THE CITY. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS THAT WANT TO BRING A CREATIVE PRODUCT. AND WE'VE MADE IT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. OKAY. 
          QUESTION. COMMISSIONER SCOTT, I JUST GOT A COMMENT. I GUESS I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE, BUT A COUPLE THINGS SORT OF STOOD OUT TO ME. ONE IS, ARE THERE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS AND WHAT WOULD THOSE ARGUMENTS BE? BECAUSE WHEN WE COME IN HERE AND HAVE HEARINGS ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS AND DENSITY IS ALWAYS A CONCERN THAT PEOPLE HAVE TRAFFIC DEATHS OR ANYTHING. SO I'M JUST GUESSING THERE ARE PROBABLY CONS TO THESE ARGUMENTS ALSO AGAINST AGAINST WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. SO JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, I JUST KNOW I'M GOING TO ASK THE PLANNING. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GOING TO STATE LIKE WE HAVE NO PUBLIC 
          [00:55:03]
HERE THAT'S CONCERNED WITH THIS. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPPOSING POSITIONS TO THIS. I MEAN, I'M SURE THERE ARE. THERE'S ALWAYS THE NOT IN MY BACKYARD MENTALITY, BUT ULTIMATELY WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR THE MANY. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK THIS REALLY DOES THAT. BUT THAT BEING SAID THERE, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THERE'S A SLEW OF COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO THESE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE WANT TO JACK PRICES UP AND CAUSE EVERYBODY TO MOVE OUT OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. AND NO HOUSE IS LESS THAN $1 MILLION LIKE THOSE THOSE ARE SOME OF WHAT WE COULD CREATE, RIGHT? LIKE WE COULD CREATE THAT. COULD I OFFER A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND BACKGROUND? WOULD THAT BE OKAY REGARDING THAT? SO THIS SECTION OF THE CODE AND THIS REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR DWELLING UNITS IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY A HOLDOVER FROM OUR 90S ZONING ORDINANCE. AND WHEN WE WHEN WE UPDATED THE 2018 CODE AND REVAMPED EVERYTHING, REWORKED THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE THE COMMUNITY WAS READY TO MAKE A CHANGE. AND I THINK THE REASON YOU HAVE THE LIMIT OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER STRUCTURE IN THE R-2 ZONE IS IT WAS A MECHANISM TO REQUIRE SOME STAGGERED DEVELOPMENT OR STAGGERED HOUSING TYPES. RIGHT. SO IN YOUR R-1 ZONE, YOU'D HAVE YOUR TYPICAL SINGLE UNIT DWELLING IN AN R-2. YOU MIGHT GET A DUPLEX. AND YOU THERE'S DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT YOU CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN A FOUR PLEX. AND AT THE TIME A FOURPLEX IS YOUR TRADITIONAL FOURPLEX SORT OF TWO UP AND TWO DOWN WAS A TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT WE WERE SEEING. AND SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS REQUIREMENT CAME FROM. AS WE'VE PROGRESSED NOW TO WHERE WE ARE, AND WITH THE GOALS THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED AS A COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WITH IMAGINEFX AND MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND CREATING HOUSING CHOICE AND CREATING DIVERSIFIED NEIGHBORHOODS, WE'VE MOVED AWAY FROM THIS SORT OF REGIMENTED, STAGGERING OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. IT'S REALLY INTENDED TO BE MORE OF A MIX AND ALLOW, AS BRIAN SAID, A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND CHOICES. AND SO WE'VE MADE SOME SLIGHT CHANGES AS WE'VE DONE THAT. ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE R-2 ZONE, WE ALLOW YOU TO GO TO THREE STORIES, AND THAT CHANGE WAS INTENDED TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE VARIETY. BUT WHAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE, IF YOU STILL LIMIT A STRUCTURED ONLY FOUR UNITS, IT'S REALLY HARD TO BUILD A THREE STORY STRUCTURE. 
          IT JUST DOESN'T REALLY WORK. AND SO THAT'S BEEN SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S KIND OF LED US DOWN THIS PATH THAT THIS IS REALLY JUST PROBABLY AN OLDER REGULATION THAT REFERRED TO A PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, BECAUSE OUR DEVELOPMENT PATTERN HAS CHANGED AND MODERNIZED. WE DON'T SEE THAT TRADITIONAL FOURPLEX. WE SEE, YOU KNOW, TOWNHOMES IN A ROW IS MORE THEN THIS IS REALLY A LIMITING FACTOR THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. WE CAN STILL LOOK AT THE DENSITY AND THE PROPERTY COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS TO SORT OF REGULATE THE AMOUNT WITHOUT HAVING TO LIMIT TO FOUR PER STRUCTURE. 
          DOES THAT SOUND AWFUL? YES. THANK YOU. I GUESS SORT OF TO REFINE MY QUESTION A LITTLE BIT, THE THING THAT CAUGHT MY EYES WAS HERE. THE IN CONCLUSION SAYS THE NEED FOR CAREFUL PLANNING AND PROACTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS. SO THAT'S I GUESS, JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR A HEADS UP ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS YOU SEE THAT COULD BE RELATED TO THIS THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, YOU COULD SEE HEAVY PARKING. YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE SOME CHALLENGES WITH SNOW REMOVAL. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE, AND I'M NOT TERRIBLY CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPERS IN OUR AREA ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND CONSIDER IT IN THEIR PLANS, RIGHT. WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE WOULD BE SOME MULTI-UNIT, SOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS BUILT IN AN R-2 ZONE WHERE WHERE PREVIOUSLY YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE IT WAS LIMITED TO FOUR PER STRUCTURE. SO THAT IS DEFINITELY A CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD SEE, BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE IN PLACE OUR BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS FROM ZONE TO ZONE. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE LIMITATIONS ON A PROPERTY 
          [01:00:02]
WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND STORM DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS AND TRASH ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT YOU CAN STILL DEVELOP ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO THOSE SAFEGUARDS, I THINK, ARE STILL VERY MUCH IN PLACE. BUT YES, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THIS WOULD CHANGE, AS YOU COULD SEE APARTMENT COMPLEX BUILT ON AN R-2 PROPERTY, WHEREAS RIGHT NOW WHAT, INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL APARTMENT BUILDING, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TEN FOURPLEXES THEY MIGHT HAVE THE SAME DENSITY AS THAT APARTMENT BUILDING, BUT THE STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT OR THE STRUCTURES WOULD BE DIFFERENT. AND THAT IS A CHANGE FOR SURE. 
          AND PEOPLE MIGHT BE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, WHETHER THAT'S A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU. SO AND I MEAN THERE'S THE TABLE, THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. AND MAYBE IT'S ON PAGE THREE OF THE STAFF REPORT. BUT THE R-2 COLUMN YOU KNOW WE HAVE A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 17 UNITS PER ACRE. SO AGAIN IT'S JUST ALLOWING A LITTLE MORE VARIETY OF HOW THOSE 17 UNIT UNITS LAND ON THE GROUND. RIGHT? I MEAN, ULTIMATELY WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT. WE'RE JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE SOME VARIETY OF BUILDING TYPES. 
          OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE. ONE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE I SEE, YOU KNOW, SO I LIVE IN A CONDO COMPLEX. I LIVE IN NORTH PARK VILLAGE. IT'S ZONED R-2. I THINK THE CONSTRUCTION PREDATES THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. BUT SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD A FIRE IN OUR COMPLEX A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVEN UNITS PER BUILDING. THAT FIRE DISPLACED SEVEN FAMILIES EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN ONE UNIT. THAT'S A POTENTIAL DRAWBACK TO THIS KIND OF BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. THE STAFF SEE ANY REASON WHY WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT A NEW CAP IN PLACE. I UNDERSTAND, FOR, YOU KNOW, YOU NO LONGER FEEL IS THE RIGHT NUMBER WITH CONSIDERATIONS LIKE THAT. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THAT SHOULD BE A LARGER NUMBER INSTEAD OF NO NUMBER, OR JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS? WELL, SO I, I MEAN, I DO THINK THAT IT'S 17 PER ACRE THOUGH, IF YOU HAD A TWO ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, TWICE AS MANY. BUT I YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR I THINK OUR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. AND I'M NOT A BUILDING EXPERT, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING CHANGES TONIGHT FOR THE FIRE CODE. WE'VE MADE CHANGES IN THE PAST FOR THE BUILDING CODE, YOU KNOW, AND SO NEWER BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY MORE LIKELY BE SAFER THAN OLDER BUILDINGS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN, HONESTLY. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE SPRINKLING KICKS IN, BUT I WAS GONNA ASK, CAN I ASK IS YOUR UNIT, ARE YOUR UNITS SPRINKLED? IS THERE A RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER THERE OR NOT? YEAH. IT WAS IT WAS SMOKE DAMAGE THAT REALLY CAUSED THE ISSUE WAS THERE WAS A FIRE IN ONE GARAGE AND IT SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE BUILDING. SO THAT WAS THE, THE WHAT LED TO THAT ISSUE. BUT YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR MODERN CODE REQUIREMENTS, ANY MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURE LIKE THAT WOULD REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLERS IN EACH UNIT. SO THAT CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I MEAN, THERE STILL MIGHT BE SMOKE DAMAGE FOR SURE. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS, I MEAN, REGARDLESS OF THE ZONE, AND THIS IS SPECIFIC TO R-2, BUT OUR R3 AND R3 ZONES ALSO ALLOW MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURES BASED ON DIFFERENT DENSITIES. WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THOSE MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURES OVER THE YEARS. SO WITH REGARD TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT. AND THAT WOULDN'T BE UNIQUE TO AN R-2 ZONE. RIGHT? IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME BUILDING STANDARD FOR R-2 ZONE TO AN R3 ZONE OR R3. A YEAH, I THINK THE ISSUE IS INHERENT TO THE STRUCTURE, NOT THE ZONE. YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S VERY FAIR. I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS BASICALLY. 
          ONE OTHER THING. I THINK OVER TIME WE'VE SEEN A CHANGE IN THE TYPES OF HOUSING PRODUCTS THAT ARE GETTING PROPOSED AND THEN BUILT. YOU KNOW, YOU SAID TWO UP, TWO DOWN USED TO BE MOST COMMON. NOW I THINK IN IN R2 ZONE IN IDAHO FALLS WERE LARGELY SEEING FOR TOWNHOUSES IN A ROW AS THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE GETTING. I ASSUME THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR CODE SAYS. I'M CURIOUS. I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED SOME OF IT TO HEAR WHAT KIND OF HOUSING PRODUCTS YOU THINK WE MIGHT BE ENCOURAGING, AND THAT WE MIGHT SEE MORE OF BASED ON CHANGING THIS CODE. SO LIKE, WHAT ARE SOME GOOD EXAMPLES. YEAH. OKAY. SO ON OUR WEB PAGE AND THAT THIS 
          [01:05:05]
IS ALL REALLY GOOD BECAUSE I CAN TAKE SOME OF THIS INFORMATION AND BUILD IT INTO THE REPORT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT. WE HAVE THE MISSING MIDDLE REPORT. RIGHT. AND THEY DAN POLLACK'S GROUP OPTICOS CAME TO TOWN. THEY DID A STUDY. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO STUDIES. AND IN ONE OF THE GUIDES THERE, IT SHOWS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, A WIDE VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES THAT CAN BE BUILT WITH THESE NEW LIKE, NOT LOOSENED STANDARDS, BUT ALLOWS FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY AND. MORE VARIETY AND MORE CREATIVITY. REALLY. SO QUESTION HOW OFTEN DO YOU SHARE? AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST FOR A SIDE CONVERSATION, BUT HOW OFTEN DO YOU SHARE THE MISSING MIDDLE WITH THAT? STUDY WITH DEVELOPERS TO SHOW THEM EXAMPLES. SO BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPERS AROUND HERE THAT JUST MAY NOT EVEN KNOW THAT TYPE OF STUFF IS POSSIBLE, OR EVEN EXIST, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMEGROWN DEVELOPERS WHO. SO IT'S ON. IT'S ON OUR WEB PAGE. AND DURING THE TIME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE SHARED IT QUITE A BIT. THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD REFRESH OR REVIVE. WELL, I'M TALKING WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER COMING IN HERE AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU'RE STARTING THOSE PRELIMINARY MEETINGS. DO YOU EVER REFERENCE IT A LOT, OR IS IT KIND OF JUST A STUDY THAT STAYS WEEKLY? YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. YES. BECAUSE I LIKE IT HERE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEING TALKED BECAUSE IT'S AN AMAZING STUDY. IT'S GREAT. I JUST I JUST REALLY JUST WANT DEVELOPERS KNOWING IT'S THERE. YEAH. YEAH. AND THAT YEAH THE CITY IS PUSHING FOR THAT STUFF. SO YES OKAY I AGREE I THINK IT'S A OH EXCUSE ME, I THINK IT'S A GREAT DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE. I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL STUDY OF THE KIND OF PRODUCTS THAT ARE MISSING IN IDAHO FALLS. I'M MOSTLY CURIOUS IF WE'RE HEARING DEVELOPERS SAY THEY WOULD BUILD THAT IF WE CHANGED OUR STANDARDS. RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE A FEW MORE STANDARDS. AND I THINK THAT'S THIS. THIS IS THESE ARE THE BEGINNING STEPS TO GET TO THAT END RESULT SUITE. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NO ONE TO SPEAK IN A PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE A COMMISSION DISCUSSION OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. ALL THESE CODES ARE DEFINITELY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BRING THEM ON. YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE WORKING AS FAST AS YOU CAN, BUT I MEAN, IF WE HAVE TO DO A ONE CODE FOR EVERY TWO NAMES, BRING IT ON. I'M DOWN FOR IT. SO MAKING IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS AND EXPOSURE TO THESE PRODUCTS TO DEVELOPERS I THINK IS CRUCIAL AND IMPORTANT. SO. AND BECAUSE WHAT I THINK IS ONCE THE CITY RESIDENTS START SEEING ACTUAL GOOD HIGHER DENSITY PROJECTS BEING DONE, INSTEAD OF JUST THESE APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR JUST THESE PLAIN JANE TOWNHOMES, AND THEY START SEEING REALLY CREATIVE, NICE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS, THE CITY, THE RESIDENTS WILL START TO REALLY SLOWLY WARM UP TO THE IDEA OF, OH, MAYBE HIGH DENSITY ISN'T THAT BAD. I MEAN, YOU STILL HAVE A LOT THAT ARE NIMBYS AND SAY, OH, I DON'T LIKE IT NO MATTER WHAT, BUT I THINK REDUCING THESE CODES, MAKING IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS, WILL HELP BRING IN BETTER PRODUCTS, WHICH WILL THEN HELP THE CITIZENS BE MORE ON BOARD. IT'S JUST A VICIOUS CYCLE BECAUSE THEY'LL SEE THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. OH, THAT IS A NICE PRODUCT. AND THEY MIGHT NOT BE SO APPREHENSIVE TO IT. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THEY'RE JUST SEEING THESE BIG APARTMENT COMPLEXES, WHICH I THINK ARE PERSONALLY I THINK ARE FINE, BUT A LOT DON'T LIKE IT. OR JUST THESE STRAIGHT COOKIE CUTTER, TINY, CHEAP TOWNHOMES. YEAH. IF I WERE A CITIZEN WHO DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS, I WOULD NOT LIKE IT EITHER. SO IF WE GET GOOD PRODUCTS, THEN I THINK WE'LL BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THESE CODES REDUCE THEM. SO IT KIND OF CIRCLING SORT OF START WITH THAT. YEAH. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT I AGREE. HAVING GREAT COMMENTS AND AGREEMENT. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. YES I RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND. 
          THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE CAN HAVE SOME BUSINESS ITEMS. 
          [6. PLT25-004: FINAL PLAT for Pacific Steel Commercial Plaza. SE ¼ of Section 7, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E Anderson Street, east of N Boulevard, south of Technology Drive, west of Boge Avenue.]
          [01:10:02]
FIRST UP IS A STAFF REPORT. FINAL PLAT FOR CIVIC STEEL COMMERCIAL PLAZA. GREAT. AN APPLICANT. HAPPY TO BE HERE. IT'S TRAVIS PAYNE, 2295 NORTH YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY, UNIT SIX. 
          WE'RE HERE TO PROPOSE A FINAL PLAT IN THE END ZONE. IT'S A 6.155 ACRES. IT HAS TWO LOTS. 
          THERE'S ACCESS OFF OF BOGUE AVENUE. WE'RE BASICALLY DIVIDING A PORTION OF THE LOT ON THE WESTERN HALF TO BE SOLD, OR TO BE DIVIDED OFF FROM THE MAIN CHUNK OF THE LOT. IT HAS ACCESS VIA A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH THE OTHER LOT, AND THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED. 
          EAST OF ANDERSON STREET, NORTH OR EAST OF NORTH BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, AND WEST OF BOGUE AVENUE. SO THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT. IT'S THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE EITHER INDUSTRIAL OR ALSO VACANT. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT I GOT ONE. GO AHEAD. I NOTICED THAT RAILROAD SPUR. IT GOES INTO THE PROPERTY MORE THAN WHAT THE PLAT IS SUGGESTING IS THAT ARE WE JUST GOING TO FORGET THE RAILROAD SPUR THE EXTENSION THERE BECAUSE. BECAUSE IF YOU, YOU KNOW, OVERLAY THE AERIAL WITH THE FINAL PLAT THAT THE RAILROAD SPUR GOES QUITE IN AND ALMOST THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY SPLIT. ALMOST. YOUR NEW SPLIT IS ALMOST RIGHT AT THAT RAILROAD SPUR. SO MY QUESTION IS, IS ARE YOU GETTING RID OF THAT OR IS THERE SUPPOSED TO BE AN EASEMENT THERE? WHAT'S THE STORY ABOUT? WELL, IF WE'RE THE PLANT DOESN'T SHOW THE EASEMENT, I DON'T I'M NOT 100% SURE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT THERE FOR THE RAILROAD BECAUSE IT'S ALL ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          YEAH. SO IT'S KIND OF UP TO THE OWNER WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO LEAVE IT OR IF HE'LL MOVE IT. OKAY. BECAUSE THE REASON WHY I ASK IS BECAUSE NOW WE'RE SPLITTING TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY, AND THESE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY MAY NOT BE OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, 20, 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. AND WHAT IF ONE OF THE LOTS WANTS TO USE THAT RAIL SPUR FOR INDUSTRIAL USE LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD? THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT AGAIN, IF IT'S ALL ONE OWNER CURRENTLY AND HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE RAILROAD, THEN HE DOESN'T NEED IT, THEN THAT'S FINE TOO. I GUESS JUST DOWN THE ROAD SOME AND HE GETS BECAUSE IF HE GETS RID OF THAT SPUR COMPLETELY, THEN IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW. SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING IN THE FUTURE. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. IF IT'S ALL THE SAME OWNER NOW, CURRENTLY YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT. SO AND ALSO IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THE RAILROAD EASEMENT EXTENDS TO THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S CUT OFF PRIOR TO REACHING THE PROPERTY. SO TECHNICALLY THERE THERE IS NO ACCESS FOR THE RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY. OH. OH EVEN. OH OKAY. GOTCHA. YEAH. IT DOES KIND OF THAT LOOKS LIKE. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SO IT'S LIKE IT'S ALMOST AS IF IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN USED AND PEOPLE KIND OF JUST FORGOT ABOUT IT. SO YEAH, EVEN IF HE MADE THE EASEMENT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES IS NOT LIKE THEY STILL WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO UTILIZE IT TO GET TO IT. YEAH. SO I'M KIND OF TALKING AND ANSWERING MY QUESTION AT THE SAME TIME SLASH GETTING YOUR FEEDBACK. SO I LIKE THE OPEN DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS PLEASE. MR. SCOTT CONFUSED ABOUT VOGUE. ROAD IS THAT INTENDED TO GO ALL THE WAY SOUTH TO ANDERSON, OR IS THIS A DEAD END ROAD? IT APPEARS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO GO EAST AS KNUCKLES RIGHT THERE AND THEN TURNS TO GORDON AVENUE, BUT THAT GOES NOWHERE AT THIS POINT. SO THAT THAT CURRENTLY DEAD ENDS. BUT IT'S PLANNED TO GO THAT DIRECTION IS THE INTENT. TO WHERE TO WHERE IS IT GOING TO CONNECT TO IF IT GOES EAST FROM THIS PROPERTY? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MASTER PLAN IS FOR THAT. I WILL SAY THAT AVENUE IS ALREADY PLATTED, AND IT'S ACTUALLY NOT PART OF THIS PLAT. IT'S JUST THIS LOT THAT'S PART OF IT. BUT THE. EVENTUAL PLAN FOR GORDON, GORDON AVENUE APPEARS TO BE EXTENDING TO THE EAST. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE ROUTED AND WHERE THAT'S GOING TO CONNECT TO THE FUTURE. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY ACCESS HERE IS FROM THE NORTH. THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO GET OUT OF HERE. 
          [01:15:06]
NO. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO I GUESS WE'LL BOTH BE THEN EXTENDED. THEN YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED THIS. I CAN DO MY STAFF REPORT. I'LL EXPLAIN IT. SORRY. WE MIGHT KNOW HE'S. HE'S NOT GOING TO BE AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON. SO I APOLOGIZE. NO YOU'RE GOOD OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM STAFF TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BURNING IN OUR MINDS. SORRY. TRAVIS IS PROBABLY SWEATING OVER HERE. DON'T. OH, HOW HOW TRAINS AND STUFF. THAT'S WHY THEY ASKED ME. SO I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS QUICK. TRAVIS WENT OVER QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION, BUT SO YOUR YOUR YOUR REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY, THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED AS PART OF LARGER TRACTS OF LAND IN THAT AREA IN 2019 WITH AN INITIAL ZONE OF IAM, WHICH IS INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING. THE PLAT DOES CONSIST OF TWO LOTS AS MENTIONED EARLIER. WHOOPS. THERE IS GOING TO BE FRONTAGE ON BOGUE AVENUE. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE ASPHALT KIND OF ENDS RIGHT IN HERE SOMEWHERE. SO THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT EVERYTHING ALONG THIS TO THE CUL DE SAC THERE, AND THEN GORDON AVENUE WILL GO EAST ALL THE WAY TO HOMES, OR IT MAY GO SOUTH. WE HAVE DONE A COUPLE PREDEVELOPMENT MEETINGS FOR THIS PROPERTY OVER HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO MANEUVER ANOTHER ACCESS EITHER SOUTH OR WEST. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GO SOUTH, BUT THE DEVELOPERS AT THIS POINT IS ONLY GOING TO THAT CUL DE SAC. CUL DE SAC. YES. AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THAT FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES TO TURN AROUND. AND THEN THE CITY WILL WORK WITH THIS PROPERTY OWNER OR THIS DEVELOPER TO FINISH COORDINATE. I WILL STATE FOR THE RECORD HERE THAT THERE IS A PORTION OF THE PLAT. THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS. IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW. TECHNICAL REVIEW BY STAFF. THERE ARE SOME DISCREPANCIES WITH THE LOT LINE HERE IN THIS AREA. WITH THIS LOT, THERE IS A COMMENT TO ASK THAT. THAT BE CORRECTED. OTHERWISE IT'LL LEAVE A REMNANT PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE AN ILLEGAL LOT SPLIT AND THEN IT'LL RENDER THAT PROPERTY NOT BUILDABLE. SO WE'RE GETTING THAT CORRECTED. BUT JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT FOR THE RECORD AND FOR TRAVIS TO HEAR. BUT IT IS ON THE COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT. LET'S SEE. SO THE ENDZONE DOES PROVIDE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL. IT ALLOWS FOR A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES, WAREHOUSES, EQUIPMENT YARDS, LIGHT MANUFACTURING. THE ZONE REQUIRES A FRONT SETBACK OF 30FT. THERE'S NO SIDE OR REAR SETBACK IN THIS ZONE UNLESS IT IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE OR A RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH, AS YOU CAN SEE, DOESN'T APPLY HERE. AND THERE WILL BE A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF BOGUE. ONCE WE GET TO THIS CUL DE SAC AND GORDON, THEN THOSE REQUIREMENTS GO AWAY. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES THIS AREA AS INDUSTRIAL. THE INDUSTRIAL TRANSECT IS DESIGNATED FOR A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS LIKE MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSE FACILITIES, MACHINE SHOPS AND GREENHOUSES. AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS CURRENTLY UNDER TECHNICAL REVIEW BY CITY STAFF. THAT INCLUDES FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING, WATER, SEWER, ALL OF THE CITY ENTITIES STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE FINAL PLAT AND DOES FIND THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT I MENTIONED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH, OR INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1706151 BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PLAT IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE PLAT AS PRESENTED, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. SORRY. YOU'RE GOOD. 
          THAT'S PACIFIC STEEL TO THE SOUTH, RIGHT? THAT'S ALL OF THEM. SO THIS IS ALL OWNED BY 
          [01:20:01]
THE SAME GUY. CORRECT. SO MY RAILROAD EASEMENT QUESTION MAY NOT EVEN MATTER BECAUSE IF HE OWNS IT ALL, YOU DON'T TECHNICALLY NEED TO HAVE THAT EASEMENT. SO YES. AND I'M SORRY, I MADE A NOTE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT. AND I FORGOT THE RAILROAD. THERE IS A COMMENT ON THE PLAT CURRENTLY THAT ASKS THAT IF THERE IS, IF THAT STEM CONTINUES TO BE USED, THIS EASEMENT RIGHT HERE. YEAH. SO IF THERE IS AN EASEMENT THAT CONTINUES TO THIS OR AN AGREEMENT OF SOME KIND, WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT DOCUMENTATION AND REQUESTED THAT IF IT IF IT IF IT'S THERE, THAT IT BE ADDED TO THE PLAT. OKAY. BUT IF THERE'S NOT AN EASEMENT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUSH FOR ONE. CORRECT. OKAY. JUST MIGHT AS WELL GET IT ON THERE. IF THERE IS, IT'S THERE SHOULD BE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RAILROAD COMPANY OR IT'S A PRIVATE SPUR AND WE WON'T STICK OUR NOSE IN THEIR BUSINESS. OKAY. MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS THE PACIFIC STEEL CONTROL TOWER. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? THANK YOU. WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER SCOTT, SLOW ON THE UPTAKE. OH I'M SORRY. DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE ANY OF. THIS? LOT SPLIT THING OR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN NOTED ON THE PLATFORM DOCUMENTS. YEAH. WE WON'T LET THEM MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THOSE. YEAH. NO. WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT UP, 
          [7. PLT25-005: FINAL PLAT for Jenkins Commercial Park. SE ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of US Hwy 20, east and south of E 33rd North, west of N 5th E.]
JENKINS COMMERCIAL PARK. THAT WAS SO NICE OF THE CITY TO MAKE ALL YOUR STUFF TONIGHT. I LOVE IT SO MUCH. I LOVE SEEING THE THINGS THAT GO ON HERE AS TRAVIS PAYNE 2295 STONE HIGHWAY, SUITE SIX. SO WE'RE HERE PRESENTING A PLAT THAT IS IN THE ZONE. IT'S ABOUT 12.81 ACRES. IT'S LOCATED, AS YOU CAN SEE, ON EAST 33RD NORTH AND RECYCLED ROAD. IT CORRESPONDS WITH THOSE TWO HIGHLIGHTED PARCELS. BOTH PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY VACANT AND THEY ARE IN THE ZONE. THE PLAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT WE MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO EAST 33RD NORTH INTERSECTION ROAD. WE'RE ALSO DEDICATING FIVE FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF EAST 33RD NORTH, SO IT CAN BE BUILT OUT TO ITS THE FULL EXTENT OF ITS RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THREE LANES. AND THE ROAD WILL ALSO INCLUDE THREE LANES. BESIDES THAT, THEY WILL MAKE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER, AND PROVIDE ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS IRRIGATION OR. ANY OTHER UTILITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR US TO INSTALL. SO OKAY, ANY EASY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DIFFICULT? THAT'S FINE. I JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF. WE MAY CALL YOU BACK OKAY. THE REQUESTED ACTION FOR THIS PROJECT IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR JACOBS COMMERCIAL PARK TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IN 2020, WITH INITIAL ZONING OF COMMERCIAL, AND IT IS LOCATED IN THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE. THE AGENCY ZONE PROVIDES COMMERCIAL ZONED FOR RETAIL AND SERVICE USES SERVING THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISPLAYS AREAS, MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS, WHICH EVENTS AREAS WHERE PEOPLE TEND TO SHOP AND GATHER WITH COMMERCIAL USES THAT VARY IN SCALE, FROM LARGE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CENTERS TO SMALLER COMMERCIAL FARMS. THE. AS MENTIONED, THE PLAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS THAT ARE SEPARATED BY THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST 33RD NORTH. WE ARE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 20 AND EAST OF NORTH NORTHEAST. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE ONCE AGAIN. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE WE WE'RE ENTIRELY IN THAT FILM. BOTH BLOCKS ARE CONSIDERED BUILDABLE. OF COURSE THE ACCESS TO LOT ONE, BLOCK ONE, WHICH IS 
          [01:25:03]
THIS ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE, EAST SIDE OF 33RD NORTH, WILL HAVE A SHARED ACCESS WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY MAVERICK RIGHT HERE. THAT LINES UP WITH THE RECYCLE ROAD INTERSECTION. ANY OTHER ACCESSES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED ALONG WITH ALIGNMENT, WILL NEED TO MEET OUR SPACING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINOR ARTERIAL, WHICH IS 660FT, WHICH PUTS THEM PRETTY FAR SOUTH, PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE. IS THIS SECONDARY ACCESS GOING NORTH RIGHT HERE? THE LOT TWO, BLOCK ONE, LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO, LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO WILL HAVE AN ACCESS ON THE EAST, 33RD NORTH AS WELL AS OFF OF RECYCLED ROOF. SO HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE LOT ONE BLOCK ONE. AS YOU CAN SEE HIGHWAY 20 RIGHT THERE. AND THEN LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO FACING NORTH FROM 33RD NORTH. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, FINDS THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE, AND THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER, I'M SO SORRY EVERYONE. THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY'RE GIVING AN EXTRA FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE OF RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH. SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THREE LANES. WHAT IF IT EVENTUALLY DOWN THE ROAD NEEDS TO BE FIVE LANES. WILL THERE BE ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY ALREADY AVAILABLE, OR IS THAT RIGHT OF WAY ONLY ENOUGH TO DO THE THREE LANE SIDEWALK CONFIGURATION. SO THE ARTERIAL, THE WIDTH FOR THE ARTERIAL IS 100FT. AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT. WAYS THAT CAN LIKE SOME OF THEM ARE TWO TWO LANES WITH A TURNING LANE. SOME OF THEM ARE LINKS THAT INSIGHT SINCE THEY MAY BE WIDER THAN 100, BUT GENERALLY WITHIN 100FT. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN YOU CAN PUT THAT TOGETHER. SO THIS IS 100FT. YES. 
          SO THE INTENT WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE ADDED FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE WILL MAKE IT 100FT. 
          CORRECT. SO YEP THAT IS THE THAT'S THE GOAL WITH FOR ALL ARTERIAL STREETS OKAY. BUT PERHAPS ARE MORE BUSY ONES HAVING 120FT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN VERIFY IT HERE, THE STANDARD ARTERIAL WITH THE 100FT. THE CORRECT. YES. BUT LIKE YOU'RE BUT YOUR MAJOR ARTERIALS THAT ARE 120. OR WHATEVER, RIGHT. AND OCCASIONALLY THE ARTERIALS WILL WIDEN AS YOU COME TO AN INTERSECTION JUST TO DEAL WITH TURNING LANES, ETC. GENERALLY ON JUST THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED WITH IS WE'RE ABOUT TO IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS, WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE AN EXPLOSIVE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW RIGHT TO THE WEST, THE ISLES CAN BE EXPANDING, SO NORTH IS GOING TO BE A QUITE BUSY ROAD. I MEAN, THE NEW FREEWAY IS GOING TO BE UP NORTH. WHO KNOWS WHAT THIS WHOLE INTERCHANGE AREA MIGHT LOOK LIKE. I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EASILY, EASILY WIDENED AND ABLE TO MAKE IT WIDER IF NECESSARY. I'M NOT EXPECTING TO BE WIDENED FIVE LANES RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? I JUST DON'T WANT TO RUN INTO HEADACHES LATER. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT 100 FOOT STANDARD GENERALLY ENCOMPASSES THE ATTITUDE THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GROW INTO OUR STREET NETWORKS IF NEEDED. IT'S ALSO WHY WE'RE TRYING TO WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS GETTING THAT REDUNDANCY CONNECTION WITH RECYCLED ROAD. THE EXTENSION OF JACK JENKINS, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY REACH OVER TO FIFTH WEST TOO. SO WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT THAT, TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH CONNECTIVITY IN AND THROUGHOUT THIS AREA. 
          BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST RIGHT HERE. THE ONE THING I WOULD MENTION, THOUGH, IS THAT THIS SECTION OF 33RD NORTH IS QUITE SHORT, AND I'M SURE IT WILL BE QUITE BUSY, BUT IT'S NOT A VERY LONG ROAD, RELATIVELY, RIGHT. OH, IT'S NOT LIKE A SUNNYSIDE THAT TRAVELS FOR LIKE EIGHT MILES OR WHATEVER. CORRECT? THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WON'T BE BUSY. YEAH, BUT BASICALLY FROM HERE TO THE RIVER IS AS FAR AS IT WILL AS FAR AS IT'S GOING TO END UP GOING. 
          RIGHT. BECAUSE THE HIGHWAY 20 HAS CUT IT OFF. IF YOU GO HERE ON THE ROAD RIGHT HERE. AND SO THAT'S ALREADY DISCONNECTED. AND THAT THAT RIGHT THERE GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT OF A BREATHING ROOM FROM PEOPLE JUST USING IT TO GET AROUND TOWN. HOWEVER, WHO KNOWS WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE ONCE THE NEW FREEWAYS IN I MEAN THE YOU WHICH IS GOING TO BE TO THE NORTH AND THIS INTERCHANGE 
          [01:30:03]
WON'T EXIST ANYMORE. THE US 20 AND FIFTH EAST OR THE HOLMES INTERCHANGE WON'T EXIST ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FREEWAY IS GOING TO BE TO THE NORTH, BECAUSE THEY'RE COMBINING IF THEY GO FORWARD WITH THE H-2 ALTERNATIVE, THE. WOODRUFF AND HOLMES EXIT IS GOING TO BE COMBINED JUST TO THE NORTHEAST OF THIS. AND THEN THIS SECTION OR THIS INTERCHANGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH IT. AND US 20TH MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE THERE ANYMORE. SO I OWN A ROAD, MAY ACTUALLY THEN BECOME STRAIGHT WITH 33RD NORTH. AND I KNOW, I KNOW THIS CURVES UP. SO THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SECTION BUT GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS ROAD IS SHORT NOW, BUT IT COULD EVENTUALLY BE ACTUALLY A LONG CONNECTOR. RIGHT. WELL IT COULD, IT COULD BE AND THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE. BUT THE ALIGNMENT AND IF THIS DEVELOPS AS WE'RE ANTICIPATING IT, MAYBE IT WON'T. BUT IF IT DOES, THEN THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS BEING REALIGNED AND CONNECTING IS A LOT LESS. IF WHAT. SORRY. IF WE HAVE IF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA GOES AS WE'RE EXPECTING THERE, THERE MAY NOT BE ROOM FOR TO REALIGN THIS. RIGHT. IF THIS IS ALL BUILT OUT. 
          RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, IF H-2 HAPPENS NOW, YOU HAVE THIS WHOLE INTERCHANGE THAT WON'T NEED TO HAPPEN ANYMORE. THAT'S TRUE. SO THAT THAT SPACE WHERE JUST THE INTERCHANGE IS, THAT'S A LOT OF SPACE, YOU KNOW. SO I DON'T KNOW, I, I KNOW THIS IS WAY PAST JUST THIS DEAL, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK BIG. YEAH. NO, I THINK THEY'RE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS AND GOOD THINGS TO THINK ABOUT. GENERALLY, THAT 100 FOOT STANDARD GIVES US SOME ROOM TO GROW. BUT ALSO WITH THE OTHER CONNECTIVITY. THIS AND IT'S A FUTURE, SO WHO KNOWS. RIGHT. BUT THIS TURNING INTO SOMETHING LIKE WHAT SUNNYSIDE IS OR ANY OF OUR OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS RIGHT NOW IS NOT ANTICIPATED. RIGHT. 
          SURE. IT DOES. YEAH. IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE IN THAT EXTENT. BUT YEAH, IT'S. YEAH OKAY. YEAH WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER MEEHAN. I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF JENKINS COMMERCIAL PARK TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. SURE. WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. FINAL PLAT. FARADAY PROPERTIES, 
          [8. PLT25-007: FINAL PLAT for Faraday Properties Division No. 1. NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 1 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E 65th South, east of S 11th East, south of E 49th South, west of S 15th East.]
DIVISION NUMBER ONE. NO APPLICANT. SO WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF. ALL RIGHT. SO PERHAPS WE HAVE A CASE STUDY HERE WITH OUR ZONE. WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES. SO THE REQUESTED ACTION FOR THIS IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR PROPERTIES NUMBER ONE TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED BACK IN 2023 WITH AN INITIAL ZONE OF R2 MIXED RESIDENTIAL R3 MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL R3 RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE AND LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL ONLY A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE PLOT IS LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND THE REST IS RESIDENTIAL. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED IN 2023. THAT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, SO YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT THIS PLOT IS DOING VERSUS WHAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE PLAT. THE R2 AND R3 ZONES ARE CHARACTERIZED BY A VARIETY OF EMPLOYEE TYPES, WITH DENSER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN IS CHARACTERISTIC IN LOWER DENSITY ZONES. THEY ARCHIE ZONE IS LIMITED TO 17 UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE R3 IS UP TO 35 UNITS PER ACRE. THE R3 ZONE PROVIDES FOR A MIX OF USES, INCLUDING SOME COMMERCIAL USES, BUT IS ESSENTIALLY STILL RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER, AND THE LC ZONE PROVIDES A MIXED USE OF MIXED USE COMMERCIAL ZONE FOR PRIMARY, PRIMARILY RETAIL AND SERVICE USES. THESE ARE THE USES THAT ARE MORE PEOPLE FRIENDLY, PEOPLE CENTRIC USES, BUT ALSO DOES ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD APPROPRIATE STANDARDS. ALL THE LOTS AND BLOCKS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT IS LOT ONE, BLOCK FIVE, WHICH IS DOWN HERE, THE VERY SOUTH END, AND NOT GET TO THAT WHEN WE GET TO 
          [01:35:06]
THE PLAT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES THIS AS MIXED USE. I'M SORRY, THE AREA AS GENERAL URBAN, WHICH INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND SERVICE, USES CONVENIENCE TO RESIDENTS. THESE AREAS INCLUDE ALL HOUSING TYPES, BUT AGAIN GENERALLY HAVE A MORE INTENSE SCALE THAN OTHER AREAS. EACH ZONE ALLOWS FOR MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS MOSTLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 49TH EAST OR SOUTH OF EAST, 49TH SOUTH AND WEST OF SOUTH EAST. AND THIS DIVISION EXTENDS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FROM PORTLAND SOUTH DOWN TO HERE. IN THE PLOT THERE ARE 26 BUILDABLE LOTS. THERE ARE SOME NOTES ON HERE THAT TO THE LOTS ARE NOT BUILDABLE. HOWEVER, THEY TECHNICALLY ARE. THEY'RE JUST RESERVED FOR OTHER THINGS. SO LOT FOUR, BLOCK TWO, WHICH IS THIS CORNER LOT RIGHT HERE, IS RESERVED. IT'S A BLANKET STORMWATER PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND IS PROPOSED FOR THE SITE OF THE CITY. WELL, THAT WELL WILL REQUIRE AS A PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY WILL REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE SECOND NON BUILDABLE LOT IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. AND IT IS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION. IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS WAS SHOWN TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO SOUTH 15TH EAST. BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PLAT TO DO ALL THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS JUST ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PLAT, THEY'RE STOPPING HERE AND JUST DOING AN EASEMENT TO GET TO THE SEWER LIFT STATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. AND THAT WAY THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL JUST BE DONE AS THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, OR AS THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, RATHER THAN JUST THIS 150 FOOT SECTION RANDOMLY HAVING CURVED AIR INSTEAD OF. 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE DEDICATED ALONG. THESE 49 SOUTH RIGHT HERE. AND THIS IS ALSO A MINOR ARTERIAL, SO IT WILL HAVE THAT THAT FULL 100 100 FOOT WIDTH WHEN THE NORTH SIDE DEVELOPS FOR NEW STREETS ARE GOING TO BE DEDICATED WITH THE PLOT AROUND WAY, IS THAT GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR, IT GOES MORE SOUTH FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF THE PLOT. WE HAVE A RIGHT HERE. WE HAVE, WELL, PART OF AN AIRWAY, WHICH IS JUST A LOCAL STREET THAT WILL EXPAND TO 70FT AT THIS INTERSECTION TO HELP ACCOMMODATE SOME COMMERCIAL USES RIGHT THERE. AND WE HAVE BEEHIVE DRIVE ON THIS ONE. IT'S JUST A STUB GOING WEST. AND THEN A HALLWAY SOUTH OF THAT, ANOTHER STUB GOING WEST. AND THOSE ARE TO HELP FACILITATE FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. IF THE PROPERTIES ARE REDEVELOPED, THEY HAVE A TAIL. WE'RE GETTING VERY UNIQUE. RIGHT. THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE PERMITTED ACCESS TO EAST PORTLAND SOUTH AS AN ARTERIAL. RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE NOT PERMITTED. DIRECT ACCESS TO ARTERIAL STREETS SO THAT ACCESS WILL COME OFF OF THESE ROADS. AND THEN SECONDARY ACCESS FOR THESE LOTS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT'S QUITE LONG AND THESE LOTS ARE R2. SO REALLY WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING COULD BE JUST SINGLE UNIT DETACHED HOUSING. BUT EACH LOT IS PERMITTED TO HAVE 17 UNITS PER ACRE. THEY'LL HAVE THREE HOUR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AND ALL THAT STUFF. SO IF BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT THERE'S MORE THAN 30 UNITS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING BUILT HERE, THEY'LL THEY WILL NEED TO PROVIDE SOME SECONDARY ACCESS OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION IF THEY EXCEED WHATEVER THAT THAT IS AS YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH. AS IT'S PRESENTED, IT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM SINGLE UNIT DETACHED HOUSING TO SOME MULTI-FAMILY. SO HERE IS THE FULL PRELIMINARY PLAT. THERE IS AN EXPECTED 
          [01:40:04]
SECONDARY ACCESS COMING UP HERE AS A PUBLIC STREET THAT WILL COME WITH A FUTURE PHASE. AND THEN HERE'S THE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM EAST 48 SOUTH. THE STAFF SHOULD MEET THE APPLICATION FINDS THAT COMPLIES WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. I'M GOING TO R2 SIDE BETWEEN THE AND. THAT WOULD BE WEST SIDE WEST LINE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING HOMEOWNERS ON THE LARGE ESTATES. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CANAL EXISTING DITCH TO BE REMOVED. I UNDERSTAND THAT IS PART OF AN IRRIGATION CANAL, THAT THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE USING. IS THAT CORRECT? SO I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, BUT ANY WATER RIGHTS WILL HAVE TO BE RETAINED. SO THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO. TO RE REROUTE THE WATER THAT THESE PROPERTIES USE. SO THE NOT ONLY THE COORDINATION WITH THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BUT LIKELY THAN WITH THE LOT OWNERS ALONG TO THE WEST OF THAT. RIGHT. SO THEIR THEIR RIGHTS TO IRRIGATION WILL NEED TO BE PRESERVED WITH WHATEVER THEIR PLANS ARE TO, TO CONSTRUCT THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. QUESTION, PLEASE. ALONG 49TH SOUTH, YOU HAVE THAT R3 ZONE. THERE YOU GO TO THE FINAL PLAN. WE HAVE THESE BIG LOTS. SO THOSE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE R3 A 1.785 ACRES AND THE OTHER ONE'S ONE ACRE. CAN'T HAVE ACCESS TO 49 NORTH. IT. SO DOES THERE NEED TO BE LIKE A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT OR. WELL, I GUESS TECHNICALLY IF EACH OF THOSE IF THERE'S LIKE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS, THEY EACH OF THEM ONLY WOULD NEED ACCESS TO THE ROAD THAT THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO. SO, SO THOSE LOTS ESSENTIALLY WOULD PROBABLY WOULD JUST BE MULTIFAMILY AND THEY WOULD ONLY NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE EACH SIDE TO MARION WAY AIRPORT. RIGHT. AND THEN IF THEY WERE PROPOSING REALLY LIKE IT WHEN THERE'S ONLY ONE ACRE, THAT'S ONLY 35 UNITS, THEY NEED TO PUT ON IT. SO THEY WOULD STILL BE WITHIN THAT ONE ACCESS REQUIREMENT IF POTENTIALLY THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT THAT EXCEEDED THE 200 FOR SPRINKLERED. MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WE THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FIND ALTERNATIVE ACCESS, WHETHER THAT'S WORKING WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THEY STILL WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED DIRECT ACCESS TO THAT ARTERIAL. OKAY. GOTCHA. WELL, YEAH, I WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE ACCESS ON THAT ARTERIAL ANYWAY. SO ON THIS CORNER LOT WHERE PUERTO AND VIRGINIA. YEAH. PORTO WAY. SO THE CORNER THAT COMES THE 1.167 LOT. THAT'S WHERE THE WELL IS GOING TO BE. SO IT'S RIGHT. IT'S ON THIS CURVE. YEAH. THAT'S THE ONE. YEAH. THAT IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY. WELLS THE CITY. WELL AND THEN WE HAVE THE LIFT STATION GOING UP AND OVER UP. 
          YEAH. GREAT. SO THE LIFT STATION IS GOING TO BE UP HERE IN A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. AND THIS IS A STORMWATER IS THE LIFT STATION PART OF THIS PLAT? YES. SO IT'LL HAVE TO BE. YES. THIS THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT IS, IS VERY DEPENDENT ON THIS LIFT STATION UNTIL WE GET A SEWER CONNECTION COMING FROM THE WEST ALONG 65TH SOUTH. SO THAT'S VERY SO THIS IS VERY CRITICAL. SO BETWEEN THIS WELL AND THIS LIFT STATION BIGGER PICTURE HERE THAT WILL OPEN UP A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA AS WELL. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS SECTION OF IDAHO FALLS HAS KIND OF BEEN HINDERED ON DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY WE'VE BEEN STRETCHING THE WATER AND THE SEWER. RIGHT. CORRECT. SO THIS SOLUTION FOR THE SEWER REALLY ONLY IS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION, AND I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE LAST ONES TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS WITHOUT THAT CONNECTION. OKAY. SO THE LIFT STATION ISN'T TO HELP THE OVERALL NETWORK. THIS IS ONLY JUST TO HELP THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND IT'S A TEMPORARY LOOP STATION. WHEN THAT CONNECTION DOES HAPPEN, THIS WILL BE DISCONNECTED. GOTCHA OKAY. OKAY. IT'S A DO THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE HAVE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTION. MR. SCOTT, I KNOW YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, BUT I MISSED IT. THESE TWO LITTLE SPUR ROADS ON THE WEST SIDE, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT? SO WHEN WE ARE DOING THESE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS SOME HOPE 
          [01:45:05]
FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. SHOULD THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES REDEVELOP, THE CHANCES OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES REDEVELOPING SOON ARE PROBABLY VERY LOW. BUT AS WE MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, YOU KNOW, IN 20, 30, 50 YEARS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND WHEN WE COME ACROSS WHERE THERE'S CERTAIN PROPERTIES DEVELOPED AND THERE HAPPENS TO BE A STUB, WE CAN CONNECT THE EXISTING ROAD NETWORK TO. IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL. AND SO FOR FUTURE PLANNING, FOR CONNECTIVITY PURPOSES, WE DO ADD THESE ROAD STUBS, BUT THEY'RE REALLY ONLY THERE TO BE USED SHOULD THAT PROPERTY BE DEVELOPED. AND UNTIL THEN THEY'RE JUST KIND OF THERE. THEY'RE ALSO THERE TO HELP BREAK UP YOUR BLOCK LINKS, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THAT RESIDENTIAL BLOCK LENGTH CAN'T EXCEED 1300 FEET. SO THEY'RE ALSO USED FOR THAT PURPOSE AS WELL. LOOKING AT THESE SORRY I GO AHEAD. YEAH. 
          SORRY I'M SORRY. THE WEST, THE WEST BOUNDARY I KNOW THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT LARGE LANDOWNERS CONTIGUOUS TO THEM ABOUT VISUAL BARRIER AND SO FORTH. WOULDN'T WHAT ARE THE INTENTIONS FOR THAT. AND SO ANY MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WILL HAVE TO BUFFER FROM THEIR WEST PROPERTY LINE. SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL LIKE PEOPLE ARE JUST BUILDING 1 OR 2 UNITS PER LOT. THEY THEY WOULD JUST BE SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS AND WOULD NOT NEED TO BUFFER FROM THEIR NEIGHBORING SINGLE UNIT BLOCKS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT THE SAME SCALE, THEY'RE THE SAME LAND USE, SO THERE'S NO BUFFER THERE. IF THEY'RE JUST SINGLE UNIT LINES. MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS WILL STILL REQUIRE THE BUFFER. WHETHER IT'S TO WHAT PEOPLE WANT OR EXPECT. THAT'S PROBABLY THE MAIN CONVERSATION. SO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THESE THESE LOTS COULD EITHER BE SINGLE DETACHED UNITS OR. SO THEY WOULD ALL BE THE SAME USE. AND ALL THOSE LOTS ALONG THE WEST SIDE. YES. SO THERE ARE TWO ZONE IS PRETTY MUCH ONLY RESIDENTIAL USE. AND IT'S A MEDIUM DENSITY ZONE. EACH LOT I THINK IS BIG ENOUGH FOR FOUR UNITS. IF THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND ROOM FOR FOUR UNITS, THE PARKING, THE SETBACKS, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, AND IF THEY DEVELOPED LIKE A FOUR UNIT, LIKE A FOUR UNIT STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUFFER WITH LANDSCAPING A FENCE OR LANDSCAPE OR FENCE OR BOTH. FROM THE RESIDENCES TO THE WEST. SO BUT CONCEIVABLY ALONG THAT WEST BORDER, YOU COULD HAVE SOME LOTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THIS LOT PROGRAM, OTHER LOTS THAT WOULDN'T. IS THAT. YEAH, THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. SO SAY THIS THIS LOT RIGHT HERE DID A FOURPLEX BUT THESE ONES DID JUST ONE. SO THAT FOURPLEX LOT WOULD NEED TO BUFFER FROM THE NORTH, THE SOUTH AND THE WEST FROM THE SINGLE. THE SINGLE UNIT AROUND IT. BUT YEAH, POTENTIALLY WE COULD POTENTIALLY SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. POTENTIAL BECAUSE THE R-2 ZONE ALLOWS IT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER INTENDS. YEAH OKAY. RIGHT. YEAH. THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPER RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW. JUST THAT THEY WANT THESE SMALLER R-2 LOTS. AND YOU SAY SMALLER BUT THEY'RE ALL A THIRD AN ACRE AND THEY'RE PRETTY BIG. AND YOU KNOW, EVEN IN R-1 NEIGHBORHOODS, WE DON'T SOMETIMES SEE LOTS THIS BIG. SO IF THEY WERE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON HERE, EVEN IF THEY DID A TWIN HOME, THE TWIN HOME WOULD HAVE TO SPLIT DOWN THAT LOT LINE. CORRECT. IF THEY DID A TWIN HOME AND EACH HOME WAS ITS OWN LOT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPLIT IT DOWN THE LOT LINE AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THESE GIGANTIC YARDS. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. THEY COULD THEY COULD DO THAT, OR THEY COULD DO A DUPLEX TWO ON EACH LOT, OR UP TO PROBABLY FOUR ON EACH LOT, DEPENDING ON. BUT IT'S ALL UNDER ONE OWNER THOUGH, CORRECT. TO BE ABLE TO DO UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE PLAT, RIGHT? OR PURSUE A CONDO PLAT IF THAT'S WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THEM. YEAH, I SEE THESE A LOT. THESE ARE SET UP I MEAN, YEAH, THESE ARE SET UP LIKE THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SO THEY THE THING THAT 
          [01:50:02]
REALLY POINTS TO THAT IS THEIR DEPTH. YEAH. LIKE YOU CAN'T THE IDEA YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET FOUR BUT WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING THE THESE ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED JUST BY THE SIZE AND ALSO THE, THE SHAPE OF THEM. YEAH. YEAH. AND SO YEAH IT'S EITHER WHAT I SEE IS EITHER SINGLE FAMILY OR IN THAT MOST A TWIN HOME WHERE THEY SPLIT IT DOWN THE MIDDLE AND THEY'RE JUST REALLY NICE TWIN HOMES. RIGHT. WHICH SOME WE DO HAVE SOME. YEAH. I'VE SEEN TWIN HOMES THAT ARE ON LOTS THIS SIZE. YEAH. SO WHICH AND THEY COULD BE REALLY NICE HOMES ANYWAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? VERY GOOD. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF FARADAY PROPERTIES, DIVISION NUMBER ONE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. SCOTT. WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED? VERY GOOD. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE OUR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENDANCE HERE TONIGHT. 
          THANK YOU STAFF, YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB ON ALL THESE AMENDMENTS. WE APPRECIATE YOU. 
          OH DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? NO,
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.