[00:00:05]
          ALRIGHTY. WELL, I AM SEEING 7:00, SO WE ARE GOING TO GET PROMPTLY STARTED. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT TO THE FEBRUARY 3RD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS TYLER AND I'LL BE TRYING TO RUN THE SHOW TONIGHT. SO WE WILL WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES. DID WHAT OH, CALLED. OH, I NEED TO CALL THE ORDER. THERE WE GO. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE HIM AROUND. 
          [2.I. Minutes: January 06, 2026]
OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, DID EVERYONE GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES? IS THERE ANY ANYTHING ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE? NO. OKAY, WELL, THEN WE WILL. I WOULD LIKE TO. IF ANYONE WANTS TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE APPROVED. AS PRESENTED. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. PERFECT. WE'LL JUST DO A. VOICE VOTE. THERE WE GO. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I. SAY NAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT 
          [3.I. ANX26-001]
ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NIGHT. WE HAVE SEVERAL TONIGHT. 
          IT IS THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-1 THERE ON BELEN ROAD. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM? DO WE NEED TO STAND UP? YES. OH, ARE YOU THE APPLICANT FOR THIS? YES. 
          OKAY. OKAY. PERFECT. IF I COULD HAVE YOU COME UP AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. YEP. THANK YOU. OKAY. MY NAME IS DAN BERNSON, AND MY ADDRESS IS FOUR 3525 DRIVE. MY FOCUS IS ON BELEN ROAD, 2636 SOUTH BUILDING. OKAY. 
          AND THEY ARE WANTING TO ANNEX IN BECAUSE OF THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW. 
          THEY'RE SHARING A WELL WITH THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR. OKAY. SO WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO ACCOMPLISH IS TO GET ON CITY WATER. THEY'RE BOTH 90 YEARS OLD. AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN LEGALLY SELL THE PLACE VERY WELL WITHOUT HAVING WATER RIGHTS. SO THIS IS OUR MAIN. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, PERFECT. WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP WHEN YOU DO. ALL RIGHT. CITY STAFF. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONER. THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2.7 ACRES, PLUS SOME OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG BELEN ROAD, WITH AN INITIAL LOADING OF R-1 SINGLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL AND THEN CONTROLLED. AND WITH THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, THE AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE. THE ANNEXATION WAS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE AREA OF IMPACT AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THOUGH THE LLC LIMITED COMMERCIAL. THE SURROUNDING USES ARE PRIMARILY PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY. THE R-1 ZONE IS CHARACTERIZED BY SMALLER LOT WIDTHS AND SOMEWHAT DENSER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN IS CHARACTERIZED BY. LARGER LOT RESIDENTIAL ZONES SUCH AS THE RT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. SO THE R1 ZONE DOES FIT INTO THE SURROUNDING USES. YOU KNOW, IT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO LC. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THIS. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE SUBURBAN TRANSECT. WHICH DESIGNATES. DENOTES EXISTING OR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, WHICH THIS MEANS THAT ALMOST EXACTLY. THERE'S A SMALL PORTION THAT'S IN THE MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS WHERE YOU MIX THESE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS, BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT IS STILL IN THE SUBURBAN. AND AGAIN, IT IS STILL SURROUNDED BY MAJORITY COUNTY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SOUTH OF BANCHORY DRIVE AND NORTH WEST SUNNYSIDE, ON THE 
          [00:05:03]
WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE ISN'T A WHOLE LOT OF LANDMARKS WEST OF HERE, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BEST. THE BEST WE CAN DO. THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND THEN DOWN TO WHERE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS ARE, IS ALSO GOING TO BE ANNEXED. THAT'S NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION, BUT IT IS PART OF THE CITY'S PROCESS TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT OF WAYS AND ALONG WITH PROPERTIES AS THEY COME INTO THE CITY, THE PROPERTY IS IN THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE. THIS AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS OR CONDITIONAL USE OR CONDITIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE ZONE. THESE ZONES ARE TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT AIRSPACE. SO WE'RE FAR ENOUGH AWAY HERE THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY IMPACT AS FAR AS THE USE GOES. SO AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE FULL EXHIBIT WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY. WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE STAFF REVIEW. SO PRELIMINARY, BUT THIS IS WHAT ESSENTIALLY IS GOING FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL. VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING APPLICATION. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF R-1. AND THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAYS AS PRESENTED. AND THEN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IF IF I'M READING THE MAP CORRECTLY, WE'RE SORT OF CREATING A SMALL COUNTY ISLAND THERE, AREN'T WE? IS THAT THAT'S NOT A CONCERN FOR US. SO WE CAN WE WE CAN ANNEX THE PROPERTIES AS AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTED. SO CURRENTLY, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES HAVE NOT EXPRESSED INTEREST OR APPLIED FOR APPLICATION. WE ARE STILL ADJACENT WEBSITE. AND SOMETIMES THINGS WILL DEVELOP IN WAYS THAT WE DON'T. WE DON'T SEE AS THE ANNEX, BUT AS AS IT IS NOW, TODAY, THIS PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO ANNEX. AND THE FIRST PROPERTY ON THAT SECTION ABILITY TO DO SO. THANK YOU. 
          ONE QUESTION IS I UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO PLAT. NO PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT. CORRECT. 
          NOT AT THIS POINT. THERE'S NOT A PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S JUST A SINGLE LOT OR PARCEL THAT'S COMING INTO THE CITY. THERE. YEAH. SO IT DOESN'T NEED SOME BOUNDS DESCRIPTION. AND THERE WILL AT LEAST WHEN THIS IF THIS PROPERTY BE DEVELOPED IN FUTURE, THERE WILL AT LEAST BE A RIGHT OF WAY PLAT. IF A FINAL PLAT HAD BEEN TAKEN. OKAY. THANKS. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. NOW, I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. JUST A FEW HOUSEKEEPING THINGS. IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT, JUST COME UP AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOUR JUST GIVE US ANY FEEDBACK OR ANY. JUST YOUR WHAT'S THE WORD? I'M LOOKING FOR TESTIMONY. THERE WE GO. ON THE ON THE ITEM ITSELF. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS BRIEF. YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5 MINUTES. AND IF SOMEONE BEFORE YOU HAS GENERALLY SAID THE SAME THING AS YOU DID, YOU CAN JUST COME UP AND SAY DITTO. SO WITH THAT, I LET'S GET STARTED. OH, COMMISSIONER, I'D PROBABLY ALSO ADD. THIS IS BEING RECORDED. SO IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU MAYBE AGREE WITH SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, WE'D ASK THAT YOU NOT CLAP OR OR START CHEERING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS BEING RECORDED AND JUST SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE A COURTHOUSE, THERE'S GOT TO BE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DECORUM SO THINGS CAN BE TRANSCRIBED IF NEEDED, AND PROCEED TO THE NEXT PROCEED TO CITY COUNCIL IF NEEDED. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? COULDN'T QUITE 
          [00:10:03]
HEAR YOU. WILL YOU QUESTIONS OR JUST JUST YOUR TESTIMONY? THIS ISN'T REALLY A Q&A, BUT I GUESS ESSENTIALLY JUST YOUR TESTIMONY. AND IF YOU DO NEED SOME INFORMATION ON STUFF, MAYBE WE CAN TRY AND POINT YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION LATER ONCE THIS IS DONE. YEAH, WELL, EXCUSE ME, AND THIS IS FOR THE FIRST ITEM. YEP. WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. YEP. I LIVE IN THE ONE JUST DOWN FROM THE ONE YOU GOT MARKED, FOR INSTANCE. AND WHAT'S YOUR NAME? CROMWELL. CROMWELL. OKAY. AND COULD YOU ALSO SPECIFY WHAT YOUR ADDRESS IS? JUST FOR THE RECORD? IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT ME, APPARENTLY. PROBABLY. BUT I KIND OF LIKE TO KNOW. YOUR ADDRESS. 2720 SOUTH. THIS ADDRESS WHERE THE ITEM THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO THE THE THE THE ONE THAT CONTINUES DOWN THE NEXT STREET. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ACTUALLY OTHER THAN. WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE TODAY. WE CAME TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT THE WHAT THE ANNEX WAS, WHAT THE PROCESS WAS. QUITE HONESTLY IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PROVING EXACTLY WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE. SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS OVER THAT END OF THE DAY. HE'S GOING TO SHARE WELL OVER 60 YEARS. AND THIS IS A WAY FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CLEAN TIES. TO ALLOW THE FACILITIES. SO WHEN THE TIME TRAINS, YOU KNOW, RUNS ON OUR. WELL, FOR EVER SINCE WE MOVED IN THERE. SO, SO THERE'S NO LIKE. STREET CLEARED UP ON THAT. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE STEPPING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WELL THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE COMMISSION FOR THE ANYONE? OKAY. WELL, ANY DELIBERATION AMONGST THE COMMISSION? ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? JUST TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT CAME TO THE PODIUM WHEN WE ANNEXED PROPERTY INTO THE CITY? IT IS IN THIS CASE SEEMS PRIMARILY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO CITY UTILITIES FOR THAT PROPERTY. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON YOUR OWN. 
          WELL, YOUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE TRY TO JOT THEM DOWN AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS AFTER WE HEAR FROM EVERYONE. THANK THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ANY ORDERED THAT A LOT BETTER THAN I DID. SO OKAY WELL I'D LIKE WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I WILL, COMMISSIONER HARTMAN. ANNEXATION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2.714 ACRES IN SOUTHEAST QUARTER SECTION 27. INITIAL ZONING OF R-1 SINGLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL WITH THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THANK YOU. WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER ELGIN, I SCALES. HI, SCOTT. I MEAN, I EITHER I, I PARKER I MOTION PASSES. PERFECT. OKAY COOL. THANK YOU PRETTY SMOOTH GOING FORWARD. SO NOW IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. 
          [3.II. ANX25-005]
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT WHICH IS THE ANNEXATION OF 38 ACRES ON. BEAR OFF OF HOLMES AND 65TH. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT. GOOD EVENING. NEIL HUMPHREYS WITH EAGLE ROCK ENGINEERING AT 1331 FREMONT AVENUE, REPRESENTING ROCKWALL HOMES FOR THIS? YES. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PARCEL THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE EXISTING 
          [00:15:02]
CENTERRA SUBDIVISION. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE REALLY THE ADJOINING CITY ANNEXED PROPERTY IS ON ANOTHER PROPERTY LINE HERE. YOU'LL SEE ALSO A LOT OF EXTERNAL ANNEXATION AROUND THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM 65TH, KIND OF ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A FIFTH WEST, AS WELL AS HOMES EXTENDING TO THE NORTH. SO THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION WILL BE TO FACILITATE HOPEFULLY SOME DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, CONTINUE TO GROW THE CITY AND THE ANNEXATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAYS WILL HELP FACILITATE ACTIVITY FOR A LOT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S AN EXISTING CITY WELL RIGHT THERE. SO YEAH, THE THE CITY ASKED AND IF WE WOULD KIND OF WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE A LOT OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY WITH THIS APPLICATION. SO YEAH, AS FAR AS THE ZONING, WE'RE REQUESTING R-1 FOR THE INITIAL ZONING TO ANNEXATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ARE, COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER? YES. QUESTION ON 65TH SOUTH, I ASSUME WE'RE JUST ANNEXING THE EXISTING COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL WITH BEING ADDED, CORRECT? YEAH. HOW WIDE IS THAT? DO YOU KNOW? I BELIEVE THAT'S A KIND OF TOTAL. IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. I THINK IT'S 50 FOOT EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE UP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO TONIGHT THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-1 SINGLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SO THIS ANNEXATION WAS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT IS IN THE AREA OF IMPACT. IT IS CONTIGUOUS TO CITY LIMITS ON THE NORTH WITH THE CURRENT R-1 ZONING THAT'S THERE, AND THE ANNEXATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I'M GOING TO JUST HIT ON A COUPLE THINGS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THE MAJORITY OF SUBURBAN THE BOTTOM SMALL PART OF THAT IS MIXED USE CORRIDORS. AS A REMINDER, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE NOT EXACT LINES. THEY ARE KIND OF MOVABLE. THEY'RE MORE LIKE GUIDELINES, LOOSE BOUNDARIES. SO THAT'S WHY WE FEEL LIKE R-1 WOULD STILL WORK IN THIS AREA, EVEN WITH THE MIXED USE CENTERS. AND R-1 COULD BE IN MIXED USE ENERGY CORRIDORS AS WELL. YOU DO SEE THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS INCLUDED. IT'S A POLICY WHEN WE DO THESE ANNEXATIONS CURRENTLY TO INCLUDE BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD IN THE ANNEX AT THE TIME WHEN SOUTH POINT, JUST OVER HERE, RIGHT, WAS ANNEXED, THAT WASN'T THE POLICY. SO SOME OF THIS IS JUST TO KIND OF CLEAN THAT UP IN ANNEX THE REST OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, AS WE SEE SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT OF IT. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE COUNTY IS AWARE OF THIS, OF THE RIGHT OF WAY BEING ANNEXED. 
          IT'S IT'S DISCUSSED INTERNALLY. SO THIS ISN'T A SURPRISE TO THEM AS WELL. SO THE R1 ZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE, IT'S CHARACTERIZED BY SOMEWHAT SMALLER LOT WIDTHS, SOMEWHAT DENSER RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT. AND THEY LIKE NRP THE PRINCIPAL USE. AND YOU'LL SEE THE USES TABLE IS ATTACHED. BUT PRINCIPAL USES ARE SINGLE UNIT DETACHED OR ATTACHED UNITS FOR THAT. FOR THE MOST PART, THIS ALL MEETS THE PLAN. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF'S REVIEW, THE ANNEXATION AND THE ZONING APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R1. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE. I WOULD PRESUME THAT THIS MEANS THAT THE ROAD IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE UP TO CITY STANDARDS. IS IT ALREADY THERE OR SO? RIGHT NOW IT'S A COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. 65TH IS AN ARTERIAL. AND SO IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TO FOR ARTERIAL ROADS. THEY WOULD DEVELOP IT. BUT I AT THIS POINT. SO IT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CITY STANDARDS, BUT THE CITY WOULD BE DOING IT. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY THERE'S NO PLANS AT THE MOMENT. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR NOW. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. SO NOW I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 
          [00:20:01]
THIS ITEM. AGAIN. JUST COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND. YEAH GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY AND WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PETER KELCH 108 65TH SOUTH. I WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT REZONING THIS AREA OUT OF AGRICULTURE INTO RESIDENTIAL. 
          WE LOSE THAT AGRICULTURAL GROUND FOREVER. I KNOW IT DOES NOT GRANT NEW WATER RIGHTS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND. DO NOT FORGET THE BREADBASKET IN THE SOUTHEAST IDAHO WAS BUILT UPON. 
          YOU HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES TO ZONE RESIDENTIAL WITHIN CITY LIMITS. BRING IT OUT HERE IN THE FERTILE AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT I THINK YOU SHOULD BE CONSIDERING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANYONE ELSE? PERFECT. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RALPH HERBERT, 1455 EAST LAZY LANE. 
          THAT'S ACROSS FROM SANDY. DOWN IN. YEAH. AND MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE A REQUEST FOR REDUCED DENSITY IN THIS APPLICATION. SUPPLIED A PARKING AND ALL THE GOING THROUGH THAT AT THE TIME TAKEN WITH THAT POWER POINT IS TOO MUCH. SO I WILL GET THROUGH THAT. AND ADMINISTRATION QUESTIONS. OKAY. CONSUMPTION AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF WATER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSE OF 500 GALLONS A DAY. AND THE AUTO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DOES, AS OF JULY 2024, IS DECLARED A. THE NEW USES ON THIS AMENDMENT MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THIS INCREDIBLE POLICY. LAST YEAR. THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION ON FROM THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT IN CONCERNING IDAHO FALLS AS NEW USES OF WATER AND REQUIRING 100% IRRIGATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL WATER IS USED. MY CONCERNS ARE THAT THE DENSITIES AND DENSITIES THAT ARE BEING USED FOR DIRECTLY IN COMPETITION WITH OUR AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY, AND THEIR EFFORTS TO RECHARGE THE SNAKE RIVER AQUIFER, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M ASKING FOR THE APPLICATION TO REDUCE ITS DENSITY BY 50% AND 62. HOUSING UNITS, AND THE REQUEST WOULD. 
          COMPLY BETTER WITH OFFSETTING THE COUNTY RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. IT IS DEFINITELY A CONCERN OF BEING IN COMPETITION AND HAVING THOSE RESOURCES AND THE CITY HAVING THOSE RESOURCES FOR COMPENSATION. ALSO IN MITIGATION IN THAT IS THAT THE INFLUENCE OF OUR WILDLIFE IS THAT WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WILDLIFE IN THAT AREA. AND IN FACT, I'VE INCLUDED A BUT THERE ARE 54 PROTECTED SPECIES AND NATIVE SPECIES IN THIS AREA FOR 26 SPECIES OF INTEREST AND CONCERN OF OUR BIRDS AND MIGRATORY WILDLIFE. I HAVE INCLUDED THIS WITHIN THIS POWERPOINT. ARE THOSE SPECIES, AND ALSO I'VE INCLUDED PICTURES OF THOSE WILDLIFE AND SPECIFICALLY BALD EAGLES. RED TAILED HAWKS, GEESE, DUCKS, MOOSE AND DEER THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THIS AREA. AND THE DENSITIES THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO THOSE SPECIES AND CONTINUATION. AND I'VE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS WITH AGAIN FISH DENSITY MATTERS. THE 
          [00:25:01]
BOTTOM LINE WITH OUR CONVERSATIONS, THE DENSITY MATTERS OF THE DENSITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN AND CURRENTLY WITHIN THE COUNTY ARE CONDUCIVE TO CONSERVATION. INCREASED DENSITIES ARE NOT. LAST. NIGHT. COMMENTS I KNOW I'M GETTING CLOSE TO MY TIME PERIODS. 
          YOU'RE OKAY IS WITH. THE TRAFFIC. THE EXTENSION OFFICE AND AND ACCESS TO THE EXTENSION OFFICE FROM I COME BY EXTENSION, COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE BEING USED AT A HIGHER RATE ALL THE TIME. I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE COUNTY EXTENSION AND HORSE TRAILERS THAT FILL THE PARKING LOT AND THE SIDE ROADS, WHICH CONTINUALLY BEING FILLED ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES IS THAT I'VE GOT FAMILY THAT GO TO THE EXTENSION OFFICE. WE HAVE A A WHOLESALE THAT EACH YEAR 80 TO 90 BOWLS, WE BRING THOSE ROLES IN. TYPICALLY THEY CARRY TEN ROLES IN A HORSE TRAILER. AND OUR STOPPING DISTANCES ARE CONTINUALLY BEING CHALLENGED BY THE THE IMPACT OF URBAN POPULATIONS. ON 65TH, YOU SLOW DOWN THE TAILGATE TO CUT YOU OFF. IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE AND JUST THE ETIQUETTE ETIQUETTE OF NEW POPULATIONS THAT ARE NOT USED TO COUNTING CONSIDERATIONS OF HUNTING ANIMALS IS A CONCERN. ALSO KNOWN, THE WAR VETERAN ON THE GROUND THAT WE BRING IN TRAILERS, EXPENSIVE ANIMALS AND IT'S A CAUTION. HAVING THOSE THAT TRAFFIC COME IN AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL. ROOM POPULATIONS AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THEY COME IN IN THE 60S. IT'S A CONCERN. AND THE LOWER DENSITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPED WITH THE IMPACTS OF THE TRAFFIC ON THE 65TH SOUTH. OKAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. WHY IS 65TH STILL 50 MILES AN HOUR, SIR? WHAT IF IF YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE COMMENT, JUST COME UP. BUT PLEASE. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. COMMISSION ALAN 7466 SOUTH 15TH WEST. I ALSO ON THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED ANNEX PROPERTY AND ALONG 65TH SOUTH, WHICH YOU'RE PROPOSING TO ANNEX AS WELL WITHIN THE SOUTH BORDER OF THE PROPERTY. NOT SPEAKING AGAINST THE THE ANNEXATION ITSELF, BUT THE THE EXISTING COUNTY UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY ALONG 65TH SOUTH HAS A HAS A CURRENTLY HAS SOME VERY LARGE POWER LINES AND THERE IS A FIBER OPTIC LINE HUNG ON THOSE POWER POLES. THAT'S EXTREMELY LOW. WHEN THE CITY CAME IN AND ORIGINALLY INSTALLED THOSE FIBER OPTIC LINES, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC INPUT OR ANYTHING AS TO INSTALLING THOSE. AND THEY THEY INSTALLED THEM TO THE POINT THAT THEY WERE JUST A LITTLE OVER 11FT OFF THE GROUND AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. NOW, WE HAVE BEEN TO CITY POWER TO GET THOSE RAISED, AND THEY KEEP GIVING EXCUSES. IT HAS BEEN A BURDEN FOR OUR FARMING OPERATION TO FARM AROUND THOSE THOSE OPERATING THOSE FIBER OPTIC LINES BECAUSE THEY'RE SO LOW TO THE POINT THAT WE ACCIDENTALLY CLIPPED THE DECLINE. THIS YEAR, CITY SENT ME A BILL FOR OVER $8,000 TO FIX THAT LINE, OF WHICH THEY SAID I HAD TO PAY AND WHICH I DID PAY. BUT WHAT I'M ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO DO WOULD BE WITH THIS ANNEXATION OF THE 65TH. OH, I WOULD GO BACK AND THE THE CITY POWERS EXCUSE WAS IT'S JUST TOO 
          [00:30:03]
EXPENSIVE TO BURY THAT LINE IS WHY IT'S, IT'S IT'S HUNG ON THOSE POWER POLES EXISTING. SO EXCUSE ME, I WOULD ASK THAT AS LONG AS THE CITY IS ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY, YORK ROAD 65TH, THAT THE CITY AT LEAST CARRY THAT FIBER OPTIC LINE SO THAT WE CAN AT LEAST DO OUR AGRICULTURE OPERATION AND CONTINUE TO DO THAT INTO THE FUTURE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT LEVEL ANYTIME SOON, AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR ANOTHER FIBER OPTIC LINE THAT GETS BROKEN. NOW, THE CITY DID ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT LINE IN THAT LOCATION A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S STILL DANGEROUSLY LOW. I'VE CHECKED ON ON LAWS AND ZONINGS AND THERE'S CONFLICTING BETWEEN 11 AND 15FT, BUT IF WE COULD GET IT RAISED UP TO 15FT, IT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT THE CITY SAYS THEY CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE OF THE COLOR LINE RESTRICTIONS. SO THE OTHER OPTION IS I WOULD ASK IS BURIED. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO, TO AT LEAST RECOMMEND TO THE CITY UPON THIS ANNEXATION, IF IT'S PART OF THE ANNEXATION, WOULD BE TO MOVE THAT OVERHEAD FIBER OPTIC LINE AND PUT IT UNDERGROUND WHERE IT'S SAFE AND SOUND IN THE RIGHT WAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS DAVID GRIFFITH. I LIVE AT 6145 SOUTH VIEW AVENUE, IDAHO FALLS. WE ARE OUT IN THE COUNTY JUST OFF OF SOUTH HOLMES, AND JUST BEFORE 65TH SOUTH. BASICALLY, TO KEEP THIS SHORT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO AND DITTO WHAT RALPH HERBERT COMMENTS WERE MADE EARLIER ABOUT THIS ANNEXATION AND GO ON RECORD AS BASICALLY THE SAME CONCERNS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, PETER COUCH, SAME ADDRESS. I WANT TO BACK UP HIS STATEMENTS. I HAVE MULTIPLE PHOTOS OF RED TAILED HAWKS, BALD EAGLES, COYOTES, ETC. WE SHOULD HAVE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES STUDY DONE BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH AN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF. OH, SORRY. LYNETTE LENNON, 60, 21 SOUTH VIEW AVENUE SUBDIVISION, HALLMARK HOMES. I JUST WANTED TO DITTO ABOUT THE EVERYTHING FROM THE WATER TABLES. WE ALL HAVE HAD TO FIGURE OUT THAT SUBDIVISION. EXPENSIVE. MORE PEOPLE THAT USE THEM ARE GOING TO HAVE TO. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DIG DEEPER, WHICH IS A MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. THAT IS, WE'D LIKE ALL THE WILDLIFE THAT WE'VE HAD. WE BOUGHT OUR LOT FOR SHELTER 20 YEARS AGO, AND WE BOUGHT IT OUT THERE TO HAVE SOME OF THAT WILDLIFE AND NOT SO MUCH DENSE POPULATION. AND SO I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD THAT I AM ALL FOR ONLY LIKE 80, 50% OF THE HOUSING THAT THEY PROPOSE TO GO IN THERE, THAT POSSIBLY SOME GREEN SPACE BETWEEN OUR SUBDIVISION AND THE NEW SUBDIVISION THAT'S COMING, JUST SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN STILL HAVE SOME OF THAT WILDLIFE AND THEN KEEP SOME OF OUR WATER WELLS AND THINGS FOR MISSING. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO INDICATE, I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTS BEING MADE ARE PROBABLY MORE GEARED TOWARDS THE NEXT SECTION. SO AS YOU CONTEMPLATE WHETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE ANNEXED, MAYBE FOCUSED ON THE THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THE ACTUAL ANNEXATION, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME THAT THE NEXT PORTION IS ADDRESSED, IF IF IT COMES TO THAT, THEN MAYBE CONSIDER THOSE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ACTUAL PLOT OR PLANNING. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. I'M JIM JOHNSON AND I LIVE AT 398 HALLMARK DRIVE, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, AND THAT'S IN THE HALLMARK ESTATES DIVISION THERE. 
          AND WE HAVE ONE ACRE BLOCKS, JUST A LITTLE OVER ONE ACRE. AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT. 
          THREE HOUSES AT THE BACKS OF SEVERAL LOTS AND FOUR ON THE SIDE LOTS. SO ONE OF OUR GUYS IS GOING TO GOING TO SEE ALMOST SEVEN HOMES. LOOKING INTO HIS LIFE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S 
          [00:35:09]
REASONABLE. IT VALUES OUR PROPERTY WITH SUCH SMALL HOMES THERE. AND THEN I WANTED TO SECOND HIS THINGS ABOUT THE USE OF WATER. THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF DRAIN ON THE WATER AND ALSO THE ANIMALS. AND I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I WISH WE COULD CHANGE THIS UP. SO WE'RE NOT PUTTING SO MANY HOMES THAT ARE ON THE AGRICULTURE AREA. THANKS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ONE MORE CHANCE FOR ANYONE ELSE TO GO SEE SOME SQUIRMING OUT THERE. THEY SHOULD I SHOULD I NOT? OKAY. ALRIGHTY. WELL, I. THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO DO NOW IS BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF. WELL, I DON'T WANT TO FULLY CLOSE IT YET BECAUSE I WANT TO BE ABLE TO POSSIBLY ASK STAFF QUESTIONS OR THE APPLICANT SOME MORE QUESTIONS. AND I WANT TO KEEP IT MORE OPEN IN THAT WAY. I KIND OF GOT IN TROUBLE LAST TIME I CLOSED IT WHEN I DID THAT, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP IT OPEN JUST FOR NOW, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS SOME THINGS TO DISCUSS. I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO COME UP? THANK YOU. AND CHAIR, WE DO TYPICALLY ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A REBUTTAL AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. YEAH. SO THAT'S TRUE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL TO ANYTHING THAT ANYONE HAD SAID BEFORE, I WOULD GET INTO SOME DISCUSSION. SURE. 
          YEAH, YEAH. A COUPLE OF NOTES JUST TO GET THE RECORD. I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE IF WE ARE KEEPING THIS OPEN AND APPLICANT IS GIVING SOME REBUTTAL NOW, BUT THEN WE'RE TURNING IT OVER FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT, THAT WOULD AGAIN LEAVE SOME REBUTTAL ROOM FOR APPLICANT AT THE END AS WELL. I JUST KNOW THAT LAST TIME I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE HAD DISCUSSION AND I HAD QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, I WAS ASKED TO REOPEN THE MEETING. SO I'M JUST I'LL DO WHATEVER'S LEGAL, BUT I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I'M JUST SAYING IF IT DOES GO INTO ANOTHER DISCUSSION WHERE PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPEN FOR TESTIMONY, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL REBUTTAL. I'M JUST INDICATING THAT. YEAH, THAT'S FAIR, MR. CHAIR. IF I CAN JUST ADDRESS THAT TO YOU, THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SPECIFIC WAY IN WHICH IT ALLOWS US TO FUNCTION WITH QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, IT DOES SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THE COMMISSION AND THE CHAIR TO SEEK ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OR HAVE DISCUSSION WITH BOTH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. SO THERE'D BE NO LIMITATION TO YOU DOING THAT. 
          YOU COULD EVEN HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DURING THAT TIME AS WELL, PER OUR OWN ORDINANCE. SO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND NOT TO LIMIT YOU ON BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR, BUT I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK HERE. SO I GUESS WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL JUST CONSIDERING THAT I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND WELL, BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE SHOULD ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL AND REBUTTAL AND THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          SORRY. AGAIN. NEIL HUMPHREYS, 1331 AVENUE WITH EAGLE ROCK ENGINEERING. I DON'T THINK I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, BUT I DID TAKE A COUPLE OF NOTES DOWN. SO AS FAR AS DENSITY IS IS CONCERNED, THAT MIGHT AGAIN BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. I THINK EVERYONE'S TRYING TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO BALANCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE SEEKING HERE IS ONE OF THE LEAST DENSE THAT IDAHO FALLS OFFERS. AND SO WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE EXISTING LOTS UNDER COUNTY ZONING RULES. 
          AND WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THAT. I SUPPOSE, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, YOU KNOW, PROPOSING A LOW DENSITY AS FAR AS IDAHO FALLS IS CONCERNED, ZONED TO THIS, THIS PROPERTY. 
          THE RIGHT OF WAY AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. I THINK THE 
          [00:40:03]
HOPE IS WITH THIS ANNEXATION, THAT IT WILL ALLOW THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THAT FALLS A LITTLE BIT MORE FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY TO CONTROL HOW THE ROADWAYS ARE DEVELOPED AND BUILT OUT. AND SO I THINK THE HOPE IS FOR EVERYBODY THAT THE ANNEXATION WILL INCREASE THE ROAD CAPACITY AND SAFETY ON THOSE ON THOSE ADJACENT ROADWAYS. AS FAR AS THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPERTY BEING AGRICULTURAL AND REMAINING AGRICULTURAL, AGAIN, TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALSO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS LONG AS THEY'RE MEETING THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL STANDARDS AND ZONING CODES. AND WE FEEL THAT THIS DOES. AND STAFF AGREES. WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD APPLICATION, JUST LIKE THE COMMISSION. KEEP THAT IN MIND. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THIS. OTHER QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. NO. OKAY. ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE WATER SITUATION. SO THIS AND I GUESS WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. BUT I MEAN THEY'RE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TOGETHER. BUT THE WATER SITUATION THEY ARE I MEAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANNEXATION, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH UTILITIES. SO ALL THESE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE CONNECTED TO CITY SERVICES. 
          CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO IS THERE I'M ASSUMING THERE ARE EXISTING WATER RIGHTS FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. THERE ARE EXISTING SURFACE WATER RIGHTS, RIGHT. THE WATER THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED TO WATER THE FARMLAND, ITS SURFACE WATER. AND YEAH, THIS MIGHT BE MORE OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TOPIC, BUT THE THE POTABLE WATER USE WILL COME FROM THE CITY WATER SUPPLY. 
          BUT ALL OF THE LAWN WATERING IRRIGATION FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL NEED TO USE SURFACE WATER RIGHTS. JUST THE EXACT SAME WATER RIGHTS THAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY THAT ARE BEING USED TO WATER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. SO THE SO ESSENTIALLY THE LAWN. SO WHEN PEOPLE HAVE THEIR LAWNS AND GARDENS AND STUFF IN THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL BE USING THE EXISTING SURFACE WATER RIGHTS, NOT THE WATER CULINARY WATER FROM THE CITY. CORRECT? YEAH. NONE OF THAT WATER WOULD GO TO THE CITY'S WELLS THAT ARE OKAY. OKAY. AWESOME. THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. WHERE THE COMMISSION TO ADD A CONDITION OR DISCUSS DOING SOMETHING WITH THAT FIBER OPTIC LINE. WHO WOULD ULTIMATELY BE RESPONSIBLE TO COVER THE COST OF THAT? YOU KNOW? IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A CONDITION REGARDING THE FIBER OPTIC LINE WITH REGARD TO AN ANNEXATION. 
          THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO THE ANNEXATION OF THE THE LAND. 
          WHERE EXACTLY WOULD THAT FALL? MOST LIKELY THAT WOULD FALL AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION PROCESS, BUT THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE PART OF A FINAL SUBDIVISION PROCESS, NOT A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PROCESS. DURING THE PRELIMINARY, IT MUST BE APPROPRIATE AS A NOTATION TO STAFF AND TO LOOK INTO THAT AS A AS ITEMS PROCEED. BUT REALLY IT WOULD BE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PLAT, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WHO WOULD COVER WHAT COST AND AT WHAT POINT THAT WOULD OCCUR. THANK YOU. I THINK JUST TO ADD TO THAT, IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO RACE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH I'M SURE WOULD BE VERY MINDFUL. I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A HORSE, BUT I'M SURE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. MICHAEL, I THINK, OH, THERE WE GO. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE MY HOARSENESS. SO THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT. AND THAT IS AN ISSUE I THINK CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADDRESS IF IT CREATES A A SITUATION THAT IS BURDEN ON THE ADJOINING AGRICULTURAL USES, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR HEARING, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE PROPER FORUM. AND ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS THAT BY IT BEING ANNEXED BY THE CITY, IT DOES GIVE THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY AND CONTROL TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST THOSE THINGS. BUT DITTO THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING FOR SURE THAT CITY COUNCIL WOULD LOVE TO HEAR. COMMISSIONER SCOTT. YEAH, JUST A MINOR QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SAME THING IS THERE MUST BE ACCESS TO 65TH FROM THAT PARCEL TO THE WEST, IS THERE NOT? I MEAN, SURELY DOESN'T HAVE TO GET ALL HIS EQUIPMENT UNDER THE 11TH BUT LINE. DO YOU? 
          [00:45:06]
OF COURSE. IS IS THERE AN ACCESS FOR YOU TO GET ONTO 60? MAY I ASK HIM A QUESTION, MR. CHAIR? THROUGH YOU, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, IT IS STILL APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHAIR TO THEN CALL UP WHOEVER WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND THEN PROVIDE THE QUESTION THROUGH THE CHAIR. OKAY. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. OKAY. WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN. PETER 108 60 THE SOUTH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THE CENTER RED LINE THAT GOES STRAIGHT UP FROM THE FIRE STATION THERE. YEAH, THAT IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST POINTS OF THE FIBER OPTIC CABLE. WE HAVE A DIRT LANE GOING UP THAT RIGHT LANE, AND THAT'S OUR MAIN ACCESS POINT THAT WE USE OTHERS. 
          AND EVEN THAT POINT, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL MOVING EQUIPMENT IN. WHEN I MOVE MY GRAIN COMBINE IN I HAVE TO STOP. I HAVE TO LOWER EVERYTHING THAT IS ABOVE THE CAB, WHICH TAKES ME 20 MINUTES AFTER I GET UP THERE AT THE UNBOLT THINGS AND PULLED EVERYTHING IN TO GET UNDER THAT CABLE. AND IF I HAVEN'T DONE IT, BY THE TIME I'M TURNING IN, I'M BLOCKING THE ROAD, WHICH PEOPLE ARE DOING 50 MILES AN HOUR TO GET ONE MILE, WHICH IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I END UP BLOCKING TRAFFIC. I STOPPED, I LOWERED, I GO VERY SLOWLY. IT IS A HINDRANCE. THERE IS ACCESS THERE. BUT THAT FIBER OPTIC CABLE RIGHT THERE IS PROBABLY 12FT, EIGHT INCHES HIGH. MY EQUIPMENT GOES UP TO 14FT. I GOT TO WATCH OUT. AND THAT PERTAINS TO THE NEXT MILE AND A HALF WEST OF THAT AS WELL. ON 60 FOOT. THAT CABLE IS A HINDRANCE ON ALL OF OUR PROGRAM ALONG THAT ROAD, SO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT ONLY JUST ALONG 65TH, BUT THE THE NORTH AND SOUTH RED LINE, THE WEST EDGE OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION ALL THE WAY UP THAT. NO, NO, IT'S JUST ALONG 65TH, OH FIVE REPLICAS. OKAY. YEAH. THERE'S NO FIBER GOING NORTHWEST. OKAY. GOTCHA. MR. CHAIR, I GUESS I WANT TO POINT OUT A LITTLE BIT THAT THE THAT THE PLAN OR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ANNEXING HERE IS ONLY A VERY SMALL PORTION TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED OR THAT'S BEING FARMED BY THIS GENTLEMAN. AND ANY WORK THAT WOULD BE DONE OR AS A PART OF A POTENTIAL FINAL PLAN WOULD BE IMPACTED ON THAT SECTION, NOT THE SECTION THAT'S BEING FARMED. I THINK THAT WOULD ONLY EVER COME INTO PLAY WHERE THAT OTHER PARCEL THAT'S BEING FARMED BE DEVELOPED. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD HOLD THIS UP. AS WE ANNEX A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO TO HAVE SOME IMPACT OR BURIAL OF A LINE THAT ISN'T EVEN PART OF THIS PARCEL. SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT ONE A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE ISSUE, BUT BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN ADDRESS IT HERE, ESPECIALLY NOT WITH THE ANNEXATION IS CARRIES. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WATER. WHOEVER IS BEST ABLE TO TO COMMENT ON THAT. THE SURFACE WATER RIGHTS THAT WOULD BE USED FOR LONG IRRIGATION OR WHERE IS THE ACTUAL ACCESS FOR THAT? WOULD YOU STRUGGLE HERE LESS ON THE. 
          OH, OKAY. SO THE IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO SEE THE EXISTING AG ADVANTAGE TENANTS RIGHT UP KIND OF A CORNER IS CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THAT LEG OF THE CANAL WORKS, WORKS THROUGH SUBDIVISION. BUT THE EXISTING PUMP IS ACTUALLY IN A PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S A PRESSURE LINE THAT RUNS ON THE BACK HALF OF THESE LOTS, DELIVERS WATER TO THE BUILDING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER. SO THAT'S THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, BUT MAYBE NOT THE FINAL PROPOSED LOCATION. SO WOULD THE WATER BE METERED? WHAT'S GOING TO REGULATE THAT? THEY ONLY USE 
          [00:50:01]
THE WATER THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO. RIGHT. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND ACTUALLY, MR. TO ANSWER THAT, BUT IT IS ME. BUT WE WORK WITH IDAHO IRRIGATION AND ALL OF OUR PLANS ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWED. IT'S ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THROUGH THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS WITH THE STAFF THAT WE ALSO GAIN APPROVAL FROM IDAHO IRRIGATION DISTRICT ON OUR PLANS. SO THEY REVIEW OUR PUMPS AND OUR LOCATIONS AND POINTS OF DIVERSION, AND THEY'LL SIGN OFF ON THE FINAL PLAT, ESSENTIALLY APPROVING THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. THAT AND REALLY WHAT IT IS, IS THEY MAKE US DESIGN OUR PUMPS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF OUTPUT THAT THEY CAN DELIVER TO WHATEVER THE ALLOWABLE IS. SO THE SYSTEM'S KIND OF CAPPED FROM A MECHANICAL STANDPOINT. IT IS DESIGNED TO NOT BE ABLE TO DELIVER MORE WATER THAN THAT RIGHT. ALLOWS. SO ARE WE THEN TO ASSUME THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE WATER USED FOR PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES THAN FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES? BECAUSE THE WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE BEYOND CORRECT WATER RIGHTS, THE EXISTING ALLOWABLE USES 8.9 MILLION GALLONS PER MINUTE PER ACRE. REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, AND THAT'S THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LIMITED TO. SO OKAY. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION HAS BEEN CLOSED. 
          I WOULD IMAGINE THAT A LOT OF YOUR COMMENTS ARE MORE SO GEARED TOWARDS THE PLANNING OF THIS PROPERTY. YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL, SO YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO YOUR COMMENTS THERE. COULD YOU COMMENT ON WHAT WAS ALREADY SAID ABOUT THE THE ROAD UNANIMOUSLY? THAT'S THAT'S WRONG. YOU STATED AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS THAT 65TH SOUTH WAS PART OF THE ANNEXATION, AND MR. OGDEN JUST SAID IT WASN'T. I'M I'M YOU NEED TO SEPARATE THE TWO ANNEXATIONS, CHAIR. WE'RE EXCEEDING WE'RE BEYOND THE PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH. THE AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, THE 65TH SOUTH IS IS BEING ANNEXED. BUT IF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS, YOU CAN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF IN THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. BUT I THINK THAT THAT I PERSONALLY WILL UNLESS DID ANYONE HAVE OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? AND SIR, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WANTED TO TALK WITH SOME PEOPLE, PART OF OUR CDS TEAM, IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO TAKE YOUR QUESTION, WAS THAT NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT. IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ANNEXATION. I THIS THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE PART OF THE ANNEXATION. CORRECT. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE FIBER OPTIC ISSUE, WHICH WILL BE OUR NEXT ITEM. 
          THANK YOU. YES. TO TO CLARIFY, FOR THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE, WE HAVE TWO BUSINESS ITEMS OR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY. THE FIRST ONE IS THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED. RIGHT NOW THAT'S ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY. AND THAT'S ONE ISSUE. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PORTION OF THIS LAND. LAND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE AREA ALONG 65TH SOUTH. OKAY. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT DENSITY HERE FOR A SECOND. FOR ME PERSONALLY, I AM KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS BETWEEN WELL, SHOULD IT BE A LOWER DENSITY? SHOULD IT BE R1? SO I WANTED TO LOOK AT LIKE I LOOKED AT KIND OF THE GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE AREA. AND YOU SEE EXAMPLES OF R-1 RESIDENTIAL UP AGAINST LARGER ACREAGE, LOTS OF COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS. AND THEN YOU ALSO IN THE R-1 ZONE, AND THEN YOU ALSO SEE THE R P ZONE ALSO AGAINST LARGER COUNTY SUBDIVISION LOTS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY I WAS THINKING, WELL, WHAT IF WE REZONED AT LEAST SOME OF IT ALONG HALLMARK ESTATES TO BE OUR OUR P? I KIND OF HAVE THAT IDEA OF THAT THOUGHT. BUT THEN I WAS LOOKING AROUND, I'M LIKE, WELL, THERE'S EXAMPLES OF BOTH ALONG. 
          EXISTING ACCOUNTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE RP ZONE. IT ONLY THE THE LOT SIZE IS A 
          [00:55:03]
MINIMUM OF 12,000FT■S, WHICH IS WHAT, A THIRD OF AN ACRE ANYWAY. SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO CHANGE IT TO RP, WE'RE STILL IN A LOT OF PEOPLE'S EYES AT A SMALLER DENSITY OR TOO HIGH OF A DENSITY FOR WHAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW PERSONALLY IF SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT ZONE WOULD WORK JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE WE SEE EXAMPLES OF BOTH THROUGHOUT THE AREA. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST MY $0.02 ABOUT THAT. SO NO, I DO, MR. CHAIR. I THOUGHT LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND SEEING THAT THERE IS A MIX OF THE R1 AND THE R. AND I CAME TO THE OPINION, I THINK BECAUSE THIS IS UP AGAINST THE COUNTY LINE, THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE RP ZONE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, BUT IT SEEMS, IN MY OPINION, MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT SOME LESSER DENSITY AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE AGRICULTURAL AS A WAY TO MITIGATE THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU KNOW, I, I LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF OF A NEW DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORING A COUNTY DEVELOPMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS A CITY DEVELOPMENT, NOT A COUNTY DEVELOPMENT. AND WE DO HAVE CONTIGUOUS R1. I, I HAVE NO CONCERN. I MEAN, IT DEVELOPS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND IT. NO CONCERN WITH R1 BEING THE ZONING FOR THIS ENTIRE PARCEL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S NEIGHBORING A COUNTY, A COUNTY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS MULTIPLE PLACES AND MULTIPLE SPOTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND WOULD LEAVE A COUNTY ISLAND OF RP OR WHATEVER, WE DECIDED IF WE DIDN'T MAKE IT CONTIGUOUS TO THE R1 THAT'S THERE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT, COMMISSIONER SCOTT HAS SOMETHING FIRST, THEN I'LL GO TO YOU. OKAY? APOLOGIZE FOR THE HORSE. I ASSUME WE'RE THERE. WE GO. I ASSUME WE'RE TO THE POINT ON WHERE WE'RE TALKING AMONG THE COMMISSION. I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. OGDEN THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS OBVIOUSLY URBAN GROWTH. AND THE URBAN GROWTH IS GOING TO BE DRIVEN BY MARKET CONDITIONS. SO THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD THINK YOU WANT TO LOOK AT VERY CAREFULLY IS, DO YOU WANT THIS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE CITY OR IN THE COUNTY? AS YOU LOOK AT THE CONTROLS, THE EXISTING WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY, I THINK ARE MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT YOU'LL SEE IF YOU HAVE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED IN THE COUNTY AS A AS AN URBAN AREA. AND SO I SOMEWHAT SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENT OF MR. OGDEN. IT'S REALLY A CHOICE. DO YOU WANT IN THE CITY OR IN THE COUNTY? AND I THINK THAT AS AT LEAST AS I SEE IT, THE CONCERNS THAT I HEAR BEING ADDRESSED, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE FAR BETTER LUCK DEALING WITH WITH THE GREATER AMOUNT OF CONTROL THAT THE CITY HAS OVER DEVELOPMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE MORE RURAL ORIENTED COUNTY THAT SEEMS TO WANT TO GET IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS AS WELL. THANK YOU. ANY. NO, I'LL JUST SAY COMMISSIONER STEWART TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH. SO HE DOES THAT FOR ME TOO. AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE GRUMPY VOICE. YEAH. I'LL AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER OGDEN AND THE OTHERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN SINCE THEN. THIS IS A RARE INSTANCE WHERE WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO'S REQUESTING ANNEXATION AT R1, WHICH IS SOMETHING THIS COMMISSION TAKES CRITICISM. A LOT OF IS THAT WE DON'T GET WHAT, YOU KNOW, MANY FOLKS WOULD CONSIDER LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S VERY UNUSUAL IN TODAY'S CLIMATE. BY THE WAY. OUR COUNTY NEIGHBORS MAY NOT AGREE WITH THAT, THAT YOU SEE SOMETHING SMALLER THAN AN ACRE LOT. AND THAT'S CONSIDERED HIGH DENSITY FOR FOR YOU FOR IDAHO FALLS IN THE CITY. THIS IS LOWER DENSITY 
          [01:00:02]
FOR US FROM MOST OF THE PROJECTS WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY. IT'S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE WE PROBABLY CAN DO, WE CAN'T DO RIGHT IN EVERYONE'S EYES ALL THE TIME. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH. YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH PUTTING THIS R1 THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH. AND THAT'S THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING FOR. I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, THE OTHER ISSUE TO LOOK AT IS THE CITY DOES PROVIDE THE CULINARY WATER. SO IF ANYTHING, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT IS USED. THE THE GROUNDWATER IS GOING TO STAY ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. SO AGAIN, I TEND TO THINK AS YOU LOOK AT THE CHOICE BETWEEN WHETHER IT IS IN THE CITY OR IN THE COUNTY, I THINK I WOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HAVING IN THE CITY. TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE RAISING HERE. OKAY. WELL, I, I THINK EVERYONE'S KIND OF HAVE THEIR MIND MADE UP. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL TAKE IT. MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-1 SINGLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SECOND, I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. PERFECT. WE WILL TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER OGDEN. 
          HI. HI, SCOTT. I MEAN, I I I I I OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE 
          [3.III. PLT25-034]
AGENDA, WHICH IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THIS ANNEXATION. SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. 
          FOR YOU ON LOSS AVENUE. EAGLE ROCK ENGINEERING AGAIN REPRESENTING HOMES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE. MANIFESTATIONS AND PRELIMINARY CLOUD APPLICATION. LET'S SEE HERE WE'RE REQUESTING ESSENTIALLY A AN APPROVAL FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, I GUESS, TO REARRANGE EVERYONE'S MINDS. NOW THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ANNEXATION ANYMORE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BOUNDARY IS SHOWN IN WHITE HERE. A PORTION OF THE NORTHERN AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED IN 2006, AND THIS REMAINING PORTION IS WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, IS FOR THE ANNEXATION IS CONCERNED, THE TOTAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AREA IS ROUGHLY 50 ACRES. BUILDING 126 LOTS WITH 120 BUILDABLE LOTS, AVERAGE BUILDABLE LOT SIZE OF ROUGHLY A QUARTER ACRE FOR THOSE BUILDABLE LOTS, THE ACTIVITY WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOMES ON THE EAST SIDE. ON THE SOUTH SIDE FROM 65TH SOUTH, AND THEN CONNECTIVITY INTO THE EXISTING CENTERS SUBDIVISION ON THE LOWER, AS WELL AS THROUGH HALLMARK ESTATES AND SEVERAL ROAD STUBS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. SO OBVIOUSLY THIS THIS PARCEL IS THIS PIECE IS KIND OF JIGSAW AROUND SOME EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS. AND THERE WAS A CHURCH FACILITY IN THE NORTHEAST AND EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS. SO THE HOPE IS THAT THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT LAYOUT THAT WE'VE PROVIDED WILL ALLOW, FACILITATE REALLY GOOD ACCESS FOR ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS. 
          AND AS WELL AS FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, WE WITH THE FOUR ACRE LOT SIZES, WE TRIED TO PAIR THINGS UP WITH THE R-1 ZONE. WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THERE'S A PROPOSED RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF. WELL, THERE YOU GO, THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. JUST OFF OF HOLMES AVENUE. AND WE ACTUALLY DID. SO WE HOSTED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY. A LOT OF THESE FOLKS, I'M SURE, ATTENDED. I ACTUALLY DID NOT, BUT WE LISTENED TO THEIR FEEDBACK. WE TALKED WITH ROCKWELL HOLMES. ROCKWELL ACTUALLY REQUESTED THAT WE REDUCE OR, SORRY, INCREASE THE LOT SIZE BY REDUCING A COUPLE OF LOTS THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY ALONG THE HALLMARK ESTATES BOUNDARY. OBVIOUSLY, WITHIN THE R-1 ZONE, WE'RE CONSTRAINED BY 
          [01:05:04]
THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE THAT CAN BE PROVIDED, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT A POINT THAT THAT WAS LISTENED TO AND THAT WAS FEEDBACK THAT WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE. AND THOSE THOSE LOTS ARE LARGER, YOU KNOW, IN AND AROUND THAT AREA THAN MAJORITY OF THE CLASS HOMES ARE CONCERNED. UTILITIES AND CONNECTIVITY. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT FOR A MOMENT. WE'LL BE CONNECTING TO EXISTING WATER AND SEWER. WELL, YEAH. SO WATER WILL WILL BE CONNECTED TO SOME TERRA. AND THE IDEA IS KIND OF AS I MENTIONED, WITH THE ANNEXATION TO ALLOW THE CITY TO KIND OF RAMP UP AND INCREASE THAT CONNECTIVITY FROM PORTABLE BY BRINGING A LINE ABOUT A QUARTER MILE DOWN SOUTH FROM THE EXISTING WELL SITE. AND THAT'LL COME IN ON THE ON THE SOUTH SIDE SEWERS CONNECTED TO THE SOUTH AS WELL. AND 65TH. I SUPPOSE, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC IS CONCERNED. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE MINUTE. THERE WILL BE TERMINALS PROVIDED AND ARE SHOWN AS PART OF THIS PROGRAM. SO IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE ALONG THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY ON 65TH SOUTH TOWNHOMES, SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FLOW THAT WILL BE CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION IS TAKING CARE OF. WE WORK WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ON THAT, AND WILL BE REVIEWING THE FINAL PLATINUM COMPOUNDS WHEN THE TIME COMES AS WELL. SO I GUESS I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THAT MIGHT BE GOOD QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY, WELL, I THINK YOU'RE GOOD FOR NOW. WE'LL WE'LL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. 
          THANK YOU. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ARBORIST FATE. AS A REMINDER TO THE COMMISSION, YOU ARE THE APPROVING BODY FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. A PRELIMINARY PLAT IS A PLANNING DOCUMENT. FINAL PLAT WILL COME AT A LATER DATE AS A BUSINESS ITEM TO A STANDING COMMISSION. FOR MORE OF THOSE TECHNICAL DETAILS. AND I HAVE PUT THE STATEMENT FOR YOU. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY THAT KIND OF WENT OVER THIS NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 2006 AS A PART OF A LARGER ANNEXATION FOR THE CENTERRA SUBDIVISION. 
          NORTH. THE 32 ACRES IN THE SOUTH. AS A REMINDER FROM FIVE MINUTES AGO, IS CURRENTLY BEING REQUESTED FOR ANNEXATION, AND WITH THE INITIAL ZONE OF R1. SO THERE WAS AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THIS PROPERTY CALLED AVALON IN 2015. THAT PLAT DID EXPIRE AND WAS NOT BUILT. SO THIS IS A BRAND NEW PRELIMINARY PLAT NOT RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS ONE FROM 2015. THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS GOING TO BE 50.362 ACRES, 128 LOTS, 123 BUILDABLE LOTS, AND A COUPLE UNIQUE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT WITH IT IS AGAIN, THERE IS A LOT FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY DISTRICT 91. IT IS NOT PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BUT WE DISCOVERED IT IS BEING PUT IN HERE TO THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND WE, THE DEVELOPER AND THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH STAFF IN A LOT OF WAYS ON THE ROAD NETWORK. AND I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES. THAT ONE OF THE CITYWIDE CITYWIDE HOUSING ACTIONS, WHEN THE ACTION ITEMS IS TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIVITY AND INTERACTION. NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS CONNECTED TO A FEW DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          HALLMARK ESTATES AND TO THE NORTH, AND TO THE POTENTIAL FUTURE SCHOOL SITE. SO WE WANTED TO AND THOSE CONNECTIONS WERE KIND OF ALREADY THERE. THE PROPERTY IS ALSO LENGTHWISE, PRETTY LONG. AND SO THE ROAD NETWORK YOU CAN SEE WAS WORKED ON BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND APPLICANT STAFF. SO WE DON'T HAVE JUST A STRAIGHTAWAY RIGHT OF ROAD. THIS KIND OF CREATES SOME SPEED DIVERSIONS AND MAKE IT SO THEY CAN KIND OF CONNECT THE LINKS. THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE DOES SAY THEY SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 400, A MAXIMUM OF 1300. NONE OF THEM GO OVER THE 1300. THERE'S A FEW AREAS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN 400. BUT BECAUSE THOSE ACCESSES AND THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE KIND OF ALREADY THERE AND WITH THE ROAD NETWORK STAFF WOULD SUPPORT THOSE SMALLER BLOCK LENGTHS, THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO 400, BUT THEY'RE NOT QUITE THERE. AND SO THE DEVELOPER AND APPLICANT HAVE WORKED PRETTY CLOSE TO KIND OF 
          [01:10:05]
IRON OUT THOSE UNIQUE PARTS OF THIS PROPERTY. SO THE DENSITY IN THE R-1 ZONE IS A MAXIMUM OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING 2.54 UNITS PER ACRE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS IDENTIFIES THE VARIOUS SUBURBAN. SOME OF THE TRANSECT CONTAINS VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD INCLUDE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, PRICE POINTS, AND SIZES. I THINK YOU KIND OF WENT OVER THE REST OF IT. I THINK THAT'S I DON'T THINK I HAVE MUCH ELSE. BUT AGAIN, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PARKER ESTATES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO, THERE'S A NUMBER OF FOUR WAY INTERSECTIONS WITHIN THE PROPERTY. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONTROLS THAT WILL BE IN PLACE, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE THAT LONGER STRAIGHT ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH THE CENTER? AND THE STOP SIGN? OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GONE TO THAT. THOSE THOSE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER ACCORDING TO THE INTERSECTION. OKAY. AND LET THE OUR NORMAL GUIDELINES WOULD BE. THANK YOU. JUST WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME SOME STRAIGHT ROADS HERE WITH INTERSECTIONS. I'M INTERESTED IN SPEED CONTROLS THERE. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER. THERE WAS A SPECIFIC CALL OUT FOR TURN LANES OFF OF SOUTH HOLMES. I NOTICED THERE IS A RIGHT HAND TURN IF YOU'RE MOVING. IF YOU'RE TRAVELING WESTBOUND ON 65TH SOUTH, BUT THERE IS NO LEFT HAND TURN AT LEAST DEPICTED ON THE IMAGE THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO. WILL THERE BE A LEFT HAND TURN LANE? IF YOU'RE TRAVELING EASTBOUND INTO THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH END? I BELIEVE SO, AND THAT COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE. SO WHILE YOU ARE REVIEWING THIS AS WELL, STAFF TECHNICAL REVIEWS ARE STILL ONGOING. SO I KNOW THAT COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THERE BEFORE THE FINAL VERSION IS PERFECT. THANK YOU CHAIR THROUGH YOU AND IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THIS LEVEL. THERE IS ACTUALLY A LEFT TURN LANE ON THIS DRAWING. THE ARROWS OF THOUGH AS YOU LOOK AT THIS DISTANCE ARE KIND OF BLOCKED BY THE PROPERTY LINES. 
          THE HEAVIER PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE AROUND THE THE PROPERTY, BUT IT DOES DEPICT LEFT TURN LANE ON HOLMES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 65TH ON 65TH. YEAH. ENTERING IF YOU'RE HEADING EASTBOUND. SO YOUR RIGHT HAND SIDE IF YOU'RE EASTBOUND AND TURNING LEFT INTO THE PROPERTY ON 65TH. ON 65TH. I THINK THAT WE HAVE SHOWS THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE ROAD BUT NOT THE SOUTHERN. YEP. OKAY. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BEEN NOTED, SO. OKAY. PERFECT. THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE ACTUALLY IS 65TH SOUTH. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TALK OF THE TOWN FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. BUT WE, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY DID JUST ADOPT A NEW ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN IN 65TH, WAS DESIGNATED A STRATEGIC ARTERIAL, WHICH MEANS THAT THE INTERSECTION DISTANCES, EVEN DRIVEWAYS OR NEW ENTRANCES AND EXITS HAVE TO BE A GOOD FAR DISTANCE APART. WAS THIS TAKEN? WAS THAT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION? WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STUBBING INTO 65TH HERE? BECAUSE, I MEAN, I HAVEN'T MEASURED IT OR ANYTHING, BUT IF WE'RE PLANNING ON 65TH TO BE LIKE EVENTUALLY TO HANDLE GOOD TRAFFIC, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A HINDRANCE OR NOT. IF THAT'S A SAFETY ISSUE OR NOT DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, NO PUN INTENDED. YES, THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. OKAY. AND THIS IT THE ACCESS WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT SPOT. AND SO IT DIDN'T KIND OF NEED MORE OF THAT. ACCESS MANAGEMENT. THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER AND STAFF MET AND KIND OF CAME UP WITH THAT ACCESS. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. 
          AND THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU HAVE AN ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL LOT. YEAH. WHICH I DID LIKE I DID LIKE THE YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOL ISN'T COMING STRAIGHT OFF OF 65TH, SO. OKAY, PERFECT ON THAT. NOT SAME BUT RELATED POINT AS FAR AS ACCESSES TO THE LARGER BUILDINGS IN THE AREA ARE GOING TO GO, I BELIEVE THE CHURCH FRONTS ONTO THE INTERIOR STREET AND NOT TO HOLMES. CORRECT? CORRECT. THEY WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO HOLMES COMES FROM. 
          YEAH, OKAY. I'M GOOD FOR NOW. ANYONE ELSE? NO. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU. OKAY. SO NOW I'M 
          [01:15:03]
GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. SAME THING AS BEFORE. AND LET ME GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. I GUESS NOT. OH, OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KAREN HARRIS, 558 COUNTRYSIDE LANE. AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE RECONSIDER ON THIS PLOTTING TO MAKE IT NOT SO DENSE. I MEAN, EVERYBODY BEHIND ME, THE MAJORITY OF US ARE COUNTY PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED ON ACREAGES. AND THIS IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR BACKYARD. 
          AND IT MAY NOT CHANGE YOUR LIFE, BUT IT CHANGES ALL OF OUR LIVES DRASTICALLY. AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER, I'D SAY, 50% OF WHAT WE SEE UP THERE AND ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT. 
          I'D ALSO ASK YOU TO FIND OUT MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE WATER. WHEN WE WENT TO THE PRELIMINARY MEETING THEY HAD BEFORE, THEY TALKED ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE THE DETAILS ABOUT WATER, BUT THE WATER, LIKE THAT LITTLE YELLOW CORNER PIECE DOWN THERE, THEY SAID IT'S A WATER PIT OR SOMETHING. BUT THE PRIOR DEVELOPMENT THAT HE DID DID IT IMPROPERLY. SO ALL THOSE PEOPLE CAN'T DRAIN TO WHERE THEY ARE. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO DRAIN THROUGH ALL OF THE NORTH DEVELOPMENT, THROUGH ALL OF THAT, AND THEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT TO THAT WATERWAY IS WHAT THEY SAID, WHICH TO ME SEEMS A LITTLE CRAZY THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE IN THAT FIRST DEVELOPMENT, THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAVE ALL THE WATER GO THROUGH IT. AND I JUST THINK BY HAVING THAT HIGHER DENSITY MAKES THAT A HUGE WATER PROBLEM. I ALSO FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A CORNER. I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF HOMES WITHOUT A PARK, AND I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST A PARK. AND I THINK THAT WE CAN HAVE NICE DEVELOPMENTS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SUCH HIGH DENSITY. I STRONGLY SUGGEST 50% DENSITY AND PARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I'M NEAL KLINGER. I LIVE 6076 SOUTHVIEW AVENUE. MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN THIS AREA FOR ABOUT 17 YEARS. 
          RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL VIEW LOOKING OUT ONTO FARMLAND, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT PROGRESS HAS TO GO FORWARD. BUT OUR CONCERNS, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK HISTORIC SAFETY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ON HALLMARK AVENUE AND VIEW AVENUE NEW TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THAT AREA. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE VERY LOW TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S A DEAD END, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THROUGH TRAFFIC, GOING THROUGH BOTH DIRECTIONS TO TRY TO GET INTO THAT AREA. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN BECAUSE OF THIS. I THINK MAYBE WE NEED TO RECONSIDER ANY TYPE OF CHANGE THAT CAN BE MADE, EITHER THE DENSITY OR THE SPEED ALLOWED THROUGH THIS AREA. THE ONE CONCERN WE HAVE, ANOTHER CONCERN IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE HIGH DENSITY, WITH THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT ARE COMING OUT, THEY'RE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT INCREASED NEEDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL, FOR EDUCATION, HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. AND RIGHT NOW, THE AREAS CONVERGED AT THE SCENES WITH SO MANY CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN BECAUSE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. ANOTHER AREA ALSO IS THAT WE ENJOY THE AREA THE WAY IT IS, BUT AS YOU BRING MORE AND MORE HOUSING AND MORE AND MORE DEVELOPMENT, IT HAS BEEN STATED HERE, WILDLIFE, YOUR ANIMALS. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE BIRDS, SQUIRRELS, ALL KINDS OF ANIMALS TO COME AND WE'RE GOING TO BE LOSING THAT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ANY MORE OF THE AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENT THAT WE PURCHASED THOSE INITIALLY. AND SO WE WOULD ASK IF WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE A LESS DENSE ATMOSPHERE NEXT TO US. THE OTHER CONCERN WE HAVE IS THAT ARE THE DEVELOPERS GOING TO BE PROVIDING FENCING, SO LOSE OUR PRIVACY WITH ALL THESE HOMES BEHIND US NOW. AND WE HATE TO SEE THAT BEING LOST. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL PROVIDE FENCING. SO WE WON'T HAVE TO LOOK DIRECTLY INTO NEIGHBORS AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THEIR HOMES IN THE FUTURE. SO I JUST HOPE THAT YOU CAN MAYBE COMMENT SIMILAR CONCERNS WITH THAT. I AGREE WITH THOSE WHO'VE SPOKEN ABOUT. WE KNOW THAT PROGRESS HAS TO OCCUR. WHAT WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER OUR NEEDS, OUR CONCERNS IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DAVID GRIFFIN 6145 SOUTH VIEW AVENUE, IDAHO FALLS. I WOULD ALSO I'M A 
          [01:20:06]
RESIDENT OF THE HALLMARK ESTATES. I'D ALSO LIKE TO URGE THE COMMISSION, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT AND THIS OPPORTUNITY. BUT TO CONSIDER A LOWER DENSITY OF HOUSING IN THIS AREA, MAYBE A GRADUATED DENSITY STARTING WITH LOWER DENSITY RIGHT UP AGAINST OUR SUBDIVISION AND THE HIGHER DENSITY ON OUT. I KNOW THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO IDAHO FALLS, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALSO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND STUFF THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HOW MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE WE CURRENTLY NEEDING AT THIS POINT IN TIME? WHAT'S THE OCCUPANCY LEVEL OF THOSE ALL THOSE CURRENT? DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GONE ON WITH THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND SO ON. AND AND WHERE DOES THIS NEED ARISE FROM? AND I, I BELIEVE THAT LOWER DENSITY, PARTICULARLY ALONG OUR BOUNDARY, WOULD BE SUITABLE HOMES FOR A LOT OF FOLKS. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE YOU'RE GOING TO MISS OUT ON ON BEING ABLE TO SELL THOSE HOMES. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. PETER EAST 65TH SOUTH I LIVE SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT ONE MILE. AND I WANT TO REMIND YOU, THIS SUBDIVISION WILL PUT ANOTHER MAJOR TURN. ALSO 65TH, INTO A SUBDIVISION. THERE'S ALREADY ONE A HALF MILE TO THE WEST ON COLUMBIA. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL LOOKS AT MAKING THAT STRETCH OF 65TH 35MPH. IT IS 50MPH CURRENTLY. I AM RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND I REGULARLY PULL FARM EQUIPMENT OUT ONTO THAT ROAD AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS FOR PEOPLE DOING 60MPH. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT TRAFFIC STUDY AND 35MPH, JUST LIKE THE STRETCH OF 60 FOOT ONE MILE TO THE WEST. THANK YOU. FOR 1455 EAST LINDSEY LANE. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE WATER ISSUE AGAIN. MY CONCERNS AND LIMITATIONS TO THE AQUIFER DIDN'T REFER TO SURFACE WATER. IT WAS. MY COMMENTS WERE TO POSITIVE WATER. AND EVEN THOUGH THE WATER IS GOING TO BE TAKEN IN AND ACCESSED FROM THE CITY, THEY'RE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR NEW. ANY NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND THE COMPENSATION FOR EVERY GALLON THAT IS TAKEN THAT IS BEING RECHARGED AND HAVING THIS AND THE DENSITIES CONSIDERATIONS, EVEN WITH THE SMALLER DENSITIES OR LACK OF THE IN THE FUTURE, THAT NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. THE RESOURCES AND AFFORDABLE WATER ARE DEFINED AND IT IS A LIMITED RESOURCE. AND OUR COMPETITION AND INCREASE DENSITIES ARE LIMITED. THAT AQUIFER ONLY HAS A LIMITED ACCESS. MY COMMENTS COME FROM MORE OF AN EDUCATED INDIVIDUAL TO I STAND BEFORE YOU. I'M A PETROLEUM ENGINEER AND I MANAGEMENT OF WATER PRESSURES AND RESERVOIRS FOR THE LAST 4045 YEARS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. AND WE WORKED IN I'VE BEEN IN MEDICATION FOR THOSE RESOURCES. YOUR RESOURCES AND WHAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS DECIDED OVER THE LAST YEARS ARE THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE AND FOR THAT RECHARGE. AND IN FACT, IF THOSE MEDICATIONS FROM. THAT HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS COME SHORT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL MEDICATIONS OR ANY ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THAT WATER. AND THE DENSITIES HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON FUTURE DENSITIES FOR THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING, THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING. BUT I ALSO KNOW THERE ARE RESOURCES IN THE ALSO MY EXPERIENCES IN WORKING IN THE OIL FIELD. GIVE ME SOME INSIGHT ON IMPACTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND WHAT I DESCRIBED TO YOU IN THE LIST I GAVE YOU ARE 
          [01:25:03]
SERIOUS. I CAN TELL YOU MY EXPERIENCES AND DEALING WITH THAT THAT I WORK AND DEALT WITH THE IMPACTS OF HAVING EAGLES. HAWKS AND MITIGATIONS THAT WERE NECESSARY FOR THOSE SPECIES AND DENSITIES, AND THE REQUEST FOR THOSE DENSITIES ARE FOR APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SCOTT COOK, 6991 SOUTH LINCOLN AVENUE, ABOUT A QUARTER OF A HALF MILE AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION. MY CONCERN IS ALSO THE WATER. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME NUMBERS TO THINK ABOUT, MOST OF THE WELLS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE ARE 100 TO 200FT DEEP. CORRECT? MY WRONG. BUT I THINK THAT, WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS WATER FROM THE CITY DRILLED IS ABOUT 4 TO 500FT DEEP. SO WHO'S GOING TO BE THE LAST ONE TO GET WATER? IN? THE SOFT CORE GETS DRAWN DOWN. I, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT ALL OF OUR WELLS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE AND WHAT, WHAT THAT'S GOING TO THE CITY IS MUCH, MUCH BIGGER THAN, THAN OURS HAS A HUGE COMPONENT. AND THE MORE PEOPLE WILL START USING THAT UP AND DOWN. THE CITY'S DOWN THROUGHOUT THE DAY. AND. MD JIM JOHNSON, WITH A 398 HALLMARK DRIVE, AND I'M REALLY CONFUSED WITH WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT THE WATER THEY'RE GOING TO USE FOR THE LAND. WE HAVE A I THINK IT'S A FOUR INCH LINE, EIGHT INCH LINE THAT PULLS IT OUT OF THE CANAL. IT COMES ACROSS ON THE 40 LINE. AND IT'S OURS, SO THEY CAN'T USE IT. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. EVERY TIME SOMEONE DIGS FROM THE CITY LINES THERE ANYTHING TO REDO OUR LINE BECAUSE THEY DIG INTO IT. AND SO I'M WONDERING WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO IF THEY'RE ONLY GETTING EIGHT, A LITTLE MORE THAN EIGHT GALLONS A MINUTE, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SERVE THAT MANY PEOPLE TO WATER THEIR LAWNS? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A REAL BIND, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO USE THEIR HOME WATER TO WATER THEIR OWN. AND THAT WILL BE MORE THAN A 500 GALLON DRAW FOR HOME. SO I THINK DENSITY IS IS THE BIG ISSUE. I KNOW THEY THEY WANT TO GO A LITTLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE, THE MONEY IS COMING IN. PEOPLE COMING UP NOW AND HOMES SO EXPENSIVE THEY WANT TO BUY A A LESS OF HOME THAT THEY CAN AFFORD, BUT THAT ISN'T OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS CITIZENS IN THE CITY. AND AS I. AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THIS WATER SITUATION AND BRING IT UP TO THE COUNCIL AND GET IT WORKED OUT. SO WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE WORKABLE. CAN THEY TELL ME WHERE THEIR WATER IS GOING TO COME? THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU CAN HAVE HEAD THEM UP WITH. YEAH, JUST NOT IN A PUBLIC. YEAH. YEAH OKAY. YEP. NATE CLARK I'M MOROCCO HOLMES 3539 BRIER CREEK LANE 3406. JUST A FEW COMMENTS AND I'LL ANSWER JIM'S QUESTIONS AS WELL. SO FOR THE STATE LAW WE ARE NO LONGER. AND IT'S BEEN LIKE THIS FOR A WHILE BUT IT'S KIND OF NOW ACTUALLY BEING ENFORCED. BUT ANY ANY PROPERTY OVER HALF AN ACRE. EXCUSE ME. 
          ANY PROPERTY OVER HALF AN ACRE HAS TO BE WATERED BY AND THE COUNTY HAS TO BE WATERED BY 
          [01:30:05]
SURFACE WATER. ANYTHING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS THAT'S CONNECTED TO DRINKABLE WATER, THE LANDSCAPED AREA OF THE HOME AND THE LANDSCAPE AREA OF ANY GREEN SPACE CAN NO LONGER BE BE WATERED BY GROUNDWATER OR THE AQUIFER. SO NOW THROUGHOUT AMMON, IDAHO FALLS, AND ALL OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS GREEN SPACE AND HAS ACCESS TO SURFACE WATER AND SURFACE WATER IS CANAL OR DITCH WATER. YOU HAVE TO SET UP A SEPARATE PUMPING SYSTEM WHERE ALL THE PIPING IS UNDERGROUND. PIPING GOES TO EVERY SINGLE HOME, AND WE HAVE A PUMP THAT PUMPS CANAL WATER FROM THE CANAL, ALL UNDERGROUND TO EACH INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCE WE STUB UP IN THEIR PROPERTY. THEY HAVE AN IRRIGATION BOX WITH A PIPE THAT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CANAL. THEY CONNECT THEIR PIPE TO THAT PIPE AND THEN THEY RUN THEIR SPRINKLER LINES FROM THAT PREVIOUSLY STUB. PIPE UP FROM YOUR WELL AND YOU'D CONNECT THAT PIPE. IT'S THE EXACT SAME SITUATION. WE'RE JUST STEPPING A PIPE UP THAT CONNECTS TO THE CITY WATER. SO EXCUSE ME. IT CONNECTS TO THE CANAL WATER AND EVERYTHING IN HERE, INCLUDING THE NEW CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. ALL OF THEIR GRASSY AREA WILL BE WATERED BY SPECIFIC SURFACE WATER RIGHTS THAT THEY HAVE WHEN THEY ACQUIRE THE GROUND THAT WILL BE PUMPED OUT OF A CANAL OR OUT OF A DITCH, THAT THE WATER IS NON-CONSUMABLE. IT'S ONLY WATER COMING FROM THE CANAL. SO WE'RE NOT USING AN EXISTING SYSTEM. WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH OUR OWN NEW SYSTEM OF BRAND NEW PUMP SYSTEM THAT CAN PUMP ON DEMAND TO OVER 100 LOTS. WE HAVE A WATERING SYSTEM WHERE WE'LL WATER AT SPECIFIC DAYS AND SPECIFIC TIMES FOR VARIOUS ADDRESSES, SO WE CAN PULL THE WATER WE NEED AT THAT TIME. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT'S BEING ENFORCED AT THE STATE LEVEL THROUGH YOUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITY BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS WITH THE WATER TABLE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S GONE ON OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS OF THE AQUIFER, THE GROUNDWATER, AS AS SOMEBODY WHO DOES THE DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY EVERY SINGLE RULE AND EVERY EVERYTHING, EVERY SINGLE LEGALITY THAT THE MUNICIPALITY PROVIDES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE DONE TO A T, AND WE'VE HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF LITTLE FALLS TO GATHER ANYBODY WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY OF OUR GROUND THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DEVELOP AND HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT OUR GOAL IS. 
          FROM THAT MEETING, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS. ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS WAS THE DENSITY OF HOW DENSE IT WAS, AND THE DENSITY WE'VE PROVIDED IS ALIGNED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE EXISTING ZONING, AND ALSO THE FUTURE PROPOSED ZONING THAT'S BEEN ACCEPTED. AFTER LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE HALLMARK ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND THEIR CONCERNS WITH HIGH DENSITY, WHAT WE DID ON SOME OF THE HOMES THAT WE'RE BORDERING IS WE TOOK TWO OF OUR LOTS, AND WE REMOVED THOSE LOTS FROM THE BORDERING HALLMARK SUBDIVISION AND WE INCREASED. SO WHAT WE TOOK AWAY, WE INCREASED THE REST OF THE LOTS IN SIZE. SO WE MADE A LOT. WE DECREASED TWO LOTS AND WE INCREASED THE SIZE OF THE OF THE REMAINING LOTS AROUND ONE TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE EXISTING HOMES, WHICH WAS THE MAJOR AREA WHERE THE HOMES WERE IMPACTED. AND WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE HEARD THEM AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T HAVE AS MANY NEIGHBORS AS MANY ISSUES. MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE FENCES ALREADY. THERE'S ONLY A FEW RESIDENTS THAT DON'T HAVE FENCES. FENCES ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL PUT IN AS A DEVELOPER. THE HOMEOWNER. WHEN WE SELL THE HOME, MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS WILL PUT THEIR OWN FENCE IN. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF TWO LOTS. WE'VE INCREASED THE DENSITY AROUND HALLMARK TO BE LARGER LOTS, WHICH IS LARGE, WHICH IS MORE JUST LOWER DENSITY THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING. WE WANT TO WORK. WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE WANT TO BE THE LOCAL DEVELOPER. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN'T IDEAL, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED US TO GO ELSEWHERE WHERE WE CAN DEVELOP, BUT WE CAN ONLY DEVELOP WHERE THERE'S WHERE THERE CITY UTILITIES AND MUNICIPALITY SERVICES. AND THIS IS WHERE IT IS THE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY WHERE THE UTILITIES ARE. AS A PROPERTY OWNER, WE'VE EXERCISED OUR RIGHTS AND WE'VE STAYED WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THE CITY STAFF IS LOOKING FOR, FOR WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE LOOKING FOR. AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO REALLY TRY TO DO THE BEST FOR A HAPPY MEDIUM WHERE WE'RE HAPPY. AS THE DEVELOPER, WE'RE GIVING THE RESIDENTS OF HALLMARK ACCOMMODATING WHAT THE CITY REQUESTED. SO THANK YOU. THANK 
          [01:35:03]
YOU. YES. DAVE GRIFULVIN, 635 SOUTH VIEW AVENUE AND FALLS HALLMARK ESTATES. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I ALSO HAVE IN REGARDS TO THE WATER, AND IT'S KIND OF BEEN TALKED ABOUT THE SURFACE WATER OR THE WATER COMING OUT OF THE IRRIGATION DITCHES THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE WATER, RIGHT. THAT COMES WITH THE GROUND. BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW, OR I THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD LOOK INTO IS WHERE DOES THAT WATER. RIGHT. WHITE WATER, RIGHT LEG WITH OTHER WATER RIGHTS FURTHER DOWN THE VALLEY AND INCLUDING THE MAGIC VALLEY AND SO FORTH. WHEN WATER STARTS TO RUN SHORT, THEY'RE GOING TO CUT OFF THOSE WATER RIGHTS. THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT YOU DOWN. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO IRRIGATE THOSE LAWNS AROUND 132 HOUSES OR MORE. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THEN, THEN IS THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. STEP UP AND SAY, OKAY, WELL, NOW YOU CAN TAKE CULINARY WATER AND WATER YOUR QUARTER ACRE LOT. GOOD. SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE COUNCIL CONSIDER WE'RE WE'RE APPROACHING A PRETTY DRAMATIC SEASON THIS YEAR WITH THE LACK OF SNOWFALL. AND WE COULD SEE SOME OF THESE WATER RIGHTS CURTAILED UNTIL ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATIONS CHANGE. SO JUST SOMETHING THAT I THINK YOU FOLKS OUGHT TO CONSIDER AND GET AHEAD OF THE GAME. THANK YOU. ALVIN GIL, 282 65TH SOUTH. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE WATER? JUST A MOMENT. I CAN'T BE QUIET. I SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT. WATER IS A CHALLENGE. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS TONIGHT ON WATER WHERE IT'S COMING FROM. I DON'T WANT TO VISIT TO A WATERING. I WILL JUST ECHO WHAT NATE SAID ABOUT. 
          THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DISTRICT TO SERVICE THIS RESIDENTIAL THROUGH THE IRRIGATION RIGHTS OF THE EXISTING LAND AND THE CANALS. THEY CAME TO US EARLY ON. WE STILL HAVEN'T RESOLVED HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THE WATER EXACT PHYSICALLY TO THERE. IT DOES HAVE A RIGHT FROM THE NORTH, BUT THAT COMES THROUGH THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, THAT EASEMENT EXISTS BY BY USE. SO BUT THE CITY HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT LINE FROM THE NORTH. WE'RE WORKING WITH NATE. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT ANOTHER ACCESS FOR THAT WATER, TO BRING IT DOWN 65TH AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. IT'S A HUGE CHALLENGE, A LOT. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE GROUNDWATER. THE GROUNDWATER IS DIMINISHING. OUR FARM THAT MY SON LIVES AT JUST TO THE SOUTH. WE HAVE TO REDRILL OUR MUNICIPAL OR OUR DOMESTIC. WELL, TWO YEARS AGO IT WENT DRY. WE WERE 140FT, COST US $28,000 TO REDRILL. IT'S IT'S A CHALLENGE WE HAVE TO DO IS WE HAVE TO GET RECHARGE BACK TO THE WATER. AND WE'RE WORKING TO TRY TO DO THAT. WE HAVE A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES TO DO THAT. AS FAR AS THE WATER RIGHTS FOR THE GROUND, IT IDAHO HAS A VERY HIGH, VERY SENIOR WATER, RIGHT. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WON'T BE CURTAILED, ESPECIALLY THIS YEAR. WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT DIMINISHED SUPPLIES AND THERE COULD BE POSSIBLE CURTAILMENT WITHIN OUR SYSTEM. SO THE RESIDENTIAL WILL BE PREPARED. LIKE WITH THE AG LAND, THEY HAVE THE EXISTING RIGHTS AND IT WILL BE CURTAILED AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE. SO THERE MAY BE SOME SOME CONTROLS THERE. JUST AS AN OUTSIDER, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS FOR ONE MOMENT YOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT. YOU'RE SHOWING THREE STUBS TO THE WEST INTO MY PROPERTY. AND I'VE HEARD SOME CONCERNS FROM THESE FOLKS. I THINK IT'S HALLMARK ROAD THAT YOU'VE GOT A STRAIGHT SHOT THROUGH THAT ROAD STRAIGHT INTO MY PROPERTY. IT MIGHT BE MY SUGGESTION AS A PLANNER THAT YOU MOVE THAT STUB FURTHER NORTH SO THAT THOSE FOLKS DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC COMING STRAIGHT THROUGH. IF AND WHEN MY PROPERTY DEVELOPS. WE HAVE NO INTENT TO DO THAT SOME RIGHT NOW. BUT SOME DAY, 30, 40 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN I'M GONE, IT MAY DEVELOP. SO MAYBE TAKE THAT ROAD STUB AND MOVE IT FURTHER NORTH. IF THAT INTERSECTION WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION TO YOU. SO YOU DON'T HAVE A STRAIGHT SHOT FOR THAT TRAFFIC MOVING THROUGH. ALSO, ON A PRELIMINARY PLAN, PREVIOUSLY I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE STUB TO THE WEST. THERE WAS ONLY TWO COMING IN AND I DON'T SEE THE NECESSITY FOR THREE. I THINK YOU COULD MOVE THAT ONE TO THE NORTH, TO THAT INTERSECTION AND GET RID OF THE WIND. AND THEN JUST SOME SUGGESTIONS TO SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN THOSE LONG STRETCHES, AND TO THE EXISTING 
          [01:40:06]
HOMES THAT ARE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. OH. LET THAT LET IN 60 TO ITSELF. YOU ARE REALLY GOOD. THANKS AGAIN FOR TAKING OUR TIME. WE DID APPRECIATE ROCKWELL MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE IN WALMART AND THEY DID REDUCE THEIR LOTS TO SOME OF THE SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE WERE THE FIRST ONES TO BUY IN THAT SUBDIVISION 20 YEARS AGO, AND WE WERE TOLD THAT EVERYTHING AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE LIKE INSIDE, AND THEY WOULD GRADUATE SMALLER TO THE CENTER. I KNOW THAT THE LANDOWNER HAS CHANGED SINCE WE BOUGHT THAT LOT, BUT IT'S BEEN REALLY DISAPPOINTING TO GO, YOU KNOW, LIKE LIFE SIZE TO ME IS NOT AN ACRE AT 1.1 ACRES TO A QUARTER ACRE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY HAVING BIGGER ACREAGES OR BIGGER LOTS OF GROUND OR SUBDIVISION DEFINITELY BE WARRANTED AND SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL THEIR LOTS AND ALSO WOULD LIKE TO GREEN SPACE, POSSIBLY. BUT THAT STRIP OF GRASS THAT THEY'VE MOVED THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BEHIND ORIGINALLY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, BEHIND SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND NOT DOWN ON THE CORNER ON 65TH. AND THEY SAID BECAUSE OF ELEVATION AND STUFF, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUMP IT TO THE ORIGINAL LOCATION, WHICH WOULD ALSO ACT AS A PARK, WHICH ALSO, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY KEEP IT UP LIKE A PARK. THAT'S SOMETHING I WONDER WE GOT TO SWITCH THAT BACK TO, BECAUSE THAT COULD KIND OF BREAK UP SOME OF THE TRAFFIC. IF YOU PUT THAT PARK BACK, THAT WATER RETENTION PARK BACK WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ORIGINALLY. 
          I'LL DO AVENUES ALSO THAT I DON'T KNOW. THE TRAFFIC BEING REALLY IS GOING TO BE A REAL PAIN. I DON'T LIVE ON PALMER. I LIVE ON VIEW. SO MY STREET WON'T BE AS AFFECTED BY HAVING THE SCHOOL OF, BUT ONLY TO HAVE. I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING IN OFF, YOU KNOW, FOR BUSSES TO BE COMING IN TO ONLY HAVE A COUPLE ACCESS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT, BUT AND THEN JUST ONE MORE LITTLE THING FOR THE ALL THE ANIMALS. WE HAVE FOXES, RACCOONS, WE HAVE ELK, ALL THIS STUFF I ONLY MOVED, WE ONLY BUILT THE HOUSE A MILE FROM WHERE WE USED TO BE, AND WE CAME OUT THERE TO GET MORE OF THAT AND TO BE MORE DENSE. YOU MAKE THESE THINGS THAT A LOT OF THE ANIMALS DEFINITELY WON'T BE GOING AWAY. SO IF YOU COULD CUT DOWN THE DENSITY, I'M ALL FOR THAT TOO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WE HAVE NO MORE TAKERS, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL FIRST, BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WANT TO. YEAH. NEIL HUMPHREYS, ENGINEERING AT 1331 AVENUE. 
          INMATES COMMENTS. CAN I ALSO HAVE YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO TO MIKE. YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU, BUT I JUST KNOW THE BACK OF BACK THAT WAY IT'S HARDER. IS THAT BETTER? OKAY. 
          TAKING NOTES AGAIN JUST FOR SOME OF THE COMMENTS, SOME OF WHICH I THINK WERE ADDRESSED BY MR. KELSCH AND OTHERS BY NATE, WE BOTH SPOKE ON CERTAIN TOPICS. I SUPPOSE MOST OF MY COMMENTS ARE REBUTTAL, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL ME AROUND. SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS. SO I'M GOING TO KIND OF TAILOR MY RESPONSES TO THOSE ITEMS. I'LL START WITH ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND AGAIN TOWARDS THE END, THE STORM DRAINAGE. WE DO HAVE A LOT SHOWN AND PROPOSED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE FIRST COMMENT THAT WAS MADE WAS WITH REGARDS TO THIS SUBDIVISION. THAT MISTAKE MADE. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW DID HAPPEN WAS DEVELOPMENT PAUSED. THEIR ORIGINAL PLANS WERE TO CONTINUE AND EXTEND THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH. WHERE UPON WOULD BE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE, AND WE ARE PICKING UP THE STORMWATER FROM THE EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS TO THE NORTH AND CONVEYING IT TO THE SUBDIVISION. THERE UPON 
          [01:45:01]
LOCATION WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM OURS, BUT IT WAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT AS FAR AS THE LOCATION THAT WAS CHOSEN, DUE TO THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE IDEAL TO HAVE AS MANY HOMES RIGHT OFF WHAT WILL BE A FUTURE ARTERIAL. 
          AND THE PROPERTY NATURALLY DRAINS FROM THE NORTHEAST TO THE SOUTHWEST. SO PUTTING A STORM POND IN THE LOWEST POSSIBLE AREA MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FROM AN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN STANDPOINT. SO A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THAT. I SUPPOSE. DENSITY. I THINK NATE ADDRESSED THAT AND THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT WITHIN THE ANNEXATION. TRAFFIC AND CONNECTIVITY I GUESS IS A IS AN ITEM I CAN TALK ON. AGAIN, WE WORKED VERY CLOSELY ON THIS, AND CAITLIN MENTIONED THAT IN HER COMMENTS UP FRONT. I FEEL LIKE ROCKWELL HAS GONE ON OVER AND ABOVE, YOU KNOW, REALLY TRYING TO LAND THIS AIRPLANE ON THE FIRST TRY HERE WITH THIS PRELIMINARY. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY LOT. I'VE MADE SEVERAL CALLS WITH STAFF THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAYOUT HERE. 
          WE DID THE, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING RESIDENTS IN HALLMARK ESTATES. BUT THE ROADS IN THEIR SUBDIVISION WERE STUBBED FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS TRYING TO PROVIDE AS MUCH CONNECTIVITY FOR THE FUTURE, PER THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, SO THAT AS THE CITY CONTINUES TO GROW AND BUILD OUT, YOU KNOW, PAINT OURSELVES INTO A CORNER FROM A DESIGN, LAYOUT AND FUTURE BUILD STANDPOINT. THANKS. MR. KOLSTAD DID MENTION ABOUT STUBS TO HIS PROPERTY. THERE ARE JUST TWO ON YOUR PROPERTY THERE ON THE SOUTH. THAT THAT NORTHWEST THAT STUBS TO THE WEST ACTUALLY GOES INTO AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND ONTO THE AQUA. AND SO. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE. LET'S SEE AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DENSITY. 
          AND MAYBE IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN THESE EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND SOME OF THE HOMES HERE. THE R1 ZONE DOES NOT REQUIRE A BUFFER. I FEEL LIKE ROCKWELL TRIED TO DO THEIR BEST TO AGAIN INCREASE THE LOT SIZE THERE AND PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT THE BUFFER THAT THEY WANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, A REASONABLE BUFFER GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHILE ALSO TRYING TO UTILIZE THE LAND FOR THE BEST AND HIGHEST USE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. I'M SURE WE'LL ASK YOU TO COME BACK UP, BUT I APPRECIATE IT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND AND I WILL. NOW IT'S OUR TURN. SO. RIGHT OFF THE BAT, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? ANY COMMENTS FIRST OR ALL KIND OF WAIT, YOU KNOW, FLIGHT PATTERN, WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS ON. OKAY, I'LL GO FIRST. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. AND MAYBE I SHOULD KNOW THIS MORE IN THE R1 ZONE. WHAT IS THE IS IS GREEN SPACE A REQUIREMENT OR PARKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT KNOWING THAT. NO. AND WE'RE THESE ARE ALL INDIVIDUAL LOTS. IT WOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT FOR A REQUIRED. THERE'S NO GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OKAY. OKAY. WHILE YOU'RE UP. WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT A PARK POTENTIALLY I KNOW CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON DEVELOPING A PARK IN THIS AREA. CAN ANYONE FROM YOUR TEAM SPEAK TO THAT? PERHAPS. NO. OKAY. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE I WAS GOING TO ASK. AND WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE THE SPEED LIMIT ON 65TH, THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT. THE RESIDENTS WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BRING UP TO CITY COUNCIL OR PUBLIC WORKS. WHEN IT COMES TO PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE DON'T WE CAN'T REALLY DICTATE SPEED LIMITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. TIM, I JUST ADD THAT CURRENTLY THE ROAD HAS BEEN A COUNTY ROAD. SO THE COUNTY WOULD BE SETTING THE SPEED OBVIOUSLY WITH THE ANNEXATION AND THAT COMING INTO THE CITY, THE CITY ENGINEER MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT THOUGHT THERE, BUT IT WOULD BE DETERMINED BY PUBLIC WORKS AND THE CITY ENGINEER. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. THANK YOU. 
          [01:50:11]
HELP ME OUT HERE. COME ON. I'LL ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, REGARDING ROAD CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STUBS. I VIEW THAT AS A POSITIVE THING TO PROMOTE CONNECTIVITY THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS. WE SEE THINGS AROUND HERE ON THE ON THE BROADER MAP, NOT NECESSARILY ON THIS SLIDE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS WITH CUL DE SACS, WITH ROADS THAT DO NOT CONNECT THROUGH TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. AND THAT'S HOW WE GET SITUATIONS WHERE PERHAPS YOU LIVE, YOU KNOW, YOUR PROPERTY ABUTS TO SOMEONE ELSE'S, YOU BACK UP TO SOMEONE, BUT IT TAKES A MILE TO GET THERE ON A CAR OR BIKE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I VIEW CONNECTIVITY ESPECIALLY TO EXISTING STUBS, AS A GOOD THING. 
          THAT'S WHY I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT SPEED CONTROLS AND SOME OF THESE ROADS, BECAUSE THE PLAT DOES SHOW SOME LONGER STRAIGHT ROADS. THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY ADDRESSES IS THOSE TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON THESE INTERIOR, STRAIGHTER ROADS, I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOLKS ON VIEW ARE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THE LAYOUT HERE WOULD PROMOTE THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM NEW HOUSES ON VIEW AVENUE. I THINK ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO COME INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO WANT TO EXIT TO A MAJOR ROAD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND I THINK THE TRAFFIC, THE ROAD NETWORK THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE ALLOWS FOR THAT, WHERE FOLKS CAN COME DOWN IN SOME OF THESE INTERIOR STREETS TO GET OUT TO 65TH SOUTH. I DO THINK FOLKS ON HALLMARK ARE LIKELY TO SEE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT IS PROBABLY THE CASE FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT WANT TO HEAD EAST FROM THERE. I THINK THAT'S TO BE EXPECTED, THOUGH, AS THAT ROAD IS GOING TO DEVELOP AT SOME POINT. AND I THINK HAVING THE CONNECTIVITY IS BETTER THAN NOT HAVING IT. TO ADD ON TO THAT, ABOUT THE ON HALLMARK, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE IS I'M NO TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE LIVING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE TRAVELING OUT TO HOMES AND GOING NORTH BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO COMMUTE INTO THE CITY. THERE'S ALREADY A GOOD ACCESS PROVIDED, UNLESS THEY WERE GOING TO THE INTERSTATE DOWN 65TH. WELL, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS CONNECTION DOWN TO 65TH. SO THE ONLY REASON I COULD SEE ANYONE USING HALLMARK IS IF THEY'RE THE 6 TO 10 HOMES THAT ARE RIGHT AT THE END OF THAT OF HALLMARK RIGHT THERE. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU'RE CLOSER TO 65TH, YOU'RE PROBABLY JUST GOING TO TAKE THE FASTER COUNTY ROADS AND THEN GO BACK INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I MEAN, IT'S SIX IS REALLY AND SO I'VE SEEN SOME SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENTS WHERE CONNECTIVITY IS AWFUL AND IT ALL FUNNELS OUT TO ONE ROAD OUT ONTO THE COUNTY. BUT THIS ONE HAS SOME PRETTY GOOD SEVERAL GOOD OPTIONS. AND SO. PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN. I THINK JUST TO ADD TO THAT, IT'S REALLY A FUNCTION OF SPEED LIMIT. I THINK YOUR TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT, AND I THINK THAT WILL CONTROL THE THAT. I THINK THE TENDENCY IS GOING TO BE TO GET OUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD INTO THE ARTERIAL STREETS. AND SO I THINK IT'S A FUNCTION OF YOUR SPEED LIMITS. YEAH. OKAY. 
          SWEET. I. I'M, I'M AT THIS POINT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZES ALONG THE NEIGHBORS HOUSES. I DON'T KNOW THE MECHANISM OF DOING THAT JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ZONE DOESN'T LIKE THEIR MAX 12,000FT■!S, AND. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE THAT WOULD MAKE PERSONALLY. SO. YEAH, YEAH, WE AS A COMMISSION RECOMMENDED, YOU KNOW, EARLIER THIS EVENING THAT THIS WHOLE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED R-1. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO COME BACK NOW AND SAY YOUR PLAN IS NOT NOT APPROPRIATE BASED ON THAT. RIGHT? I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, WE 
          [01:55:07]
THEY COULD GO ALL THE WAY, YOU KNOW, WE COULD TRY TO PUSH SOME OF THOSE LAWS UP TO 12,000 BECAUSE THAT'S STILL WITHIN THE ZONE. BUT NOW YOU'RE GETTING GRANULAR WHERE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. I OH OKAY. WELL YEAH. SO SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND POTENTIALLY OUR AUDIENCE TO THE R-1 ZONE HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7000FT■S AND A MAXIMUM F 13,500. YES. WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHY. I'M REMEMBERING AN OLD DOCUMENT THAT SAID 12,000. IT IS 13.5. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. SO AND THERE ARE SEVERAL LOTS ACTUALLY ALONG THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE OVER 13.5, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE ON CORNERS. AND SO IT ALLOWS THEM TO BE ALL THE WAY UP TO 14,000, 15,000FT■!S. AND SO THE DEVELOPR I CAN SEE HAS DEFINITELY TRIED TO UTILIZE, YOU KNOW, THAT LOOPHOLE THERE TO CREATE, ESPECIALLY ON THE CORNERS, SOME BIGGER LOTS. SO THE ONES ON THE INTERIOR LIKE THE WHERE THEY'RE JUST STRAIGHT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE THEY CAN GO, BUT YEAH, SO YEAH OKAY. WELL I THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH I CAN CHANGE AT THIS POINT. AND EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE COOL WITH THIS. SO DOES ANYONE WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE COMMISSION NOT THE AUDIENCE? THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. YEAH. I'LL I'LL JUMP INTO THIS ONE. ASSUMING MY VOICE WILL LISTEN. WILL LAST AS LONG AS ALWAYS. GROWTH IS A COMPROMISE. UNFORTUNATELY, GROWTH IS NEVER A WIN. A TOTAL WIN FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES. I THINK WHAT I HAVE SEEN LISTENING TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS HERE IS, IS I'VE SEEN THAT DEVELOPERS MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. THESE HAVE BEEN VERY VALID ISSUES. THE WATER SITUATION IS A CONCERN. IT UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT THE TYPE OF ISSUE THAT WE LOOK AT IN TERMS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE THIS YEAR, AS WE ALL KNOW, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE A MEMBER ON THE WATER RESOURCES BOARD THIS YEAR. BUT I THINK WE GOT SOME VERY CAPABLE PEOPLE THERE. AND I THINK THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME TREMENDOUS EFFORT TO TRY TO ADDRESS AND RESOLVE THESE DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT ISSUES. BUT I THINK OVERALL, I THINK THEY'VE DONE A REASONABLY GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO BALANCE ALL THE COMPETING INTERESTS. 
          AND AND SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, THEY HAVE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO IT IS HARD FOR ME TO PUSH BACK ON ANYTHING REALLY, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE REQUIREMENTS WE CANNOT CHANGE HERE. THAT IS AT A CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A POLICY THING. AND SO I'VE SEEN SOME THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE TONIGHT THAT I MIGHT GO LEND AN EAR TO OUR CITY COUNCIL MYSELF. SO BUT AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, IT'S MET ALL THE, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE WATER, I KNOW THAT IT TAKES A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT. AND. DON'T HESITATE TO REACH OUT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THOSE THINGS AND HOW THE CITY WATER SYSTEM WORKS AND WHAT'S GOING TO GO INTO IT, AND ALL THE IRRIGATION RIGHTS AND ALL THAT STUFF. SO SO I'LL HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          YEAH, I GUESS THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE FOR FOR STAFF, MAYBE FOR THE DEVELOPER. I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE CURTAILMENT OF SURFACE WATER RIGHTS. AND WHAT HAPPENS? PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RUN A HOSE OUT FROM THEIR CULINARY WATER. IS THE CITY PREPARED TO ENFORCE THAT? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THAT SITUATION? IS IS IS THERE ANYONE ON STAFF THAT MIGHT HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT LIKE BECAUSE YEAH, YOU HAVE THE YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES GET CURTAILED, THEN ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THESE LAWNS, THEY HAVE TO STOP WATERING JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER FARMERS. WHAT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ON THE CITY'S END? JACOB, YOU TACKLE THAT ONE OR DO YOU WANT ME TO? I'M. 
          FORTUNATELY I ISSUE WITH THE THE WATER RIGHTS. I DON'T THINK THAT REALLY NECESSARILY COMES INTO PLAY WITH TODAY'S DECISION, UNFORTUNATELY. LIKE THE DECISION HAS TO BE MADE ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS FOLLOWS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHETHER OR NOT THIS FOLLOWS THE ZONING 
          [02:00:01]
CODE, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHTS TO PURSUE THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT FOLLOWS THE LAW. THE UNFORTUNATE TRUTH IS THAT WATER RIGHTS IS IS A VERY BIG CONCERN, AND IT'S AN UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERN. AND COMMISSIONER STORE, IF YOU DO HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THAT, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THE CITY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO ISSUE CURTAILING ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO WATERING THEIR LAWNS. 
          THAT'S IN YOUR CITY CODE AND IN YOUR ORDINANCES. THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY. SO IF IT GETS DOWN TO THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE, FRANKLY, AND I WOULD EXPECT CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT IN THIS DRY YEAR THAT WE'RE ALL FACING, YES, I, I MY COMMENTS ON WATER ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO THE PLAT BECAUSE AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS STATED, THEY'RE NOT GERMANE TO APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OR NOT. HOWEVER, AS A TWO ACRE PROPERTY OWNER NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WATER IS A BIG CONCERN FOR ME ALL THE TIME. AND AND AS I LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT, AS I LOOK AT WATER USAGE, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THE HALLMARK SUBDIVISION HERE AND THE IMPACT OF WATER USAGE IS FAR GREATER ON THOSE ONE ACRE LOTS THAN ANYTHING THAT WILL BE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I FEEL IT JUST THE SAME AS THEY DO. IF WATER BECOMES MORE SCARCE THIS YEAR, I LOOK AT DRY YARDS, BUT IT'S A IT'S A SACRIFICE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A DESERT AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO FEEL IT. NOT JUST THIS DEVELOPMENT OR HALLMARK DEVELOPMENT. AND I WOULD JUST ADD ON THE CURTAILMENT ISSUE, AS ADDRESSED BY COMMISSIONER STORE, IF THERE IS A CURTAILMENT ORDER IN PLACE, IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE TYPICALLY ZONED TO THIS NEWER SUBDIVISION, IT'S GOING TO BE GIVEN TO PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE CITY. AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIVING IN THE COUNTY. IT'S THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THAT GUY ON A COUNTY LEVEL. ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN ISSUE ORDERS ON CURTAILING INDIVIDUALS FROM EXTREMELY NAIVE. I CAN COMMENT ABOUT. OKAY, WELL THANK YOU. I THINK WE'VE WORN OUT. THIS ITEM'S WELCOME. SO I IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MOVE. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ARBOR ESTATES SECOND. OKAY. WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, SCALES. I SPOT I. HI. HI HI HI. HI. OKAY, SO NOW WE HAVE THE REGIONS STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THIS BECAUSE WE ARE THE APPROVING BODY ON THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. SO DO I JUST ASK FOR A MOTION ON THIS ONE AS WELL OKAY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS. CAN WE DISCUSS IT ALL FIRST? YOU CAN OKAY. CAN WE. 
          YEAH THAT'S FINE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR FOLKS BOTH ON THE ON THE COMMISSION AND IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL. THERE'S A LOT OF VALID CONCERNS RAISED THIS EVENING. EVERYTHING FROM SCHOOL CAPACITY TO WATER USAGE TO. UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE HEIGHTS OF FIBER OPTIC LINES. 
          THESE ARE ALL VERY VALID CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH YOUR PROPERTY, WITH YOUR ADJOINING PROPERTIES, WITH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE. SOME OF THOSE THINGS FALL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF OUR DECISION MAKING HERE THIS EVENING. THE DECISION THAT WE MAKE IS BASED ON WHETHER THE ITEM FALLS WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHETHER IT MEETS THE ZONING CODE. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT DECISION IS BASED ON. THE NEXT THING THAT WE VOTE ON IS CALLED THE PRELIMINARY OR THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS. AND IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT ASSERTS THAT THE DECISION WE'VE MADE THIS EVENING IS BASED ON THAT CRITERIA AND NOT ON THE THINGS THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THOSE. 
          THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOUR CONCERNS ANY LESS VALID. IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE DECISION WE'VE MADE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD, THOUGH, THAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, AND CITY COUNCIL DOES READ ALL THE COMMENTS, ALL THE MINUTES, HALF THEIR JOB IS READING. AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE ZONING ANNEXATION THAT WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE THERE TO REITERATE SOME 
          [02:05:02]
OF YOUR CONCERNS, AND THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BRING SOME MORE LIGHT TO THINGS THAT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO. SO. WITH THAT, I GUESS, DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON THE RELEVANT CRITERIA. STANDARDS. NUMBER THREE, THE CURRENT VERSION I HAVE READS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDES 128 LOTS WITH 123 BUILDABLE LOTS. THAT NUMBER DIFFERS SLIGHTLY FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED. DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATED VERSION? I NOTED 126 WITH 122 AS PRESENTED BY THE ORIGINAL. STAFF REPORT HAS 123 LOTS AND 128 128 123 BUILDABLE. 
          THAT SHOULD BE CORRECT. OKAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT WAS PRESENTED BY DEVELOPER OR EAGLE ROCK WAS HE STATED 126 AND 122. SO. WELL WHAT A SECOND ON THAT ONE. ONE SECOND. DID WE HAVE A MOTION YET? WELL, WAS THAT A MOTION? YEAH. TO MAKE A RECORD OF NOTE JUST YES. YEAH. SO IS THERE A SECOND SECOND. OKAY. WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER OGDEN. I GUESS I GOT A. IAN I, I, I, I PARKER I. OKAY, CAN I JUST ADD THE COPY IN YOUR STAFF REPORT WAS THE LATEST SUBMITTAL FROM THE DEVELOPER WITH 128 LOTS AND 123. IT MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN ADMISSABLE. YEAH, I THINK IT WAS. IT WAS JUST SIMPLY A MISSPOKE. BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. YEAH. YEAH. SO LET'S DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE REASON STATEMENT AND RELEVANT CRITERIA. AND STAIRS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT SECOND OKAY. WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE OKAY. CAN I JUST MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION ON MY NOTES. WHAT WAS THE WHAT WERE WE DOING BEFORE. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THE RECORD WAS. THE REASON THAT WE HAD A MOTION. I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST TO MAKE A NOTE OF THE CHANGE BEFORE WE DID THE THE FULL FLEDGED THING, BUT IF IT COUNTED FOR THE WHOLE THING, THEN THAT'S THAT'S FINE. WHAT WAS YOUR INTENTION I GUESS, YEAH. WHAT WAS YOUR INTENTION? SIMPLY TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THE BEGINNING VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FROM STAFF. OKAY. SO DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT? OH, NO. OKAY OKAY OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COOL. WE'RE COOL THEN. SO WE'RE ALL GOOD. SO WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR A WHILE. BUT WE'LL MAKE A VOTE IF WE WANT. DO YOU WANT TO FINISH THE MOTION THEN. THAT WAS JUST MADE. I THOUGHT WE ALREADY VOTED. WE DIDN'T. WE VOTE. YOU VOTED, BUT IT WASN'T ON A MOTION. IT WAS ON A CHANGE. 
          RIGHT? THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT. BUT I THOUGHT MAYBE JUST TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR, WE DO AN ACTUAL DO A VOTE. OKAY. THAT IS CERTAIN FOR WHAT I WAS GOING. STATEMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. MY BAD. NOPE. YOU'RE WE'RE ALL GOOD. OKAY. SO, COMMISSIONER SCALES, YOU MOVED TO ACCEPT. ACCEPT THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS AND SECOND. 
          SECOND. AND DO YOU WANT A ROLL CALL? VOTE? YES. OKAY, OKAY. COMMISSIONER OGDEN. HI, SCALES. 
          HI, SCOTT. I MEAN, I, I, I STUART, I PARKER, I MOTION OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP. 
          PERFECT. THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE IF I CAUSED ANY CONFUSION. OKAY. DO WE WANT, DO WE NEED A VOTE FOR A RECESS OR IS THAT SOMETHING I OKAY. WELL WE'RE GOA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED AGAIN. 
          [3.IV. PLT25-033]
THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU GUYS. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO START WITH THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ALPINE RIDGE. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THAT. CAN YOU STACK THEM ALL UNTIL ONE NIGHT I GUESS YEAH. THE OTHER ONE IS. 31 AVENUE ROCK ENGINEERING. AND THEY GOT REALLY LUCKY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. SO YEAH, GREAT. AGAIN THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHAT WE'RE CALLING ALPINE RIDGE. AND LET'S SEE IF I CAN LEARN HOW TO DRIVE THIS A LITTLE BIT 
          [02:10:07]
BETTER. SO THIS IS JUST OFF HOMES NORTH OF ANDERSON KIND OF BEHIND CONRAD BISCHOFF IS KIND OF THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND YEAH. SO HERE'S OUR OUR PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF FOR REVIEW. REALLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS SOME LARGER LOTS WITH SOME CONNECTIVITY WITH PROPOSED CITY RIGHT OF WAY BY WAY OF RONALD AVENUE AND A NEW PROPOSED ROAD, GORDON AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH WEST SIDE, RONALD AVENUE WILL CONNECT TO THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ON THE WEST SIDE. THAT KIND OF MEANDERS ITS WAY THROUGH KIND OF COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WILL PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THAT AND HOMES, WHICH WE THINK WOULD BE A BIG BENEFIT TO THIS AREA. GORDON AVENUE ON THE SOUTH WILL EXTEND DOWN OFF OF OAK, AND IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL FROM THIS DRAWING, BUT THERE'S A KNUCKLE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT. I GUESS I LOSE MY HAIR. I MIGHT HELP EVERYBODY HERE. THIS IS AN A CUL DE SAC. IT'S ACTUALLY A A BULB. IT'S GOING TO HAVE A STUB HERE. SO THE HOPE AND INTENT IS THAT SOME FUTURE POINT IN TIME, THIS MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXTEND OUT AND PROVIDE EVEN MORE CONNECTIVITY TO ANDERSON. THE THE DEVELOPER, OUR CLIENT THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH ON THIS HAS GONE BACK AND FORTH FOR SEVERAL YEARS ON WHAT HE WANTED TO DO AND WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THIS TIME I BASICALLY SAID, I THINK I'M GOING TO TRY AND DO SOME LARGER LOTS, PROVIDE THE ROADS AND SELL THOSE LOTS FOR A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO OTHERS. 
          SO I EXPECT AT SOME FUTURE POINT IN TIME THAT MAY BE AMENDED. PRELIMINARY PLATS COMING FORWARD, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE FUTURE DEVELOPERS DECIDE TO DO WITH THOSE. THOSE LOTS. AT THIS TIME, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CLARITY ON WHAT THAT MIGHT BE OTHER THAN SOMETHING THAT FOLLOWS THE ZONING CODE HERE. SO YEAH, THIS IS A PRETTY SIMPLE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMPARED TO THE LAST ONE. UTILITIES ARE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND CONNECT IT THROUGH WITH THE TWO DRIVEWAYS. BACK HERE. THERE IS A TURN LANE BEING PROPOSED RIGHT SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN IN OFF OF HOMES INTO RONALD AVENUE. AND THAT'S KIND OF THE MEAT POTATOES I THINK I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE. ANY QUESTIONS. NO OKAY OKAY OKAY. 
          WELL THANK YOU. WE'LL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. ALL RIGHT. ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BRYAN STEVENSON LEONARD AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE THINGS. 
          APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES, EIGHT LOTS, SIX OF THEM ARE BUILDABLE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ROAD CONNECTIONS, AND WE JUST GO THROUGH. SO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'RE GENERAL URBAN AND A LITTLE BIT OF INDUSTRIAL, PRIMARILY SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL. AND THEN IF WE GET INTO THE HISTORY THIS WAS ANNEXED IN 2022 WITH AN INITIAL ZONING OF LC. LC ALLOWS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT A LEVEL OF R-3. SO JUST WHEN WE'RE TALKING THROUGH ZONING, IT CAN BE COMMERCIAL OR IT CAN BE EXCUSE ME, IT CAN BE THAT R-3 RESIDENTIAL. AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LOTS. AGAIN. I'LL GRAB THE THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS HERE THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE THREE LIKELY RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THE TWO ROADS. 
          OTHERWISE EVERYTHING ELSE IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AGAIN, THIS IS A MUCH EASIER PRELIMINARY PLAT VERSUS WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY JUST HEARD ABOUT HEARD ABOUT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AT THIS TIME OR LATER. MATT. BUT YOU ADDRESSED 
          [02:15:01]
MY QUESTION ESSENTIALLY. BUT THE THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US HAVE THESE LOTS LABELED FOR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S NO ZONING CHANGE HERE, RIGHT? IT'S ALL STILL LIMITED COMMERCIAL STAYING THAT WAY. AND THESE ARE JUST PROPOSED FUTURE USES, NOT ACTUAL NOT AN ACTUAL PART OF THE PLAN. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THE ZONING IS GOING TO STAY HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL WHERE THE PINK AREA IS AND LC WHERE THE RED AREA IS. THE. SO AS THE DEVELOPERS TALK TO US, THIS IS MORE SO POTENTIAL PHASING RIGHT. WHICH WILL BE ADDRESSED AS THEY BRING IN THE DIVISIONS. THAT BEING SAID THEY THEY WOULD START POTENTIALLY AT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AND WORK TO THE SOUTH. RIGHT. THOUGH, YOU KNOW, IN DISCUSSIONS THEIR, THEIR, THEIR INITIAL PLAN IS TO BUILD THESE ROADS AND THEN SEE KIND OF WHAT COMES TO FRUITION. 
          OKAY. ALRIGHTY. WELL THANK YOU. I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW. SO NOW WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SAME THING. STATE YOUR NAME. ALL THAT JAZZ. ALL RIGHT. WELL, SINCE THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT AND NO NEED A REBUTTAL, NOTHING, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DELIBERATION COMMISSION. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING OR JUST. JUST. I HAVE NO CONCERNS. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS A REALLY VOLATILE OR SERIOUS ISSUE TO TO DEBATE OR DISCUSS. I MEAN, I SEE THE NEED TO PUT THE ROADS IN, DEVELOP IT AND SEE WHAT COMES. 
          I THINK IT'S A GOOD APPROACH AND I WOULD MOVE. ACCEPTANCE. IF YOU'RE OPEN TO A MOTION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ALPINE RANCH, OKAY. AND WE ADD TO THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE RECENT STATEMENT OF FACT IN ONE MOTION. I'M FINE DOING THEM BOTH TOGETHER SO WE AVOID THE CONFUSION. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT STATEMENT IN THE SAME MOTION. YEP. WE CAN DO THAT. SECOND. 
          YEP. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER OGDEN. HI. HI, SCOTT. IAN. I, I I I, I MOTION PASSED. AWESOME. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO 
          [3.V. VAR26-001]
ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE DOING A. VARIANCE FOR PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TONIGHT. BUT I'M SURE YOU'VE BEEN TO MANY OF THESE. JOLLY 101 SOUTH PARK AVENUE MALLS. CARRIE'S GOT A PRETTY GOOD PRESENTATION, SO I'LL JUST KIND OF TOUCH BASE ON WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. BUT THE MIDDLE BUTTON WILL GO FORWARD. DO YOU WANT AN ARROW? OH, SO WE'VE GOT A UNIQUE LOT WHERE WE HAVE LOTS OF ROAD CRASH, BUT IT'S HIGHWAY 20 OFF RAMP AND SCIENCE CENTER THAT WE CAN'T ACCESS. AND WHEN WE DID THIS ORIGINAL SOUTH DEVELOPMENT, WE DESIGNED IT. SO THE TWO ACCESSES ARE ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE. SO IF WE FIRE CODE, ESTABLISH THE FOOTPRINT. AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE TRYING TO GO ON TO THE NEXT PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THE STAFF REMINDED US THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE 50FT OF FRONTAGE THAT WE CAN'T ACCESS. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR SO WE CAN BUILD THIS PROPERTY GOING SOUTH TO NORTH, WE CAN GET THAT VARIANCE OF THAT, NOT HAVE TO HAVE THAT 50 REQUIREMENT SINCE WE CAN'T ACCESS THE ROADS. ANY QUESTIONS? I GUESS. HOW SO. HOW WIDE WOULD YOU BE. SO THIS IS KIND OF A CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN. THIS DOESN'T SHOW DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SOUTH LINE. IS THAT NORTH AND SOUTH. SO WE'RE JUST MOVE IT IN PHASES. IT'S A UNIQUE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE TOPO LAVEROCK. YEAH. SO YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE IT LITTLE POINTS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE THE PRICE POINT. YEAH. BUT OKAY 
          [02:20:04]
OKAY. IS THE VARIANCE FOR YOU MAY HAVE SAID IT AND I'VE BEEN CONFUSED FOR A SPECIFIC PART OF THE PROPERTY. OR IS IT FOR THE WHOLE. IT'S FOR THE WHOLE. OKAY. IT'S IT'S BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE 50FT OF FRONTAGE. RIGHT. OKAY. SO GOT IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF OKAY. QUESTION FOR STAFF TOO. PERFECT. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS ITEM IS UNUSUAL. YOU DON'T SEE VERY MANY OF THESE. I THINK IN THE 12 YEARS I'VE WORKED FOR THE CITY. THIS IS THE SECOND ONE THAT'S COME BEFORE YOU AS A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. MOST VARIANCES IN THE CITY GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT WHEN WE COME TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE VARIANCE COMES TO YOU. AND THEN AN ACTUAL ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL. SO AGAIN HERE YOU'LL BE DOING A RECOMMENDATION JUST TO RUN BACK BRIEFLY. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-3. SO THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE ZONE, MEANING THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU'RE GOING TO SEE RESIDENTIAL USES ANYWHERE FROM SINGLE RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL AS THE POTENTIAL FOR OFFICE USES SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON A COMMERCIAL LEVEL. GENERALLY, MOST OF THE TIME WHAT WE SEE WITH R3 IS EITHER HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR SOME TYPE OF GENERAL OFFICE OR MEDICAL OFFICE TYPE USE. AND SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOR THE PROPERTY WOULD BE. THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT AS AS PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED INTO DEVELOP, THE LOT HAS TO HAVE A CERTAIN WIDTH IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES ON A PUBLIC STREET. THE THINKING THERE WOULD BE IS AS YOU DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL LOTS, EACH LOT SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN ACCESS, ITS OWN DRIVEWAY, ITS OWN APPROACH, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          WHEN WE GET INTO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT OR THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT GOES AWAY BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WITH COMMERCIAL STYLE DEVELOPMENT AND EVEN LARGE MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, YOU END UP WITH A SHARED DRIVE AISLE, ACCESS THROUGH A PARKING LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU CAN END UP WITH SOME PAD SITES THAT WON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE ROAD, BUT THE ACCESS COMES THROUGH THE INTERNAL PARKING LOT DRIVEWAY NETWORK, AND THAT'S MOST COMMON AGAIN, WOULD BE MOST COMMON WITH WHAT WE WOULD SEE IN AN R-3, A ZONE. BUT YOU DO HAVE A UNIQUE SHAPED PROPERTY WITH SOME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS TO THE PROPERTY. THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF STREET FRONTAGE. THEY HAVE STREET FRONTAGE ON HIGHWAY 20 THERE ALONG THE NORTHERN WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN YOU HAVE STREET FRONTAGE ALONG SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE AS WELL. HOWEVER, ACCESS TO THOSE STREET FRONTAGES IS NULL. OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ACCESS TO AN OFF RAMP OFF THE HIGHWAY. 
          THE VERY MINOR PART OF THE FRONTAGE ON SCIENCE CENTER IS TOO CLOSE TO THAT OFF RAMP FOR US TO MEET ACCESS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SPACING ALONG THERE, AS WELL AS WE DON'T WANT TO SEE BACKING OF THE THE OFFERING, SO THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO COME FROM ANDERSON, WHICH IS HOW THE PARCEL HAS BEEN PLANNED AND LAID OUT AS THE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED ON THAT SOUTH END. YOU HERE THEN ACCESS EASEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE BACK. BUT AS THE PROPERTY LOOKS AT DEVELOPMENT AND LET ME, I GUESS MAYBE STAY HERE FOR A MINUTE AS THEY LOOK AT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES TO THE PROPERTY AND THERE ARE PHOTOS THERE IN YOUR PACKET. THE PROPERTY HAS SOME TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES, SOME UPS AND DOWNS. THERE IS LAVA ROCK PRESENT. THERE'S SOME EXPOSED LAVA ROCK IN PLACES. THERE'S SOME LARGE DIPS IN CERTAIN PLACES. AND SO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THAT TOPOGRAPHY, IF YOU WILL, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE STRATEGIC IN HOW THEY LAY OUT THE DEVELOPMENT. WE DID ASK THEM FOR A CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF WHAT MAY BE A POTENTIAL LOT LAYOUT WOULD BE, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS TO THE LAND WHEN THEY GO TO SUBDIVIDE IT, THAT THAT LAYOUT MIGHT HAVE TO SHIFT OR CHANGE AS THEY LOOK AT SPECIFIC USE AND LAYOUTS. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE VARIANCE, AS WAS ASKED, WOULD WE WOULD WE WOULD REQUEST THE VARIANCE APPLY TO THE ENTIRE PARCEL, NOT JUST A SPECIFIC INTERNAL LOT, BECAUSE THOSE LOT LIKE MY SHIFT VARIANCES WILL RUN WITH THE LAND. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE 
          [02:25:01]
BECAUSE THE ENTIRE PARCEL HAS THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS THAT THAT VARIANCE WOULD APPLY ALL TOGETHER. IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, YOU DID HAVE THE SECTIONS OF CODE FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION TEN DASH 113. BARRING THE VARIANCES, THERE ARE SEVEN CRITERIA THAT IN ORDER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEY NEED TO FIND THAT ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT. ALSO, ON PAGE THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, YOU DO HAVE A TABLE THAT LISTS THOSE SAME SEVEN CRITERIA. AND WHAT WOULD BE STAFF'S TAKE OR STAFF'S RESPONSE IN HOW WE FILL THE PROPERTY MEETS THOSE SEVEN CRITERIA. AND BECAUSE WE SEE THAT IN OUR MIND, IT'S MEETING THOSE CRITERIA, STAFF WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND AND WOULD PROVIDE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TONIGHT. WITH THAT, I TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER. HAVE A QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL GO TO YOU ANSWERED MY OH OKAY THEN. SORRY. YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL. I WOULD AGREE, I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE COME WITHOUT A EITHER A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR A FINAL PLAT, AND I FIND THAT VERY UNUSUAL BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE CONTEXT UNDER WHICH YOU CAN CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE VARIANCE IS WARRANTED, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE THE PLAT IN FRONT OF YOU. SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE IN THE ABSTRACT. AND I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE WHAT THE VARIANCE IS, IS RELATIVE TO. FOR INSTANCE, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS WITH RESPECT TO OBVIOUSLY, THE LACK OF ACCESS. I DO SEE SOME POSSIBILITIES IN WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME HERE, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT. I DON'T HAVE A PLAT THAT I CAN LOOK AT, AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE IN THE ABSTRACT. AND I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH WITH THAT, BECAUSE THE LACK OF DIVINITY, JUST HAVING A SKETCH TO ME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. SO WHAT I WOULD RATHER SEE, FRANKLY, IS TO GET A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN FRONT OF US SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THAT VARIANCE WOULD BE APPLIED. NOW, THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL PLAT OR UNUSUAL PIECE OF GROUND. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY ABOUT THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. IT USED TO BE A LAKE OUT THERE. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN OUT THERE AND IT'S FULL OF BASALT, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT PIECE TO DEVELOP. AND THERE THE ACCESS IS VERY RESTRICTED. THAT BEING SAID, THE FRONTAGE ISSUE IS, IN MY MIND, A SAFETY ISSUE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. CAN YOU GET POLICE AND FIRE AND AMBULANCE INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE SUBDIVISION? AND AGAIN, WITHOUT A PLAT, I CAN'T TELL WHAT SAFETY CRITERIA ARE GOING TO ARISE WITHOUT THE CONTEXT OF HAVING THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT. AS I LOOK AT IT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS THAT REALLY COME TO MY MIND. NOT TOO LONG AGO, WE APPROVED A PLAT JUST TO THE EAST SIDE OF THIS VERY SAME PIECE THAT HAS ACCESS ON SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT ONE OF YOUR LOGICAL SOLUTIONS WOULD BE TO LOOK AT PARTNERING WITH THAT ACCESS. SO YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THAT ISSUE. IT'S ACTUALLY THE SCHOOL AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE'S SOMEONE IN BETWEEN. YEAH, YEAH. BUT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE ALSO LOOKED AT A SECOND ACCESS ONTO ANDERSON. WE DO HAVE TWO RIGHT NOW AS WELL. MIKE CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS. SO SO WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE TWO ACCESS RIGHT NOW. YEAH. SO CROSS ACCESS TO GO BACK TO THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT HERE WHERE THIS CUL DE SAC IS OUR ANDERSON. AND THE REASON WE DIDN'T SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY. WE'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO FINAL. AND WE SUBMITTED OUR FINAL. THAT'S WHERE THIS OVERALL IS I UNDERSTAND, BUT BUT WHY NOT SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY SO THAT I CAN SEE THOSE ACCESSES? I CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY OF DEDICATING THOSE ACCESSES. WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THE 
          [02:30:02]
WIDTH ARE. SORRY, SORRY YOU TRIED SHOWING THEM RIGHT HERE. THOSE ARE THOSE EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT'S SHOWN THERE. OKAY. AS FAR AS THE. AS FAR AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES, EVERY TIME WE SUBMIT CHOIR IS DICTATING ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS THAT THEY HAVE CORRECT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. SO IT I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I'M TRYING TO REASSURE YOU. IT GETS LOOKED AT. WE CAN'T GET APPROVED WITH THE NEXT PHASE IF WE DON'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW THAT. EVEN ON PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY SIMILAR TO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE SHOWING CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS. 
          RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO SHOW WHAT IS A DEDICATED STREET, WHAT THE WIDTH OF THOSE PRIVATE ACCESS IS, IF YOU GET THEM ARE GOING TO BE. WHEREAS I DON'T THINK YOUR SKETCH PLAT REALLY SHOWS MUCH OF ANYTHING. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M CONCERNED THEY'RE JUST GETTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND WE'RE NOT DOING ANY PUBLIC STREETS IN THERE. WE DON'T HAVE A REAL WELL AND GOOD DRIVE. ACCESS TO EACH. YEAH, WELL AND GOOD. I KNOW IT'S A DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT. BUT I DO THINK THAT I'M JUST VERY HESITANT TO TRY TO APPROVE A VARIANCE IN THE ABSTRACT. I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME REAL CHALLENGES IN TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS, BUT I'M JUST HESITANT TO START APPROVING VARIANCES IN THE ABSTRACT WITHOUT SORRY. WITH RESPECT TO MR. STURE'S CONCERNS, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, HOWEVER, I THINK THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, WHICH WE GO, WE GO BECAUSE YOU ALSO NEED A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL PLAT. I HAVE NO CONCERNS OR ISSUES WITH THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC ROADS HERE. I THINK WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE BY BY GIVING TOO MUCH CONCERN TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT A PRELIMINARY AND WE'RE JUST GRANTING A VARIANCE TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN HAVE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT. 
          THAT'S MY FEELING, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M AFRAID OF. CONCERN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M APPROVING, WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. WE'RE APPROVING. WE'RE APPROVING A VARIANCE TO NOT HAVE 50FT OF FRONTAGE. AND THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT PARCEL FROM TWO SEPARATE SIDES. YEAH. 
          WELL, RIGHT. BUT THE PROBLEM IS I DON'T KNOW THE WIDTH OF THE ACCESS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE. THEY'RE LISTED UNTIL I SEE A PRELIMINARY PLAT. OH THEY'RE LISTED IN CLEARLY DRAWN. YOU SEE THOSE NOT ON PAGE 99. THE DRAWING MEANS NOTHING. IT'S JUST A DRAWING. OKAY? WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE DRAWING. PRELIMINARY PLAT WOULD BE OKAY. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS. I THINK WE SHOULD DELIBERATE THIS AFTER WE'VE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THAT WAY WE CAN HEAR EVERYTHING AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. IF I COULD JUST FINISH WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND SOME OF STAFF'S THINKING IN THOSE REGARDS, WE HAVE SOME VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS AS WE APPROACH THIS TO, THE CHALLENGE THAT YOU HAVE IS STAFF. THERE WILL NOT BE A PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES A PRELIMINARY PLAT WHEN THERE IS NEW ROAD PATTERNS AND NEW ROAD DEDICATION, WHICH IS THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THAT OF THIS CASE. THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT ROOM TO BRING IN A 60 FOOT LOCAL STREET INTO THE PROPERTY ANYWHERE. SO THERE REALLY IS NOT A NEED FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT. SO THEN THE QUESTION STAFF LOOKED THROUGH IS, WELL, HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE A FINAL PLAT? AND WE HAD SOME IN THE SAME CART BEFORE THE HORSE, WHICH IS THE RIGHT PROCESS. WE CAN'T WE STRUGGLED WITH HOW DO WE BRING A FINAL PLAT IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION WITH ANY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, IF IT CAN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A 50 FOOT WIDTH ON A ON A PUBLIC STREET. SO THEN IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD IN THAT WE WE CAN'T REALLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. SO WE NEED THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL TO ACT ON A VARIANCE. THE OTHER THING IS THE APPLICANT WOULD BECAUSE THIS BOARD DOESN'T MAKE ACTION ON THE VARIANCE, THE COUNCIL DOES. WE NEED TO HAVE A MECHANISM FOR GETTING ALL THE WAY TO THE COUNCIL FOR A DECISION REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENT, IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO THEN DRAW THE FINAL PLAT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. ACCESS IS A CONCERN AS WE DEVELOP AND WE GET ABOVE 30 UNITS, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE SECONDARY ACCESS WITH RELATION TO THE FIRE CODE, 
          [02:35:07]
AND THAT HAS BEEN A KNOWN AND CONCERN FROM THE BEGINNING. AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE ARE TWO ACCESSES, ONE BOTH ON THE WEST SIDE AND ONE ON THE EAST SIDE. AGAIN THOSE ACCESS EASEMENTS ARE THERE, BUT THEY ARE NOT AT A LOCAL STREET WIDTH OR AT A FIRE APPARATUS ROAD WIDTH, WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY BE THE MINIMUM OF 26FT WIDE. BUT THOSE EASEMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. SO AGAIN, THAT WAS WHERE STAFF WAS THINKING WE REALLY NEEDED TO TRY TO GET A DECISION ON THE VARIANCE BEFORE THE APPLICANT COULD PROCEED WITH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE SUBDIVISION LAYOUT. AND IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR. I FOR MYSELF, THE THIS LOT IS IN. I'M JUST CLARIFYING THIS LOT IS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WHICH MEANS IT'S THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          SO EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT HAS TO HAVE 50 FOOT ACCESS. THIS LOT DOESN'T. AND IT'S RELYING ON THOSE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS. SO IT'S SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE TO USE THOSE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS. WELL SO OR MAKE THOSE THE PARCEL AS YOU SEE OUTLINED IN RED THE REQUIREMENT IS 50FT OF FRONTAGE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ACCESS OR FRONTAGE. THE REMAINING PARCEL THAT YOU SEE IN RED DOES HAVE TO HAVE 50FT OF FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED STREET SCIENCE CENTER. 
          DRIVE RIGHT, AND THE HIGHWAY, THEY JUST CANNOT GET ACCESS THERE, RIGHT? I'M JUST CONCERNING SCIENCE OR ANDERSON. SO THE REAL QUESTION IS YOU LOOK AT THEIR CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT, RIGHT, IS IN ORDER TO TO LAY OUT A SUBDIVISION WITH THE PROPERTY IN ITS TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER CHALLENGES, ALSO TO LAY IT OUT IN SOMETHING THAT WOULD FUNCTION AND WORK AT EITHER A HIGHER DENSITY LEVEL OR A COMMERCIAL USE LEVEL, YOU WOULD END UP WITH SMALLER LOT CONFIGURATION LIKE THIS, WHERE THESE INTERNAL LOTS HERE DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON ANY RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION. THESE OTHER LOTS STILL MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD. 
          THEY HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEY JUST WON'T TAKE ACCESS THERE. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY CONSIDERING IS IS IT OKAY TO HAVE A LAYOUT WHERE YOU HAVE SOME INTERNAL LOTS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC, KIND OF LIKE A COMMERCIAL PARK SIMILAR TO A COMMERCIAL, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS TECHNICALLY RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT? SOMETHING LIKE AN LC OR HC? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR. YEAH, YEAH. AND THAT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION I BROUGHT UP EARLIER TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR HERE? AND TO ME IT'S THOSE CONCEPTUALLY TWO SOUTHERNMOST RIGHT POTENTIAL DIVISIONS OF THIS PIECE, RIGHT WHERE THE THE NORTHERN THREE HAVE THAT FRONTAGE, BUT NOT THE ACCESS THE SOUTHERN TO WOULD NOT HAVE THE FRONTAGE. CORRECT? CORRECT. BUT ACCESS TO THE WHOLE LOT WOULD COME FROM THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. RIGHT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. JUST TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND. SO THE VARIANCES FOR THOSE TWO INTERNAL LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, AS FAR AS NOT SETTING UP, HAVING TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE, COULD IT BE SAID THAT THE APPLICANT CAN DEVELOP THE LOT JUST WITH ONLY THREE? PARCELS OR WHEN THEY, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE THAT FRONTAGE? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE. LIKE IS IT ARE THEY PROHIBITED FROM DEVELOPING THIS. NO. RIGHT THIS LOT WITHOUT THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL WHERE THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO HAVE FEWER. RIGHT. 
          SO I THINK RIGHT NOW REALLY YOU COULD DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ANY CONFIGURATION WHERE ALL OF THE LOTS, WHETHER THAT BE ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE, YOU KNOW, HAD FRONTAGE OUT ONTO US HIGHWAY 20 OR SCIENCE CENTER. THE CHALLENGE FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT IS THE DEPTH OF THE LOT. WHEN THOSE LOTS GET REALLY DEEP AND NARROW, IT'S CREATING EVEN MORE PROBLEMS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES BOTH WITH THE FIRE CODE AND EASEMENTS AND ACCESS AND ALL OF THAT AS WELL. SO YES, IT COULD BE YOU COULD DO THAT OR YOU COULD LEAVE IT AS ONE LARGE LOT, BUT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THAT LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE WITH AN OFFICE PARK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD BE MORE CHALLENGING WITHOUT HAVING THE LOTS, EVEN EVEN A 
          [02:40:04]
PIECE LIKE THIS, WITH IF IT WERE NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, IT WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          THEY ARE TYPICALLY DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE LOTS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT'S GREAT. OKAY, WELL I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW. SO APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR HELP WITH THAT. NOW I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS VARIANCE. SO YEAH HAVE AT IT OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE GOT NO TAKERS. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND NOW THIS IS A CHANCE FOR THE COMMISSION TO DELIBERATE SLASH ASK MORE QUESTIONS. SO. AS FAR AS I CAN SEE IT VARIANCES ARE TRICKY. BUT LIKE IT'S THE ONLY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. AND WHAT I CAN SEE IS THIS IS ONLY HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE ZONE. THAT IS IT. THIS IS IF THIS WAS LC THOSE. CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS WOULD WORK JUST FINE. BUT BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL, WE'VE GOT TO DO A, YOU KNOW, A VARIANCE. AND IN MY BRAIN LC AND R3 ARE LIKE ONE IN THE SAME. 
          ANYWAY, FOR THE MOST PART I KNOW THERE'S TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES, BUT THEY HAVE THEY SHARE A LOT OF THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS. AND SO I'M I'M OKAY WITH THIS. SO. YEAH I AGREE. TO ME THE THE EXPECTED USES I SEE IT ZONED HERE AND LAID OUT WOULD BE A USE THAT IS ALLOWED IN THE LC ZONE. AND SO GRANTING A VARIANCE HERE TO SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALLOW IN AN LC ZONE DOESN'T CAUSE ME CONCERN. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN OUR ZONING CODE THAT SAYS A PROPERTY HAS TO HAVE ACCESS TO A ROAD, CORRECT? IT HAS TO HAVE FRONTAGE. RIGHT. 
          BOTH. CORRECT. THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS FOR FRONTAGE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS LIKE THE FIRE CODE AND OTHER THINGS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS. RIGHT. SO. THEY CAN'T ACCESS. RIGHT? OKAY. THANK YOU. I SEE THE ACCESS COMING THROUGH THE THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT. SO I DON'T HAVE THAT SAME CONCERN THAT YOU'VE RAISED. I DO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS CERTAINLY A CHALLENGE WHERE EVOLVING CODES OVER TIME HAVE KIND OF CREATED AN ORPHANAGE PROPERTY HERE, ONE THAT DIDN'T GET DEVELOPED IN THE FIRST PLACE. TWO, IN THAT THE THE ACCESS THE ROAD ACCESS PLAN HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME IN A WAY THAT THIS PROPERTY CANNOT GET ACCESS ON THE ROAD THAT IT FRONTS. AND SO I THINK IF WE WANT TO PROMOTE INFILL, THIS IS GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS A GOOD WAY OF DOING SO. 
          COMMISSIONER SCOTT, JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I'VE BEEN. I'M STILL NOT SURE WHICH WAY I'M GOING TO VOTE ON THIS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN. PARTICULARLY, I GUESS, IMPRESSED WITH THE ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. AND I DO AGREE WITH THE CITY'S ATTEMPTS TO UTILIZE INFILL PRIMARILY, BUT NOT EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY IS NECESSARILY. THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. AND SO PERSONALLY, I RECOGNIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ALL, AND I'M CERTAINLY. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. HOWEVER, I'M JUST NOT IN A HURRY TO SEE THIS PARTICULAR PARK DEVELOP BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S MAYBE HIGHER AND BEST USES FOR IT. THAT SAID, I WILL PROBABLY. VOTE TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE. I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH IT, JUST THAT'S ALL. AT THE RISK OF LOSING MY VOICE BEFORE I FINISH MY POINT, I THINK MY CONCERN IS JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURE IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF US IN TERMS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OR A FINAL PLAT FROM WHICH WE CAN LOOK AT THAT VARIANCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. 
          [02:45:01]
IF WE HAD A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN FRONT OF US WHERE WE COULD SEE THE EASEMENTS, WE COULD SEE THE WIDTH, WE COULD SEE THE ACCESS TO ANDERSON. I THINK THERE'S THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE ENOUGH THAT IT WILL COULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT ALLOW A VARIANCE. BUT WHERE I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY IS. TRYING TO APPROVE VARIANCE IN THE ABSTRACT, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF YOU OTHER THAN JUST A SKETCH. THAT'S MY ISSUE. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. HOW HOW I'VE UNDERSTOOD IT, THOUGH, IS THE VARIANCE. 
          BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULT TOPOGRAPHY, THEY'RE NOT SURE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED TO BEGIN WITH. AND GIVING AND GIVING THE VARIANCE ENABLES THEM TO THEN ACTUALLY CREATE A WORKABLE FINAL PLAT OR EVEN PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND SO IN MY EYES, JUST PROVIDING THE VARIANCE GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY, GIVES THEM MORE TOOLS TO, YOU KNOW, BRING A FINAL PLAT OR PRELIMINARY PLAT, WHICH THEY WILL HAVE TO BRING TO US ANYWAY, YOU KNOW. WELL, I AGREE, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHAT ARE WE GRANTING WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A PLAT IN FRONT OF US? THAT'S MY CONCERN. ALL WE HAVE IS A SKETCH. WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE SKETCH. WE'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING, WELL, THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE TO GRANT VARIANCE, AND I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK IT IS UNIQUE. I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT, BUT WHAT I DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH IS THE DOCUMENTATION OF SEEING WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE APPROVING WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN FRONT OF US TO SEE WHERE THOSE ACCESSES ARE GOING TO BE, WHETHER THE PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, EITHER ONE. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT'S REQUIRED IS WHEN YOU APPROVE A VARIANCE IS THAT YOU DO NOT COMPROMISE PUBLIC SAFETY. HOW CAN I DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC SAFETY IS BEING COMPROMISED WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A PLAT IN FRONT OF ME TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT IS? IT'S JUST SIMPLY A TIMING ISSUE, IF YOU WILL. AND I DON'T YOU KNOW, I FULLY RECOGNIZE IT'S A DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH A LOT OF CHALLENGES. IT'S JUST I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THAT WE CAN'T GO FORWARD WITH AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SEE WHERE THOSE ACCESSES ARE GOING TO BE AND THE WIDTH, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. I VIEW THE THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AS MORE THAN JUST MERE HAVING STREET FRONTAGE, THE PUBLIC SAFETY. SO YOU HAVE ABILITY TO GET POLICE AND FIRE AND AMBULANCE DOWN THERE AND WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THOSE ACCESSES ARE GOING TO BE, AND HAVING ONLY A SKETCH, THAT'S MY CONCERN THAT WE'RE GETTING CART BEFORE THE HORSE, I DON'T. SO THESE ARE THE EXISTING CURRENT CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS RIGHT. RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE SKETCH. BUT THESE ARE THE THE CURRENT ONES. DO THESE NOT WORK ENOUGH FOR YOU KNOW DOES THIS NOT WORK. NO THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT A PLAT. THEY'RE JUST A SKETCH. THERE'S NOTHING. WELL THESE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS ARE ARE THEY. THESE ARE EXISTING CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT RUN THROUGH THE SOUTHERN LOT CURRENTLY. AND THEY'RE STUBBING. THEY GO TO THIS POINT. THE VARIANCE WOULD THEN ALLOW THEM TO THEN REWORK TO THEN FIGURE OUT WHERE TO CONTINUE THOSE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT ALREADY EXIST ON LOT ON THIS FIRST PHASE, MR. CHAIR. YES. SO I RESPECT MR. STEWART'S CONCERN. YES. AND I DO TOO. I THINK THEY'RE VALID. I THE ISSUE IS, IS STAFF HAS ADDRESSED WE CAN'T HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO DEDICATED ROADS. SO SO YOUR DESIRE FOR ONE IS MOOT BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE ONE. WHY NOT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S NO DEDICATED PUBLIC ROADS IN THIS PARCEL. THAT'S WHEN YOU GET A PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          WELL, A PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO GET A PRELIMINARY INDICATION FROM BOTH THIS BODY AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN IT GETS IT. AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAT, SO YOU CAN SEE IT IN ADVANCE. UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF A PLAT, BUT IT ONLY IS AVAILABLE WHEN YOU HAVE DEDICATED PUBLIC ROADS, WHICH WE HAVE NONE IN THIS PARCEL. SO THE SECOND ISSUE THEN BECOMES AND I'LL JUST FINISH REALLY QUICK AND THEN I'LL BE QUIET TOO. THE SECOND ISSUE THEN BECOMES WE HAVE TO HAVE WE CAN'T GET A FINAL PLAT, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THE CITY CAN'T BRING US A FINAL PLAT WITH AN UNAPPROVED VARIANCE THAT DOESN'T MEET THE RULES. SO AGAIN, BACK TO THE CART OR THE 
          [02:50:06]
HORSE. WHICH ONE DO WE DO? I MEAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO SAY, YES, WE'RE GOING TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE AND ALLOW SOME UNIQUENESS TO THIS PROPERTY SO THAT YOU CAN GIVE US A FINAL PLAT. AND THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE AND HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND EVERYTHING TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE. OUR OUR WILLINGNESS TO GRANT A VARIANCE RIGHT NOW DOES NOT FINALIZE ANYTHING WITH THIS PROPERTY. THIS JUST ALLOWS THEM TO MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN HAVE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. 
          AND I AGREE WITH YOU, I WANT TO GET THAT. BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET HERE SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. PUT IT IN YOUR FINAL IN YOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT. CAN'T HAPPEN. 
          YEAH. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE? YOU CAN PREPARE A PRELIMINARY PLAT PARCEL. 
          THEREFORE IT PRECLUDES A PRELIMINARY PLAT. THERE'S NO PLAT THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO US THAT WOULD SATISFY THE ZONING CODES, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ROAD FRONTAGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHY YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE. THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS GRANTING A VARIANCE. BUT YOU DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCE WITHOUT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          THAT'S MY POINT. I THINK WE DISAGREE ON THIS. YEAH I GUESS I AGREE TO DISAGREE, BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT I JUST DON'T LIKE GRANTING VARIANCE IN THE ABSTRACT. THAT'S MY I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AND I THINK YOUR CONCERNS WOULD BE SATISFIED. WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD GRANT A VARIANCE TO ACCESS. RIGHT. YOU TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. SO THERE'S NO YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME IF WE DO GET A PLAT TO REVIEW, THAT'S WHEN I OUR CHANCE IS TO DISCUSS THE ACCESS POINT. THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO ACCESS HERE. IT'S JUST TO THE FRENCH FOR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS. IT'S A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. OKAY. YOUR TURN. SO I HEAR YOU AND I UNDERSTAND THIS. IF I'M LOOKING AT TEN ONE DASH 13 AND THE VARIANCES AND THE PROCESS FOR GOING THROUGH THIS, THEY HAVE MET THE THRESHOLD OF THAT CODE. I SEE NO OUTRIGHT DISAGREEMENT FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY CALLED OUT AS A PRELIMINARY NEED FOR SEEKING A VARIANCE. THAT'S NOT HEALTH, AND SAFETY IS NOT CALLED OUT IN THESE AS A AS A CONSIDERATION. IT THE KEY THAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE VARIANCE IS THE LEAST DEVIATION. SO WE'VE WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATION AROUND THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN AN LLC VERSUS AN R-3. I THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT IF THIS WAS AN LC ZONED AREA THIS WOULD BE A NON CONVERSATION. RIGHT. SO I WOULD I WOULD USE THAT. AND THEN LOOKING AT NUMBER SIX IN PARTICULAR, THE VARIANCE IS NOT OTHERWISE CONTRARY TO THE LAW. 
          RIGHT. WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY ANY ASPECT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS CONTRARY TO THE CODE OR TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE LAW THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF. I, I AM LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS NEW TO THIS, TO THIS COMMISSION, KNOWING THAT WE WILL SEE A FINAL PLAT AT SOME POINT. ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED. IT SOUNDS LIKE IN THIS SORT OF MODE OF OPERATIONS FOR A WHILE, FOR A VERY LONG TIME, RIGHT, FOR A WHILE. SO IT'S GOING TO BE UNIQUE AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE. AND I THINK I'M OKAY WITH BEING UNCOMFORTABLE IN THIS CASE TO SEE THIS ONE MOVE FORWARD. I'M LOOKING AT DASH 113 D, SUBPARAGRAPH D FIVE. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH OR WELFARE. SO YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THAT FINDING THAT THAT'S THE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT COMPROMISE PUBLIC SAFETY. OR I HAVE THE DIFFICULTY OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING A PLAT IN FRONT OF YOU, THAT I CAN SEE WHAT THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED RELATIVE TO. HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMPROMISE TO PUBLIC SAFETY IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PLAT FRONT OF YOU TO SEE IT? WELL, SO IT'S A PROCEDURAL ISSUE. IT'S A TIMING ISSUE, IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THIS PROPERTY IS VERY DIFFICULT PIECE TO DEVELOP. AND THERE ARE, IN MY JUDGMENT, THERE ARE SOME VERY GOOD REASONS WHY VARIANCE WOULD LIKELY BE CONSIDERED. IT'S A TIMING ISSUE OF DOCUMENTING WHAT IS THAT ENABLES YOU TO MAKE THAT FINDING THAT THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE WITHOUT HAVING THE PLATTED FURNITURE. OKAY, WELL, I, I MY MY VOICE IS DONE. I'LL SHUT UP. THAT'S OKAY. 
          [02:55:05]
YOU KNOW, YOU BRING A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE SO WE APPRECIATE IT. BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT IT JUST NEEDS TO COME DOWN TO A VOTE. SO IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS WILLING TO. ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          GO AHEAD. IT DOES STATE THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN EXTRAORDINARY HARDSHIP AND WILL SUBSTANTIALLY PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. ARE THERE NO DEVELOPMENTAL OPTIONS OTHER THAN THE VARIANCE? I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, REZONE TO LC OR OR DIFFERENT LOT LAYOUT, HOW I MEAN HOW I SEE IT TECHNICALLY, I GUESS THEY COULD, BUT THEY HAVE IT ZONED R3 A, AND SO IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO EXPLORE THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF THE ZONE THAT THEY HAVE. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT SAYS. PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT. IS IT, YOU KNOW, IS IS THAT GOING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OR IS IT JUST REQUIRE THEM TO DEVELOP IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY? THAT'S WELL, IF YOU WERE TO DO A FULL I MEAN, THIS IS ALL I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BUT IF THIS WERE ALL BECOME COMMERCIAL IN THE BACK END, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD MAKE IT FEASIBLE FOR THEM OR NOT. AND NOW WE'RE SENDING COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC THROUGH A APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT'S COOL. AND. YEAH. SO. YEAH, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE FOR ME PERSONALLY, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THIS RESIDENTIAL ZONE WORK. AND FOR ME PERSONALLY, I THINK WE SHOULD TRY AND HELP THEM OUT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ZONED LIST. IF I MAY MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT THAT IT IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION OF B, VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED ONLY UPON AN EXPRESS FINDING THAT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MADE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT SORT OF EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US TO MAKE THAT FINDING. 
          THAT'S MY POINT, IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD IN FRONT OF US, WHAT WE HAVE IS A SIMPLE SKETCH WITH NO NO TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT FINDING, FROM WHICH YOU CAN THEN GRANT THAT VARIANCE. SO YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GRANTING IT IN THE ABSTRACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING ANY TYPE OF EVIDENTIARY RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT FINDING THAT THAT'S MY CONCERN. IT'S A PROCEDURAL ISSUE THAT THAT YOUR YOUR GRANTING IT ON A PER PASS RECORD WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THOSE ISSUES. SO. I'LL LET HER GO IN ANY PLEASE. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO RAISE EARLIER IS I FEEL LIKE THIS VARIANCE OR THEY CAN DEVELOP THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE. THEY HAVE THE ACCESS SIMPLY TO FROM MY REVIEW. WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT PLATTING AND OR SUBDIVISION AND TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF LOTS ON THAT PROPERTY, WHICH I GUESS IS MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE DOES THAT MEAN DOES THAT MEET THAT FINDING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER? THEY STILL HAVE OPTIONS TO DEVELOP THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, JUST POTENTIALLY NOT IN A WAY. THAT SKETCH PROPOSED. PROBLEM. NO THANK YOU I. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH 1110 113 THAT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED SATISFIES WHAT I WOULD NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE GRANTING A VARIANCE. SO WHEN YOU'RE READY, I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE. NO. OKAY I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION OKAY. 
          DO YOU WANT TO MAKE AN ACTUAL MOTION VARIANCE OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT 13.674 ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER SECTION OF 72 N. AND SECOND. OKAY. TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OGDEN, I, I SCOTT. NATE. MEHAN, I, I STORE NAY NAY. I MOTION PASSES FOUR AND THREE. 
          [03:00:02]
THAT'S OUR CLOSEST ONE YET IT'S GOOD TO HAVE IT CAN'T JUST BE UNANIMOUS. OFTENTIMES THEN WE GET BLAMED FOR JUST BEING A RUBBER STAMP. SO IT'S GOOD THAT WE'VE GOT THIS. I LOVE THAT OKAY. THANK YOU ALL OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO. THAT DIDN'T HAVE A REASON CRITERIA DID IT. 
          [4.I. PLT25-035]
RIGHT. IT IS A RECORD. ANYBODY OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW OUR NEXT ITEM IS A BUSINESS ITEM WHICH IS THE FINAL PLAT FOR HUDSON ADDITION. IS THERE A APPLICANT? NOPE. NO APPLICANT OKAY. WE'LL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF THEN. THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO MATRIX WHAT HE WANTED TO CONVEY WITH APOLOGIES, AND THAT HE IS WORKING ON THE STAFF COMMENTS AND GETTING READY TO RESUBMIT. 
          THANK WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT HERE TODAY. SO THE REQUESTED ACTION FOR THIS IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR HUDSON ADDITION. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED EIGHT STATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND DEVELOPED IN THE COUNTY AND THEN ANNEXED IN 2020. THERE ARE NO LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONE OR FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS EITHER. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA AS MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS, WHICH DENOTES AREAS WHERE PEOPLE TEND TO SHOP AND GATHER. THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES IN THIS TRANSECT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH BOULDER AVENUE, BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH YELLOWSTONE AVENUE AND WINTER AND NORTH LINCOLN ROAD. AS MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN THE COUNTY. THIS WAS ALL A COUNTY SUBDIVISION ALL ALONG WOODWARD CIRCLE AND BANK. AND IT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY AN INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TYPE BUILDING. IN THE BACK OF THE LOT AND IN FRONT OF THE LOT IS A USED CAR DEALERSHIP. THE LOADING AREA IS IN THE BACK OF THIS BUILDING ARE CURRENTLY ACCESSED FROM THIS DRIVE. I'LL. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE LET ME CLOSE, BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF THE PLOT OR CONSIDERATION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO ACCESS INSTEAD IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED FROM WOODRUFF THROUGH ACROSS. SO I'LL CLOSE UP HERE. SO YOU SEE IT BETTER. SO HERE IS THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WILL BE USED FOR UTILITIES. ACCESS TO THIS LOT. EMERGENCY ACCESS. 
          THE CITY IS ALSO REQUIRING THIS ACCESS BE PROVIDED TO THE LOT TO THE SOUTH, SO THAT WE CAN START CLOSING ACCESSES TO WOODRUFF, WHICH IS THE ARTERIAL AS PROPERTIES REDEVELOP TO COMPLY MORE WITH THE CITY'S ACCESS MANAGEMENT. ANY NEW ACCESS WOULD NEED TO BE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH FRONTAGE TO ADD ANY MORE. SO THIS IS BASICALLY ALL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET FOR ACCESS ON THE WORK. SO BUT OTHER THAN THAT PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD STATUTE. YOU'D THE THE APPLICATION THINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ASSOCIATED ORDINANCE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL. QUESTION QUESTIONS. ONE I THINK THIS ISN'T AN AN RDA. IS IT? OKAY. I DIDN'T THINK SO. I KNOW WE'VE DONE SOME REDEVELOPMENT WORK AROUND HERE, BUT I WAS NOT POSITIVE. 
          AWESOME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CONSIDERING THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, NOW IT'S UP TO US. SO ANY THOUGHTS OR ANY MOTIONS? THAT OKAY, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION? TO. I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE HUDSON ADDITION. SECOND AMENDED TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. ANYONE SECOND THAT I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER OGDEN, I SCALES, I SCOTT, I I I I I I 
          [03:05:10]
ALL RIGHT, LAST ITEM REAL QUICK. HOPEFULLY NOW WE HAVE THE FINAL PLAT EXTENSION FOR PETERSON 
          [4.II. PLT24-059]
PLACE DIVISION ONE. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? NOPE. OKAY. JUST STAFF OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO FOR THOSE WHO EXTENSIONS MIGHT BE NEW. IF YOU'RE NEW IN THE COMMISSION, YOU AS A PLANNING COMMISSION GIVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL CLASS. SO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE STATES THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS GOOD FOR ONE YEAR. AND SO WHEN WE HIT THAT ONE YEAR MARK AND THE PLANS HAVE NOT YET GONE TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WE START TO KIND OF LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS AND, AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU TO EXTEND THAT RECOMMENDATION. THIS ONE IS FOR PETERSON PLACE DIVISION ONE. THIS ONE HAS AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED IN JULY 2025. AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE WE'RE ACTUALLY REALLY, REALLY CLOSE ON THIS. SO ALL THE STAFF REVIEWS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. THEY IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SIGNED AND THEY ARE READY TO GO. THE ONLY THING WE'RE WAITING ON IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND SO IN ORDER TO NOT KIND OF RUSH THEM AND PUSH THEM FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HAS HAD A LEADERSHIP CHANGE. AND SO THEY HAVE A NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT BACK ALMOST AS KIND OF A SAFEGUARD, SO THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RUSH THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THEY HAVE TIME TO WORK THROUGH IT. AND WHAT ALSO MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER WAS EARNEST DRIVE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT'S IN ONE PLACE AND IN THE PLAT IT'S IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. AND SO WE'RE ON CITY PROPERTY. IT DOES CONNECT INTO PETERSON PLACE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A CITY. ROAD THAT WAS ON FAA PROPERTY. AND SO THAT CAUSED AN EXTRA COMPLICATION THAT PETERSON PLAYS HABITAT EVERYONE HAD TO WORK THROUGH. SO THAT'S WHY I TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER. BUT AGAIN, IT'S READY TO GO FOR COUNCIL. WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO WE JUST WANTED TO GET BACK TO EXTEND THAT RECOMMENDATION TO. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I THINK YOU'RE ON THE CLEAR. WELL, I CERTAINLY LIKE THE IDEA OF EXTENDING IT JUST TO MAKE THEM NOT FEEL RUSHED. SO THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT. I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT, WHATEVER. IT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE EVERYONE COMFY AND MAKE IT HAPPEN. SO. YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARCEL. IN MY DAY JOB, WE HAVE AN EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THIS. BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M AWARE OF A PREVIOUS BROWNFIELD LOCATION ON THIS PROPERTY. HAS THAT BEEN IT'S LIKELY BEING ADDRESSED INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. IT'S REALLY ONLY A SECONDARY BIT OF INFORMATION. WILL THAT BE ADDRESSED? MY QUESTION I BELIEVE HABITAT DID DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAD FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THAT. SO THAT WAS A PART OF IT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD ADDRESS, RIGHT? THE PLACEMENT OF THE PEW THAT RUNS NORTHWEST, THE LITTLE JOG THAT RUNS TO THE NORTHWEST IS ABOUT IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE THAT LOCATION, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK OR PETROLEUM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SOMETHING FOR AWARENESS, PERHAPS. OF NOTE FOR THE LAND SURVEYOR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NOPE. OKAY, THEN I'D LIKE TO PUT OUT THERE. ANYONE WANT TO DO A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. OKAY. 
          RECOMMEND I MOVE THAT. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE FINAL PLAT. PETERSON PLACE EXTENSION. EXTENSION OF AN EXTENSION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR PETERSON PLACE. THANK YOU. 
          SECOND. ANYONE WANT A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. THANK YOU. WE'LL DO A VOICE VOTE ON THAT ONE. ANYONE IN APPROVAL SAY I, I. KNOW, SAY NAME OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO. ALRIGHTY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR. WELL ACTUALLY STAFF DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OR ANYTHING FOR US. BUT I HAVE TWO VERY QUICK THINGS. BUT FIRST OF ALL, SUPER PROUD OF YOU GUYS TONIGHT. 
          GREAT MEETING. AWESOME. YOU GUYS ENGAGED ALL THE WAY THROUGH. AWESOME QUESTIONS. 
          HEALTHY DEBATE THAT AWESOME. I JUST AM SO PROUD OF THIS BOARD. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOU DO. THE TWO QUICK THINGS. OUR OFFICE WILL BE DOING A WORKSHOP AND TRAINING SLASH CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 23RD AS PART OF THE 
          [03:10:03]
REGULAR WORK SESSION ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. SO WE'RE SCHEDULING ABOUT AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE ENGAGE WITH THEM. ARE THEY DOING WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO? GOOD, BAD, UGLY, ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS? THE MAYOR HAS INVITED AND ASKED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ATTEND AND BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. SO I WANTED TO JUST MAKE YOU AWARE, AND I'LL BE SENDING OUT PROBABLY AN EMAIL JUST TO SEE EVERYBODY'S AVAILABILITY. WE WILL HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND NOTICE THAT AS A MEETING WHERE WE WILL HAVE QUORUM THERE, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS AS WELL AS PART OF THAT. SO JUST A HEADS UP ON THAT. FEBRUARY 23RD, 3 P.M. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT BECAUSE OF WORK SCHEDULES, THAT'S OKAY. BUT IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD LOVE TO TO HAVE YOU THERE. THE SECOND THING TOO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY CHANGED THEIR MEETING TIME FROM 730 TO 630? WE'RE WONDERING IF THIS BOARD WOULD WANT TO ENTERTAIN OR TALK ABOUT. SHOULD WE ALSO CHANGE OUR TIME FROM 7 TO 630, JUST SO THAT IT'S CONSISTENT FOR THE PUBLIC? SOMETIMES THE PUBLIC WILL GET CONFUSED BETWEEN WHAT IS THE COUNCIL MEETING? WHAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SO IT COULD BE HELPFUL THAT THEY STARTED THE SAME TIME. BUT IF THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE YOU CAN BE HERE AND WE CAN GET A QUORUM, WE CERTAINLY WOULD, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT AT THE 7:00. AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HAVE CONVERSATION OR JUST LET ME KNOW WHO'S AVAILABLE OR NOT OR THUMBS UP RIGHT NOW IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. WE'LL LOOK AT IT. I MEAN, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I WASN'T GOING, I WAS THINKING ABOUT BRINGING IT UP, BUT I'M LIKE, WELL, IT'S BEEN A LONG MEETING. YEAH. SO BUT I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT, LIKE, WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD CHANGE IT, BUT MAYBE WE COULD DISCUSS THAT OUR I THINK WE CAN HAVE SOME GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING. OKAY. I THINK I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE COMMISSION A CHANCE TO. WE CAN ALL TALK ABOUT IT TOGETHER, ACTUALLY, IN A PUBLIC MEETING AND NOT JUST IN THE HALLWAYS OR WHATEVER. SO OKAY, WE'LL PUT IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM THEN FOR MARCH'S MEETING. IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYONE? I THOUGHT WE ALREADY MOVED TO 630. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. I DID EMAIL ANN AND ASKED. I WAS LIKE, JUST FOR CLARITY. SO YEAH, FOR SURE. 
          OKAY, DO WE REALLY NEED A MONTH? NO. WELL, I IT'S JUST 1015 SO I BUT IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS ARE ALL COOL WITH IT WOULD ONLY BE 915 IF WE MOVED. I MEAN 45. YEAH. YEAH, I'D BE IN FAVOR. OKAY. ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF OUR, OUR MEETINGS LATELY HAVE GONE QUITE LONG WITH, WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO I THINK IT MAKES IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND WE ARE MISSING ONE MEMBER TONIGHT. SO MAYBE WHAT I'LL HAVE AN DO. I'LL HAVE HER SEND OUT A THING ABOUT THE FEBRUARY 23RD, AS WELL AS JUST, HEY, CAN YOU GIVE US A RESPONSE IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE 630 START TIME? AND THEN ASSUMING THAT TIA IS ALSO AVAILABLE AT 630, THAT WON'T CAUSE HER PROBLEMS, WE CAN THEN WORK WITH LEGAL AND WHATEVER ELSE WE NEED TO DO TO FORMALLY MOVE OUR MEETING TIME, IF THAT'S WHAT WE DO. SOUNDS GOOD, I OBJECT. YEAH, OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU ALL FOR WANTING TO PUSH THAT THROUGH. I WAS JUST DIDN'T KNOW. SO THANK YOU EVERYONE. IS THAT EVERYTHING? YEAH. OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT MEETING NEXT MONTH, WE DO MARCH 3RD. WE DO HAVE A SIMILAR AGENDA. IT'S FULL, BUT PROBABLY FEWER PUBLIC HEARINGS. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. AND MAYBE 630. ALL RIGHT,
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.