Aug 04, 2026 Planning Commission

I AM COMMISSIONER EILER AND AUGUST 4TH, 2026 MEETING. I APPRECIATE

[1. Call To Order]

[00:00:06]

[Minutes: July 07, 2026]

ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND THAT? SECONDED. PERFECT. WE CAN JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. SO EVERYONE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. I. OOPS, I FORGOT IT. SO, NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM AND

[3.I. PUD26-003: Planned Unit Development for Higham Riverfront Townhomes for approximately 2.7 acres in the SE ¼ of Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of Higham Street, east of the Snake River, south of Presto Street, and west of Latah Avenue.]

[00:05:07]

I BELIEVE WE WERE REQUIRED ONLY TO PROVIDE ONE, BUT WE, JUST KIND OF THE TIGHT NATURE OF A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. WE WANTED TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS, A DEDICATED SPACE OUTSIDE, TO ACCOMMODATE. I ALSO WANTED TO JUST EXPRESS OUR INTENT TO, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. I REACHED OUT TO THEM, AND WORKING ON IMPLEMENTING ANY CHANGES THEY RECOMMEND, BOTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE ON THAT. THAT, WHAT I BELIEVE IS LIKE AN OLD RIGHT OF WAY. AND SOUTH OR WEST OF THE CUL DE SAC, WHERE THERE'S NOT PLANNED TO BE ANY MORE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. SO THAT'S, THOSE ARE A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO STRESS. OVERALL, TO SUMMARIZE, I, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. HAD A REALLY GOOD EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS HERE. AND SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT. AND WE'RE JUST EXCITED TO HEAR YOUR GUYS'S FEEDBACK AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. JUST WAIT JUST THERE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. AT THE BOTTOM. IT SHOWS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A VACATED EASEMENT. IS THAT GOING TO BE SUBSUMED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL. YES. OKAY. AND SO MY SURVEYORS WORKING ON THAT MENTIONED THAT SHORTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER. I WANT TO THANK OUR APPLICANT FOR GIVING SUCH A THOROUGH PRESENTATION. THE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THIS FOR TONIGHT FOR THE REQUESTED ACTION IS RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PUD TO THE MARION CITY COUNCIL. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THIS THIS LOT HAS KIND OF BEEN THROUGH A LOT FOR THIS PARCEL. IT WAS ORIGINALLY ANNEXED IN 1891. DE-ANNEXED AND ANNEXED AND THEN ALSO CLEANED UP, THROUGHOUT THE EARLY 1900S IT'S BEEN ZONED R1, R2, PD, WHICH IS PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS AND ATTEMPT TO ZONE TO LLC. THAT DID NOT WORK OUT. AND THEN IT'S BACK TO OUR, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED AS PART OF THE HIGHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION. AND THEN WAS REPLATTED IN THE EARLY 80S, AS PART OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT TO THE RIGHT. BUT AS OF TODAY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS STILL UNDEVELOPED.

SO IT'S GONE THROUGH ALL THESE CHANGES, BUT STILL IS NOT DEVELOPED. THAT, AS MR. PRESIDENT STATED, THAT PD INCLUDES 41 INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS ON ABOUT 2.7 ACRES, WHICH IS JUST A LITTLE OVER 15 UNITS PER ACRE, TO HAVE ANY, ANY DWELLING SITE HAS TO FRONT A PUBLIC STREET UNLESS IN A PD. SO ONE OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED IS TO ALLOW FOR THE PRIVATE STREET THAT THESE BLOCKS WILL HAVE FRONT OF TIME, IN THIS CASE RIVER FRONTAGE BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE 20 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ALONG HIGHAM. DOWN TO 15. SOME OF THIS WAS TO GIVE MORE SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ANOTHER IS THAT THERE'S A JUST CONSTRAINT IN, IN THE SHAPE AND THE WAY, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS. WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT TO MAKE UP FOR THAT WITH SOME ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, BE ADDED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, THE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SECOND AMENITY AND PUTTING THEIR STORMWATER UNDERGROUND TO

[00:10:01]

AND THE REASON I ASK FOR THAT, I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT, SOMETIMES THESE THINGS NEVER REALLY DEVELOP FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND SO WE RUN INTO PROBLEMS WHEN, WE DON'T DOCUMENT WITH SOME SPECIFICITY WHAT THOSE VARIANCES REALLY ARE AND EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE DEVELOPER. SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY IN EXACTLY WHAT THOSE ENHANCED REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE SO THAT WHEN IT GETS IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE APPROVING, RIGHT? SO THE THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER TO FIVE FOOT REDUCTION TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME KIND OF EQUIVALENCE, BROUGHT FORWARD. THEY AGAIN, THEY HAVE PROPOSED THE SECOND AMENITY, BUT THAT WOULD BE UP FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE ■WHETHER THAT IS SUFFICIENT. SO IT'S NOT AN EXACT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. BUT IN THIS CASE WITH THE PUD BEING SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE, I AM GOING TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION PERHAPS DISCUSS THE SECOND AMENITY AND THEN GIVE COUNCIL YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR WHAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. I THINK IT WAS JUST A REQUEST FOR SOME CLARIFICATION ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WHEN IT GETS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, THEN, I'D LIKE TO SEE PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD BE DOCUMENTED EXACTLY WHAT THAT RECOMMENDATION REALLY IS. SO WHEN IT GETS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE APPROVING. YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. BUT SO AGAIN, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS MAYBE, MORE, MORE TREES. THEY PROVIDED THIS AMENITY TO SOME ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. THEY'RE ALSO WORKING WITH PARKS ON THE WEST BORDER TO MAYBE FILL IN THAT VACANT, THE VACANT AREA BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND, WILLOW CREEK. SO THEY ARE WORKING ON SOME THINGS, BUT WHETHER THOSE THINGS ARE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE UP FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE BUFFER IS GOING TO BE UP TO THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL. PRETTY MUCH LIKE WE GET TO HASH IT OUT ESSENTIALLY ON WHAT WE THINK IS EFFICIENT OR NOT. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE DOCUMENTED. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S A CONCERN.

IS THAT IT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WERE TO ENHANCED AND SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING. THERE WAS A LITTLE VAGUE TO ME AND I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME MORE SPECIFICITY IN THAT. EXACTLY WHAT THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE SECOND AMENITY IS AND, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON WHAT IS THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, RIGHT? SO THE, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IS THE TREE EVERY 30FT ALONG THE

[00:15:11]

AND THEN THERE ARE TWO AMENITIES ARE THE DOG PARK AND THE COMMUNITY GARDEN. AND THEY ALSO HAVE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HELPS, COMMISSIONER STONER, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE THIS PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION CONNECTING TO THE RIVERWALK INTO FREEMAN PARK TO RIVERWALK.

BUT AGAIN, WHETHER THAT'S SUFFICIENT WILL BE UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO I DON'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD TOO FAR INTO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION, BUT I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED WAS THE CONCERN AROUND THE LOCATION OF THE DOG PARK. SO I THINK AS A MEANS OF ENHANCING OUR LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE AN AUDITORY BUFFER, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DOG PARK ON THAT FENCE LINE IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN, GETS US A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD WITH THE WITH THE ENHANCEMENTS. AND THEN THANK YOU FOR CALLING OUT THE ACCESS TO THE PATHWAY. I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT AS WELL. SO THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE. ACTUALLY I DO HAVE ONE. THE LANDSCAPE, THE BUFFER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE, AND THE ROAD. CORRECT. YEAH. IT'S RIGHT ON HIGHLAND STREET. SO ALONG THE PUBLIC STREET DUDES ARE REQUIRED. A LARGER 20 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. RATHER THAN WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE IS 15FT. GOTCHA. MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. OKAY, WELL, NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WHEN YOU COME UP TO GIVE YOUR COMMENTS JUST TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, TRY TO KEEP IT FIVE, TEN MINUTES AND, IT'S, UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT A Q&A, SO JUST A, YOU KNOW, SAY YOUR CONCERNS AND WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS THEM LATER IN THE MEETING IS THE BEST WE CAN. SO, WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. ANY TAKERS? THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DOCTOR FALLBROOK. MY ADDRESS IS 1405, NUMBER FOUR, PRESTON STREET. I LIVED IN THIS COMPLEX FOR OVER 35 YEARS. I'VE SEEN MANY CHANGES THAT SAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IT'S AN OXYMORON, BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. I DID RETAIN, LEGAL COUNSEL AND HE SAID THE BEST THING THAT YOU COULD DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS, HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO WHAT THEY SAY IN THIS DOCUMENT. AND IF THEY START CARRYING IT, THEN WE HAVE SOME RECOURSE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MY NAME IS PAUL WHITE WITH 1435 PRESTON STREET, APARTMENT NUMBER FOUR. I'VE BEEN THERE NOW FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS, AND, I HAD SOME INVOLVEMENT IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT REZONING.

PERSONALLY, I'M VERY PLEASED WITH THIS PLAN. AND, THE WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING, PRESENTATION SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AND I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE CLARITY OF THE PRESENTATION.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL FIT INTO THE AREA. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CONNECTIONS AROUND THE EDGES, I THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE DOING WELL WITH THEM. SO THE, THE FACT THAT THE COOPERATION AND THE COMMUNICATION, MAKES ME VERY HAPPY WITH IT. SO THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I MEAN, SINCE YOU'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MATTHEW MEEHAN. I LIVE AT 1415

[00:20:03]

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NO. OKAY, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WANT TO YEAH, START ADDRESSING THIS LANDSCAPE BUFFER. I WILL SAY, BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I DO LOVE THE CONNECTIVITY TO JUST THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PARK AND THE TRAILS THERE AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ADDING A SIDEWALK RIGHT THERE JUST TO CONNECT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE, TO THE TRAIL GOING TO THE SPUR ROUTE PER SE. IT'S ALL VERY, VERY GOOD. AND THE ALLEY LOAD, WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY HERE? THE ALLEY LOAD UNITS IS VERY NICE. ESPECIALLY ALONG THESE ROADS. I DON'T HAVE A PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE UNITS BEING CLOSER TO HIGH END STREET. JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS IS LITERALLY A CUL DE SAC RIGHT HERE AND IT'S FACING A BUSINESS. IT'S NOT EVEN FACING OTHER RESIDENTIAL. SO I, IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE TO CREATE A MORE NORTHERN BUFFER. I'M COOL WITH THAT. HOWEVER, I DO THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE LANDSCAPING, LIKE WHETHER IT BE MORE TREES OR, MAYBE JUST WHATEVER. AND WE FIGURE OUT, WHAT EXACTLY THE DEVELOPER NEEDS TO DO, AND THEN WE CAN MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO THAT WAY WE CAN SATISFY THE, THE CLARITY ASPECT. SO I'LL START WITH THAT. AND ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE A STAB AT IT. ANY IDEAS? I'LL JUMP IN.

I, I TOO AM IN FAVOR OF THIS, APPROVAL OF THIS PUD. THERE ARE SOME VERY, I'M GOING TO SAY DELIGHTFUL, CONNECTIVITY ISSUES. I'M NOT BOTHERED BY THE REDUCTION IN THE, IN THE, LANDSCAPING OR NOT LANDSCAPE, BUT, BUT THE, BUFFER ALONG THE STREET. SO, BUT AS NOTED EARLIER IN MY COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY. SPECIFICITY, IN WHAT THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WILL BE. AND AGAIN, THE LOCATION OF THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE STAFF. I THINK AS A MEANS TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC ALREADY REGARDING ANTICIPATED SOUND OR NOISE TRAVELING FROM THE DOG PARK, I THINK REQUIRING, SOME ADDITIONAL VEGETATION BUFFER ON THAT, ON THAT NORTH PORTION ADJACENT TO THE FENCE WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT. AND THEN CONSIDERATION TO THE SOUTHWEST SIDE AS WELL AS WE WERE LOOKING. SO ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M MAYBE NEED TO LOOK AT IS WILL THE SIDEWALK CONNECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH AS WELL? THERE'S SORT OF A LITTLE, OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THERE'S A. YEAH. SO THERE'S AN

[00:25:06]

BUT AT LEAST STUB IN A SIDEWALK ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY SAYING, HEY, WE'RE WILLING TO PLAY BALL IF YOU WANT TO DO THE REST, YOU KNOW, JUST TO HOPEFULLY MAKE THAT CONNECTION.

I LIKE THAT IDEA JUST TO INCREASE WALKABILITY. SO THAT WAY PEOPLE AREN'T GOING ALL THE WAY AROUND AND FEEL LIKE THEY CAN'T TECHNICALLY GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ON THE SIDEWALK THERE.

BUT I MEAN, IT'S ROUGHLY 20FT. YEAH. SO I MEAN, I GUESS THEY COULD WALK ON THE GRASS, BUT JUST SHOW THE INTENTIONS OF TRYING TO DO A SIDEWALK THERE, YOU KNOW, TO EXTEND UP NORTH. I THINK, YEAH, WE NEED TO HAVE TREES ALONG THE NORTHERN BUFFER NOW SINCE IT IS A DOG PARK, WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS, DOGS URINATING ON THE TREES AND THEN KILLING THEM. IT'S BECAUSE IT IS A DOG PARK AND THEN THEY DIE AND THEN THE TREES DON'T GET REPLACED. I RECOMMEND THEM BE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE, RIGHT? PUT THEM BETWEEN THE EXISTING FENCE AND THEN THE I'M GUESSING, CHAIN LINK OR WHATEVER SORT OF, DESIGN THAT YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH. SO LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT A QUESTION WHERE SO THERE'S A FENCE RIGHT THERE, AN EXISTING FENCE. WERE YOU, WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO BE DOING ANOTHER FENCE OR HOW WAS THE DOG PARK IT. WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS THERE A SPACE BETWEEN AN EXISTING FENCE AND MAYBE A NEW FENCE FOR THE DOG PARK OR WHATEVER? YEAH. SO THE, THE, IT'S AN OLDER WOODEN FENCE ON THAT PROPERTY. SO FOR THE DOG PARK SPECIFICALLY, WE'D BE DOING, I'M NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS, BUT PROBABLY LIKE A CHAIN LINK FENCE OR SOMETHING. SO THAT WOULD BE A FENCE. AND THEN ALONG THE REMAINDER OF THAT, WE WEREN'T PROPOSING A NEW FENCE FOR THAT. AND JUST VISUALLY IT MIGHT SEEM LIKE, YEAH, SEEM BETTER TO HAVE ONE. THAT'S RIGHT. FOR SURE. SO, SO THE CHAIN LINK THEN, FOR THE DOG PARK, WOULD IT THEN BE POSSIBLE TO MAYBE HAVE IT LIKE EIGHT FEET BACK OR EVEN SIX FEET BACK FROM THE. SO THAT WAY WE COULD CLIMB TREES OUT THERE. SURE. YEAH. YEAH, I WOULD PUT THOSE OUTSIDE SO WE CAN ADJUST THAT AS NEEDED TO KEEP THOSE TREES ALIVE. YEAH. YEAH, THAT, SWEET. THANK YOU. WHAT SHOULD WE SPECIFY? WHAT TYPE OF TREE OR SHOULD WE LET THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE. OKAY. I MEAN, I AM A TREE NERD MYSELF, BUT I MEAN, BUT I THINK THEY KNOW MORE THAN I. MAYBE. WHAT, NOT A BRADFORD PEAR. THANK YOU.

[00:30:05]

OH, AND ONE OTHER THING. ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. YOU WERE SAYING BETWEEN HIGH END STREET AND THEN THE JUST GOING ALONG THAT LITTLE SPUR ROUTE THERE, WHERE THE EXISTING. YEAH. RIGHT THERE. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE VACATED. WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VEGETATION? BECAUSE I SEE YOU HAVE TREES OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE ESSENTIALLY.

WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? SO THAT'S SOMETHING I AM TRYING TO GET, FIGURED OUT WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE, THAT'S RIGHT AWAY. I, I THINK THE EASIEST WAY FOR US TECHNICALLY WOULD JUST BE NOT TO PUT ANY TREES IN THERE ON OUR PART, BUT I THINK THIS MAKES MORE SENSE. LIKE THIS IS NICER FOR EVERYONE. SO THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF FIGURING THAT OUT WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. BECAUSE, I THINK, I THINK THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISCUSS LIKE KIND OF WHAT THE END GOAL IS FOR THAT AREA BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF, IT'S NOT BEING MAINTAINED RIGHT NOW. SO YOU MENTIONED. SO, I DON'T HAVE A SUPER GREAT ANSWER FOR YOU ON WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WANTING TO PROVIDE AS MANY TREES AS WE, AS WE NEED TO. SO EVEN IF THEY DON'T END UP IN THEM RIGHT AWAY, THEY'LL END UP SOMEWHERE ELSE. OKAY. GOTCHA. OKAY. SWEET. THANK YOU. AND THEN I KNOW THIS IS SUPER, SUPER SPECIFIC. IT CAN GET SUPER DARK IN THIS AREA AT NIGHT WITH OUR PLANS TO PUT IN AT LEAST JUST A STREET LIGHT AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW RESIDENTS WOULD FEEL. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, NOW THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING THERE, PEOPLE CAN EASILY WALK IN AND OUT OF OFF THE GREENBELT AND JUST KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW, SAFETY REALLY, JUST AT NIGHT, JUST BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE AREAS MORE LIT UP, IT JUST FEELS SAFER. SURE. WERE THERE.

I CAN'T SEE IN THE SATELLITE VIEW IF THERE'S A STREET LIGHT OR NOT. WERE THERE ANY CONSIDERATIONS WITH JUST LIGHTING IN THAT ASPECT BECAUSE IT IS MORE PEDESTRIAN FOCUSED? A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE TO WALK AT NIGHT. NOT CURRENTLY. I CAN MAKE A NOTE OF IT IF, YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN YOUR APPLICATION. I'M HAPPY TO, PURSUE THAT. I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY JUST BE THE ONE LIGHT I THINK SO, YEAH. WHY NOT? IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER WE END UP DOING ON SITE. SO. OKAY. MR. CHAIR. YES. LOOKING AT STREET VIEW AND OUR GIS, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE ARE STREET LIGHTS ALONG. I AM WITH ONE STREET LIGHT AT THE POLE AT THE CUL DE SAC SUITE.

OKAY, OKAY, SO WHEN IT COMES TO OUR ON SITE LIGHTING, WE CAN PROVIDE WHAT MAY BE, WHERE THAT TRAIL CONNECTS TO, TO THE SPUR. YEAH. SWEET. NO. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE GOOD. OH, YEAH. THERE'S THE LIGHTS. OKAY. ON SATELLITE VIEW, THEY JUST LOOK LIKE NORMAL TELEPHONE POLES. SO SWEET. YEAH. AWESOME. OKAY. WE WON'T. YEAH, I WON'T WORRY ABOUT THE LIGHTING THEN IF, IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO SWEET. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. HOW DO WE WANT TO WRITE UP THE TO MAKE SURE IT'S VERY SPECIFIC ON WHAT WE WANT? I'M NOT A LAWYER. YOU USED TO BE.

WHAT'S YOUR IDEA CURRENTLY? I DON'T KNOW. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST ONE OF YOU TWO SHOULD DO THAT. OH, NO. SO LET ME ASK CARRIE. CARRIE, DO WE IF WE WANT TO, DOES IT HAVE TO BE PART OF LIKE SAID ALL ONE THING OR DO WE WRITE UP OR JUST SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC? AND THEN WHEN WE MAKE THE MOTION, DO WE JUST ATTACH IT TO THAT MOTION? HOW HOW WOULD THAT WORK, MR. CHAIR? THROUGH YOU, YOU COULD DO IT ANY OF THOSE WAYS. GENERALLY YOU WOULD INCLUDE ANY CONDITIONS AS PART OF YOUR MOTION. OKAY. YOU KNOW, MOTION FOR EITHER APPROVAL WITH THESE CONDITIONS IS NORMALLY HOW YOU WOULD SEE THAT. OKAY. IF I COULD ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, MAYBE THAT I'VE BEEN MEASURING AND DOING A LITTLE BIT OF NUMBER CRUNCHING FOR YOU. THE DISTANCE ALONG HIGH END STREET IN THE SQUARE, FOOTAGE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT FIVE FEET OF LANDSCAPE EQUALS ABOUT 775FT■!S. THAT WOUD BE BURIED. THE ADDITION OF THE

[00:35:01]

YEAH. WAS THE THE 16 TREES, HOW WAS THAT? I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE DISTANCE ALONG THE INTERNAL STREET NETWORK. WHAT NORMALLY YOU WOULD SEE TREES ALL ALONG THE PRIVATE STREETS. CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. OKAY. SO NOT, NOT INCLUDING THE. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THAT CALCULATED, BUT IT'S NOT INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY. SO YOU WOULD SAY INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAYS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. CORRECT. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT SLIGHTLY LOOSE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION AND ALONG THE FENCE LINE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. SO IT'S COHERENT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GIVE THIS A GO. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS. THE HIGH END RIVERFRONT TOWNHOMES, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED VEGETATION, UP TO 16 TREES AS TO BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ALONG THE NORTHERN BUFFER AND OR TO THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. I'LL SECOND. SECOND. YEAH. PERFECT. VERY WELL DONE. THANK YOU ALL.

THAT SOUNDED GREAT. WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER EILER, I COMMISSIONER, I COMMISSIONER STORE I. MOTION PASSED. GOOD JOB EVERYONE. SO, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING ADDITIONAL WITH THIS ONE, RIGHT? YEAH. OH, THAT'S THE THE URBAN RENEWAL THING. SO.

OKAY. SWEET. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT. AND, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S HELP TODAY WITH CITY STAFF ASKING RESIDENTS. SO, COMMISSIONERS, YOU ARE WELCOME BACK. OH YEAH.

THAT WAS A GOOD TEAM MEMBER THERE. OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO DIVE INTO THE ANNEXATION AND

[3.II. ANX26-006: Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M, Industrial and Manufacturing for approximately 4.482 acres in the E ½ of Section 8, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of N Yellowstone Hwy, east of the Idaho Canal, south of E Iona Road, and west of N 15 th East.]

NORTH OF YELLOWSTONE. THERE WE GO. IT'S ON THE MAP. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? THANK YOU. NOT THE APPLICANT. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE. SURE. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. MY NAME IS

[00:40:03]

THEY, WE NOTICED INITIALLY THAT THEY HAD INCLUDED THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THEY WERE EXTREMELY QUICK AND WILLING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. SO IT WAS BEEN A PLEASANT EXPERIENCE AS A, AS A PLANNER. WE, THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY AND, OR TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL, THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING AND INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING OF THE 4.42 ACRES ON NORTH 15TH STREET. I GUESS, IT FITS WITHIN OUR COMP PLAN. IT IS SIMILAR TO ALL OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT. THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED IS BEING DEVELOPED. I THINK WE JUST HAVE A SITE PLAN NOW, SO BEING DEVELOPED AROUND THE SAME TIME AND IT WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT AS WELL, SO IT WON'T GET DIRECT ACCESS ON NORTH 15TH, WHICH, IT FITS WITHIN OUR INDUSTRIAL SECTOR OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR TO EVERYTHING AROUND IT. CURRENTLY I AM THREE IN THE COUNTY AND WE'LL BE SITTING, THAT IS ALL I HAVE UNLESS YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAD ONE QUESTION, WITH RESPECT TO THAT ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY, WHY DID WE END UP WITH A LITTLE JOG ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF IT? SO THIS PORTION WAS ANNEXED IN WITH THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION JUST TO THE SOUTH OF IT. SO THERE'S A WEIRD LITTLE KIND OF, ACTUALLY THIS WAS ANNEXED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WAS ANNEXED IN WITH THE FIRE STATION RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

AND SO IT WENT ALL THE WAY ACROSS AND JUST LEFT A WEIRD LITTLE TEN, 15FT. THAT WASN'T ANNEXED NORTH OF IT. GOT IT. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY TAKERS? NO, NO. OKAY. THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF TALKING IN A MINUTE. SO I THINK YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY, THEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND, SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS? NO. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION? PERFECT. I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THE ANNEXATION, INITIAL ZONING OF INM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING FOR THIS PROPERTY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND THAT SECOND? PERFECT. WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MEEHAN, I I I I I I MOTION

[4.I. Resolution Validating Conformity Of The Urban Renewal Plan For The Proposed Willow Creek Urban Renewal Plan With The City Of Idaho Falls’ Comprehensive Plan.]

[00:45:03]

AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PART OF THAT STATUTE, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY THE VERY BEGINNING, THE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS IN THIS CASE, IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO, TO SEE THE PLAN OF RESOLUTION, THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED IN THIS DISTRICT INCLUDE, THE ROCK BLASTING AND REMOVAL, WHICH IS VERY COMMON IN THIS AREA, THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET NETWORKS, UTILITY NETWORKS, AND THEN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THERE AT HOLMES AND ANDERSON. IT MAY ALSO INCLUDE THINGS LIKE DEMOLITION OF DETERIORATED BUILDINGS. AND, BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AS WELL.

SO OUTLINED IN RED IS THE PROPOSED DISTRICT. THIS IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOLMES IN ANDERSON. SO TO THE WEST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THIS IS THE STANLEY BOGAN DISTRICT AS WELL.

THERE'S ACTUALLY SEVERAL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS IN THIS AREA. WHICH WE'LL GO INTO WHY WE DO SMALL ONES AND NOW INSTEAD OF VERY LARGE ONES, BUT THERE'S ONE, THERE'S ONE RIGHT NEXT TO IT. THERE'S SOME BUSH ELEMENTARY WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE BEING BUILT. AND THEN THERE'S ONE JUST EAST OF HERE ON THE FORMER FRED MEYER SITE AND WHERE YOU SEE SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS THERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE HIGHWAY. AND, ANDERSON, I GUESS AT THAT POINT IT'S LINCOLN. THE ROAD CHANGES NAMES SO MANY TIMES. THE PRIMARY SITE HERE IS IN THE CENTER THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. OVERALL, IT'S ABOUT 100 ACRES. THERE'S, SOME EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE PERIMETER, SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDEVELOPMENT, CERTAINLY.

AND, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE ACREAGE. I WANT TO SAY IT'S, IT'S ROUGHLY, 60 OF THE 100 ACRES ARE AVAILABLE FOR, FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT HERE IN THE CENTER. THE THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT, AS I MENTIONED, AN ELIGIBILITY REPORT TO BE CONDUCTED TO SEE IF THE AREA MEETS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE 15, IN THE AREA ONLY HAS TO BE ONE. IN THIS CASE, THE ELIGIBILITY STUDY THAT WAS PREPARED BY ANDY, FOUND THAT THERE WERE 11 CRITERIA THAT WERE MET. AND THOSE ARE LISTED HERE. ONE OF THE MAIN ONES, AGAIN, AS IS COMMON IN THIS AREA IS THE UNSUITABLE TOPOGRAPHY. THERE'S A LOT OF SURFACE AREA BASALT THAT HAS TO BE REMEDIATED. AND THAT IS A DETRIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO THOSE BOTTOM TWO CRITERIA, ECONOMIC ISSUES. AND UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPAIRING THE GROWTH OF THE MUNICIPALITY. SO HOW DOES THIS CONFORM WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S GOT A COUPLE OF DESIGNATIONS FROM THE COMP PLAN. ONE IS THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION AS WELL AS THE GENERAL URBAN. AND JUST AGAIN, I WON'T READ ALL OF THESE. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE IDEA. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS? BUT, THIS IS AN AREA THAT ANTICIPATES ALL VARIETIES OF INDUSTRIAL OPERATION, MANUFACTURING AND GENERALLY NEAR MAJOR ROADWAYS, WHICH THIS IS. AND THEN GENERAL URBAN IS A REAL MIX OF RESIDENTIAL. YOU MAY HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE THAT PROVIDES DAILY GOODS AND SERVICES AGAIN, NEAR, HIGHLY CONNECTED, AND NEAR EXISTING OR PART OF THE NEW

[00:50:09]

I'M SORRY, BUT IF YOU'LL NOTICE, I THINK IT'S THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. YEAH, I CAN'T EVEN READ IT MYSELF. SORRY. IT, IT TALKS ABOUT SOME KEY INFILL SITES AND THAT CIRCLE IS RIGHT AROUND THIS DISTRICT. AND SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THAT THIS, THIS SPECIFIC AREA IS IDENTIFIED AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS NEEDING A, SOME INFILL DEVELOPMENT, OR BEING PRIMED FOR IT IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC POLICIES WITHIN AREA FOUR, THERE WEREN'T ANY THAT SPECIFICALLY RELATE TO THAT I COULD FIND OTHER THAN THIS ONE IS THE, THE PLAN SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR EXPLORING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, WHICH IS THE TOOL FOR THAT, AND OTHER GRANTS AND OTHER GRANT FINANCING PROGRAMS TO FOCUS ON REDEVELOPMENT OF THESE THESE AREAS THAT STRUGGLE. SO IN SUMMARY, OVERALL, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FEELS THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN TERMS THAT IT'S PROMOTING INFILL DEVELOPMENT OVER SPRAWL, THAT IT DOES UTILIZE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM AS A STRATEGIC REINVESTMENT TOOL, AND THAT IT ADVANCES SOME OF THOSE KEY CONNECTIVITY AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MISSING IN THAT AREA. SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR BRAD? NO. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY THOUGHTS, CONCERNS, ISSUES? JUST A BRIEF COMMENT. AND MY COMMENT WILL PROBABLY, DISCLOSE WHAT AN OLD DINOSAUR I REALLY AM. I REMEMBER THE DAYS WHEN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS WERE JUST BEGINNING TO BE ADOPTED. I REMEMBER THE THE CONSTERNATION, PARTICULARLY FROM THE COUNTY, ABOUT, RUBBING TAX REVENUES

[00:55:06]

WE GET CONSTANT COMMENTARY FROM THE PUBLIC ON, YOU KNOW, PROMOTING INFILL RATHER THAN SPRAWL, NOT TAKING UP AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT WE CAN NEVER, YOU KNOW, GET BACK ONCE IT'S DEVELOPED. AND WE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST THINKING OF SOME RECENT ITEMS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COME BEFORE US AND WE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH WHO WANTED MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UP IN THAT DIRECTION. WHERE WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY FOR QUITE A LONG TIME IN THIS CORRIDOR. AND, YOU KNOW, MORE AND MORE, WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA GO OUT TO THE CITY OF AMMON, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOWN. THIS IS THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WAYS WHERE WE CAN PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY AND, AND REDEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT REALLY COULD USE IT. SO I'M IN FAVOR AS WELL.

FOR SURE. ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IF I MAY JUST ADD ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT, I REMEMBER MANY, MANY AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE DEVELOPMENT JUST WAS NOT OCCURRING AND THE REASON WASN'T OCCURRING IS IT JUST FRANKLY WAS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND THE FUNDS WERE NOT THERE. AND THE PROPERTIES TYPICALLY HAD SOME FEATURE OR FEATURES THAT REALLY PRECLUDED DEVELOPMENT.

AND I THINK THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS HAVE MET THAT GAP. AND YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SITES, AREAS IN THE CITY THAT WE NOW HAVE DEVELOPED THAT SAT THERE FOR YEARS. SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITY. I THINK THAT'S A BIG PART OF THIS FOR ME. PROTECTED BIKE LANES IS SOMETHING THAT I'D REALLY LOVE TO SEE MORE OF WITHIN DEVELOPMENT. AND IF AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS CITIES I'VE EVER BIKED IN MY LIFE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, BUT NON PROTECTED BIKE LANES IS A BIG PART OF THAT. SO, CONNECTIVITY TO THIS AREA IS, IS KEY. MAYBE JUST A POINT THAT I NOTICED ON THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT. I BELIEVE THERE'S A SPELLING ERROR. NOT REALLY SURE IF THAT MATTERS, BUT LINCOLN AND HOLMES I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HOLMES. CONSIDERING THAT'S THE EXHIBIT USED FOR THIS. MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.

I. HAVE ALWAYS FELT LIKE THIS AREA HAS JUST BEEN A GIANT BLOCK IN THE CITY THAT YOU HAVE TO GO AROUND AND TO FINALLY SEE IT WOVEN INTO THE STREET FABRIC. CITY STREET FABRIC IS GOOD IN MY EYES. SO, YEP, I'M ALL FOR IT TOO. SO. AND I FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EASILY. SO, YEAH, I NOTICED ON THE MAP TOO, IT SAID HOLMES INSTEAD OF WITHOUT THE L. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT OR IF THAT CAN JUST BE ADDRESSED IN CITY COUNCIL, OR IF THAT CAN JUST BE FIXED BETWEEN NOW AND, THE CITY COUNCIL, IS IT JUST I WANT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S GOOD ON THE. YEAH, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY IT ANYWHERE ON THE RESOLUTION.

SO I I THINK IT SHOULD BE FINE AS LONG AS IT'S CORRECTED BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. SO WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. OKAY. SWEET. AWESOME. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL BE HAPPY TO TACKLE THIS ONE SINCE IT'S AN EASY ONE. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED WILLOW CREEK URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. AND, FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND THAT? SECONDED. PERFECT. WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL.

VOTE, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER MEEHAN, A PANTHER I I I SCALES, I STORE I MOTION PASSED. SWEET.

OKAY, WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. THANK YOU. I WILL SIGN THIS REAL QUICK SO I DON'T FORGET.

FOR SIGNATURE. OKAY. GOING TO MM SORRY. SORRY. WE JUST BY WAY OF PROCESS, WHEN YOU ADOPT A

[01:00:09]

[5.I. Starter Home Subdivisions – Senate Bill No. 1352]

BUT WE DO WANT TO BRING TO THEM THAT WE BROUGHT THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND KIND OF GOT YOUR THOUGHTS AS WELL. SO IN YOUR PACKET, YOU DID SEE A LOT OF TEXT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OVER IT QUITE, BUT WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRED. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE ADDRESSED IN THAT STATUTE THAT WOULD MAKE IT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP, IN OUR, IN OUR, IMAGINE IF AND MIDDLE HOUSING. OF COURSE, THERE IS A LOT OF REASONS ON WHY WE SHOULD BE VERY THOUGHTFUL ON HOW WE ADOPT THIS. AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL CODES THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY THIS. SO THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION IS ON A PARCEL THAT OR AN AREA OF LAND THAT IS FOUR ACRES OR MORE. SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM THAT THESE ARE FOR DETACHED DWELLINGS. AND THEY MENTIONED THAT IN THE DEFINITION IN THE STATE STATUTE, THE CODE THE STATE ACTUALLY DOES KIND OF CONFLICT. BUT IT KIND OF SAYS A MAXIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1500FT■S. SO THAT'S LOT SIZE, NOT BUILDING A LOT. FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS CAN'T EXCEED 15FT. SIDE SETBACKS CAN'T EXCEED FIVE FEET, LOT WIDTHS CAN'T EXCEED 30FT, AND LOT DEPTHS CAN'T EXCEED 70FT. YES. MAY I? YES. WOULD IT BE CLEARER TO SAY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS, WIDTHS, AND DEPTHS CAN'T EXCEED THESE NUMBERS? THE. SORRY. SAY IT AGAIN. MY READING OF THE OF THE LAW SAYS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY CAN IMPOSE ON SETBACKS, LOT WIDTHS, AND DEPTHS CAN'T EXCEED THESE NUMBERS. NOT THAT THE LOTS THEMSELVES CAN'T EXCEED THESE DIMENSIONS. WELL, SO THE CODE READS THE STATE STATUTE. AND NOT TO GET TOO TECHNICAL, IN THE DEFINITION IT SAYS, STARTER HOMES. IT SAYS HOMEOWNER HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS ON SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE NO GREATER THAN 1500FT■S. AND THEN DOWN BELOW, IT SAYS REQUIRING MINIMUM LOT SIZES, PROHIBIT REQUIRING MINIMUM LOT SIZES EXCEEDING 1500FT■S. SO IT SAYS BOTH. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU THE SECTION I'M LOOKING AT IF IT'S HELPFUL.

IT'S, I THINK IT'S JUST BELOW THAT. AND MAYBE THIS IS AN EARLIER VERSION BASED ON THIS, BUT I'M LOOKING AT SENATE BILL NUMBER 1352, AS AMENDED, AS AS AMENDED. OKAY. YEP. AND THEN I MEAN, 67, 65, 41, TWO D AND THEN IT SAYS PROHIBIT REQUIRING LOT DEPTHS EXCEEDING. THIS. THE

[01:05:01]

AND THIS IS A PUBLIC STREET. AND SO WE KIND OF DID SOME QUICK MATH. THIS IS ABOUT FOUR ACRES, 3.95 WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THERE ARE 53 UNITS IN THIS, WHICH EQUALS ABOUT 13.4 UNITS PER ACRE. AND THE TYPICAL LOT DIMENSIONS WERE 20 TO 30FT WIDE BY 70 FOOT DEPTH. SO THIS IS AND WHERE IF YOU DO A PUBLIC STREET, YOU PROBABLY AGAIN DO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RIGHT AWAY. HEAT UP COLD CUL DE SAC. THESE KIND OF WE OUR ROUGH ESTIMATE IS THAT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ABOUT 30%. THAT WOULD TAKE UP. SO THIS IS MIGHT BE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. OF COURSE, THESE ARE ATTACHED. AND THE CODE TALKS ABOUT DETACHED. BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE. THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED A FEW YEARS AGO BUT NEVER MOVED FORWARD. THIS WAS CALLED INNOVATION POINT. HERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC STREETS. THESE ARE ALL PUBLIC STREETS. AND THEN IT HAD PRIVATE ALLEYS. THESE GENERAL AND THESE WERE FOR DETACHED GENERAL LOT DIMENSIONS ABOUT 45FT BY 85FT. AND THEY HAD, THIS WAS A TEN ZONE AND THEY HAD ABOUT 5.4 ACRES. WE DID THE MATH. IF THEY DID SMALLER LOTS, YOU COULD MAYBE DOUBLE WITH THE PUBLIC STREETS. AND THIS WAS ABOUT 40, 40 ACRES IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. SO THIS IS YOUR OWN HOMES IN 49. TAYLOR VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL RIGHT. RIGHT HERE. SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE THIS IS ABOUT FOUR ACRES COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION. NOW AGAIN IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLIC STREET. SO WE'RE NOT DOING CERTAIN SUBDIVISIONS AND PUDS THAT THESE ARE PLATTED LOTS ON PUBLIC STREETS. AND A TYPICAL RIGHT OF WAY FOR A LOCAL ROAD IS GOING TO BE 60FT. SO YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS HERE. BUT AGAIN, THE FIRE CODE IS GOING TO REQUIRE ON HOMES BUILT TO THE IVC THAT YOU CAN ONLY DO 30 UNITS BEFORE YOU HAVE A SECOND ACCESS. SO THAT KIND OF RUNS INTO SOME OF THE, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY SAFEGUARDS. JUST ALL THESE CODES APPLY. I WANTED TO BRING UP HERE, THIS IS A PUD, ON A PRIVATE STREET. THIS WAS SIX UNITS PER ACRE, WITH 30 TO 40 FOOT WIDTH AND THEN 100 FOOT DEPTH. JUST TO KIND OF SEE SOME OF THESE EXAMPLES. SO THE NEXT PART IS SOME OF IT DOESN'T, YOU MIGHT NOTICE THAT WHILE I DID ADDRESS SETBACKS LOT WITH LOT WIDTH AND DEPTH, IT DID NOT ADDRESS DENSITY, DOES NOT ADDRESS ADDRESS, LOT COVERAGE OR PARKING OR CAN IT? BECAUSE THE CODE DOES SAY WE CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. AND THE

[01:10:02]

WE WANTED TO BRING UP THIS EXAMPLE. SO THIS IS A, THIS IS IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. AND THESE ARE ON MUCH SMALLER LOTS, THAT WERE AND THEY WERE BUILT. SO THIS IS KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF IF YOU WERE TO DO 1500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, THESE HOMES ARE ABOUT 600FT■!S ON THOSE SMAL LOTS. THEY HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT. AND SO WE JUST THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE, LIKE MORE LINKS TO KIND OF STEER THE CONVERSATION. BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS SOME CONVERSATION OF WHAT YOU GUYS MIGHT THINK ABOUT DENSITY OR LOT COVERAGE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE CODES WE COULD CHANGE AS WELL TO FIT JUST TO START OUR HOME SUBDIVISION. SO ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOUR, LOOKS LIKE THE SIDE SETBACKS CAN'T EXCEED FIVE FEET. CORRECT. THE R3 A IS A SIX FOOT. RIGHT. SO DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO CONFORM TO YOUR CURRENT CODE OR DO YOU ADOPT OR WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SPECIFIC IF THEY WERE TO DO THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION. I THINK THE WAY WE ENVISION IT, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHERE THE PUD HAS ADDITIONAL STANDARDS IN THE CODE. WE WOULD HAVE STARTER, HOME STARTER, HOME SUBDIVISION WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE OF THE UD IS RIGHT IN THE TABLE, AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE A SECTION IN THE CODE WHERE WE OUTLINED. IF YOU'RE A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, YOUR SETBACK IS, YOU KNOW, X, Y, AND Z. AND WITHIN THE R3 A, IT WOULD BE TECHNICALLY A VARIANCE FROM THE SIX FOOT. CORRECT. IT WOULDN'T BE A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE THAT WOULD FOLLOW THIS. AND SO IT WOULD BE IF YOUR PUBLIC ROADS, LIKE YOU WOULD SEE IT AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT. COOL. THANKS FOR THE PROCESS. AND I JUST THOUGHT I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE LOT COVERAGE, RIGHT? 30, 40, 80%. THE SETBACKS ARE KIND OF SET. AND THEN THE DENSITY DOWN HERE. I, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT FOR THE LAST FIVE MONTHS NOW, AND IT'S STILL MAKES MY BRAIN FUZZY. SO THESE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION RULES WOULD REALLY ONLY, SUPERSEDE THIS. THE NORMAL RULES, IF A, THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO DO IT AND B IF IT'S ON FOUR ACRES OR MORE, THAT'S WHAT THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES. WE CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. WELL, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY IS PROPOSING CERTAIN ZONES THAT THEY MIGHT ALLOW IT TO BE TWO ACRES. OKAY. AND THEY'RE MORE HIGHER DENSITY ZONES. IT COULD BE TWO ACRES.

YEAH. SO AGAIN, WE CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL AND BE LIKE, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO? CAN YOU IMAGINE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT DENSITY OF THIS NATURE THAT WE WILL SEE IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES TO COMMISSION? YEAH. WELL, I'M THINKING BACK TO A RECENT MEETING WE HAD WHERE WE HAD SOME COUNTY NEIGHBORS HERE ON ONE ACRE LOTS WHO TOLD US THAT THE QUARTER ACRE LOTS WE WERE PROPOSING, WERE TOO DENSE. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF HOMES ON FOUR ACRES, RIGHT? LIKE IN LAND, THAT'S THE ONLY PARCELS THAT ARE GONNA BE BIG ENOUGH TO QUALIFY. AS WE SAW ON THE MAP, ARE THOSE ON THE EDGES OF THE CITY THAT ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, I THINK AT LEAST IN OUR IN OUR RESIDENTS MINDS, LEAST COMPATIBLE WITH THE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT THIS IS GOING TO PROMOTE. AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE BILL DOES NOT ADDRESS DENSITY, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REQUIRE US TO CHANGE DENSITY. SO IF YOU DO A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION AND ZONE AND DENSITY IS FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. THEY HAVE TO DO FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. THAT'S SO CONFUSING. YES. SO OKAY, SO YEAH, LET'S JUST RUN THROUGH A SCENARIO. IT'S RP RIGHT? THEY DON'T WANT TO REZONE IT. OKAY. SO THEIR TECHNIQUE. SO BASED OFF OF OUR RULES, BECAUSE THE LAW DOESN'T DISCUSS DENSITY, WE WOULD HAVE FOR 1500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. THAT DOESN'T WANT THE FOUR UNITS ON IT. WE WOULD. AND I THINK WE'RE INTERPRETING THAT

[01:15:07]

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT COULD WORK IS IF YOU COULD HAVE LOTS THAT ARE LARGER JUST BY THE NATURE OF LAND NOT BEING SQUARE AND HAVING SOME. MAYBE IF YOU WENT TO THE TAYLOR VIEW EXAMPLE, YOU COULD TALK THROUGH THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. AND I THINK, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS WE BROKE YOUR BRAIN THINKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE WHEN YOU APPLY OUR DENSITY, WE BREAK THE LEGISLATION, BUT WE MAKE THE LEGISLATION NON WORKABLE. AND THAT'S WHY YOUR BRAIN CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK.

SO THERE'S A LEGAL THERE'S A LEGAL WAY TO COMPLY WITHOUT COMPLYING. OKAY. IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU. LIKE WE CAN DO IT. WE CAN MEET THE STATE'S OBLIGATION WITHOUT DOING IT.

BUT IF WE LOOKED AT THIS EXAMPLE, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY ARE ZONED R1 OR R2 P. YOU'VE GOT LARGE COUNTY LOTS. YEAH. AND SO OUR EXPECTATION, THE COMP PLAN PROBABLY SAYS THIS AREA IS SUBURBAN OR MAYBE GENERAL URBAN, BECAUSE WE KNEW THIS PART OF THINGS WOULD SEE SOME REDEVELOPMENT. BUT REGARDLESS, THE MOST LIKELY ZONE THAT WOULD BE COME IN FRONT OF YOU WOULD BE AN RP OR AN R1 GENERAL, URBAN, GENERAL, URBAN. BUT EVEN IF AN, IF AN R1 IS THE PROPERTY WHERE AN X AND ZONED R ONE, WHICH IS SIX UNITS PER ACRE.

WITH THIS RULE, THE DEVELOPER COULD COME IN. AND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY'S FOUR ACRES OR LARGER COULD DEVELOP LOTS THAT ARE 1500 SQUARE FOOT IN SIZE. IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING REGARDING THE DENSITY, THEN THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO SIX UNITS PER ACRE. IF WE DO WHAT WE THINK THE STATE LEGISLATURE INTENDED AND WHAT MAKES THIS CODE FUNCTIONAL AND WORKABLE, THE DENSITY WE FIGURED OUT WAS ROUGHLY 12 OR 13 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH MIGHT BE COMMISSIONER MEHAN IN THE BILL THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, BECAUSE THAT WAS A PREVIOUS VERSION. THEY HAD A THEY HAD DENSITY IN THERE AND THEY REMOVED IT. SO WHAT YOU WOULD BE THEN IF YOU WERE THINKING 13 UNITS PER ACRE, YOU'D SEE ABOUT 52 HOMES IN THERE. BUT AGAIN, IN THIS EXAMPLE, YOU WOULD NEED YOU WOULD NEED A SECONDARY ACCESS, BUT PERHAPS 30 HOMES RIGHT NOW, WE COULD ALLOW A DETACHED IN A STARTER HOME SO IT CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. SO WHILE THE CODE DOES SAY THEY SHOULD BE DETACHED, WE CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE. AND WE COULD ALLOW ATTACHED. RIGHT. I MEAN, TO BE HONEST, THE WORST CASE EXAMPLE IMAGE YOU JUST DID, I MEAN, YOU PUT UP THE IMAGE AND I IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT, THAT'S FOR SURE. TEXAS. AND SURE ENOUGH, IT WAS. IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS. LIKE IT IT LOOKS LIKE, YEAH, LIKE YOU SAID, WORKER HOUSING IN WEST VIRGINIA.

LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE COMPANY COMPANY HOUSING. AND SO IT'S LIKE, AND IT'S JUST A TERRIBLE USE OF LAND. AND SO BEING ABLE TO AT LEAST MAKE THEM ATTACHED, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES MORE SENSE AND IT LOOKS MORE COHESIVE. SO THIS IS THE TEXAS EXAMPLE FROM GOOGLE MAPS. YEAH. COMPARED TO THE OTHER SUBDIVISION RIGHT NEXT TO IT. YEAH. SO YEAH. AND IF I, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ZOOMED AROUND THIS ACTUALLY SAN ANTONIO, THEY HAVE SOME PRETTY LIKE THESE ARE NOT THOSE ARE USING A LOT, A LOT. THIS IS JUST LIKE THE MOST EGREGIOUS. I'M SURE SAN ANTONIO IS NICE IN A LOT OF AREAS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS IT'S JUST LIKE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE BACKWARDS. IT'S LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TRYING TO GET STARTER HOMES, BUT IT'S LIKE, WELL, NOW YOU'VE, YOU'VE SACRIFICED SO MUCH MORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT. IT'S SO IT'S LIKE THIS WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT IF IT WAS LIKE, AT LEAST LIKE THEY WERE TWIN HOMES, YOU KNOW, AND IT FEELS LIKE A LOT. BUT WE ALSO SHOULD REMEMBER, I MEAN, PART OF OUR GOALS WITH IMAGINE IF AND IF WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MIX OF HOUSING, A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, A MIX OF HOUSING, PRICE POINTS AS WELL. THERE'S CERTAINLY CONCERNS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD JUST NOT, NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE RIGHT EVEN WORDING, BUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND, LIKE IF CAITLIN ZOOMS OUT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU SEE THAT MIX OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU'VE GOT SOME SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL OF

[01:20:01]

[01:25:01]

DO THEY. HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY LIKE, ARE THE, ALL THE R1 RULES KIND OF JUST GO AWAY? AND IT REALLY ONLY JUST FOLLOWS WHAT THE NEW LAW SAYS PER SE. IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT. YEAH, IT WOULD AT LEAST FOLLOW WHAT'S IN THE STATE STATUTE. WE BY LAW HAVE TO PUT THAT IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. SO IT WOULD, IF WE ADD ADDITIONAL UNDER THAT STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION. YES.

IT WOULD FALL UNDERNEATH THAT. AND LIKE CAITLIN INDICATED, WHAT YOU WOULD, THE WAY YOU WOULD SEE IT COME TO YOU IS IN THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND WHEN YOU SEE THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT, YOU WOULD SEE PUBLIC STREETS AND LOTS THAT ARE 15, 1500FT■S OR MORE. OKAY.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WOULD COME IN FRONT OF YOU, RIGHT.

THEN THEY WOULD COME WITH SUBSEQUENT FINAL PLATS. AND SO YOU WOULD END UP HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND YOU AND THAT'S WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT, PROBABLY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK WE NEED TO OWN THAT A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT? IF SOMEONE COMES IN AS R1 OR R2 P AND AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THINKS, OKAY, SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL, 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND THEN WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND IT'S 1500 SQUARE FOOT LOT. YEAH, A LOT MORE UNITS. THIS ROOM WILL BE FULL OF PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THERE WAS A BAIT AND SWITCH. AND IN SOME WAYS THERE WAS. YEAH. AND OUR THE CITY'S ONLY REAL RESPONSE THERE IS THE STATE REQUIRED IT. RIGHT, RIGHT.

IT'S A PERMITTED IT'S ALLOWED USED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD SEE IT.

AND SO YES, I THINK THERE'D BE SOME DIFFICULT MEETINGS AHEAD. SO PROBABLY THINGS WE CAN'T WORK THROUGH AND THERE'D BE SOME EDUCATION PIECE FOR BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC. BUT I DON'T THINK WE GET OUT OF THAT. RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THE STATE HAS OBLIGATED US TO THAT. SO AND INTERESTING ENOUGH, THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT HAVE THIS AS A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE YOU WERE THE DECIDING BODY OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. YEAH. IT WOULD THEN ONLY BE BUSINESS ITEMS FOR FINAL PLATS AFTERWARDS. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO IF A DEVELOPER, IF A DEVELOPER COMES ALONG AND HE OWNS LIKE A SIX ACRE PIECE OR WHATEVER, AND IT'S RESIDENTIAL, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THE, THE STARTER HOMES. NO. SO WHAT DECIDES IF IT'S OFFICIALLY A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION OR NOT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT A DEVELOPER PICKING AND CHOOSING SOME OF THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION RULES JUST SO WE COULD MAYBE FIT A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY IN IT WITHOUT MAKING IT STARTER HOME. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? AM I MAKING ANY SENSE? YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE TO BE THAT MINIMUM OF FOUR ACRES, RIGHT? YEAH. SO LET'S SAY IT'S MORE THAN FOUR ACRES. I DON'T YEAH. WHAT'S THE DEFINING THING OF LIKE, YEP. I'M DOING ONE OF THOSE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISIONS. SO THAT WAY NOW ALL THESE OTHER RULES APPLY TO ME OR NOT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT SHOWS THAT. SO I GUESS MAYBE LIKE WHY GO SUBDIVISION STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION INSTEAD OF SAY A PUD ON SIX ACRE LOT, RIGHT? WHAT WOULD BE A TIPPING? WHAT'S A BENEFIT TO A DEVELOPER TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION THAT WE COULD FEASIBLY SEE BASED ON FOLKS THAT YOU ALREADY YOU ALREADY WORK WITH THAT WE'VE SEEN HERE AT THE COMMISSION BEFORE, ASIDE FROM DOING DETACHED, RIGHT WHERE I THINK WE'VE WE'VE HEARD THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO DECIDE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE COST OF THE STREET, PRIVATE STREETS, IT'S, IT'S JUST LIKE A PD IS A MECHANISM OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A MECHANISM OF DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK IT WILL BE UP TO THEM TO DECIDE WHAT IF THE MARKET TO MARKET DRIVEN, I MEAN, THE SO COMPARISON, RIGHT. WE'VE GOT SMALLER LOTS, BUT THEY'RE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. SO THE PUBLIC ROAD IS WIDER. THE INFRASTRUCTURE

[01:30:05]

WE WOULD LIKE TO CREATE SOME SORT OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WOULD INCLUDE ENGINEERS, DEVELOPERS, COUPLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, PROBABLY A COUPLE ELECTED OFFICIALS, SOME RESIDENTS THAT WOULD HELP ADVISE US AND WORK THROUGH WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT'S THE RIGHT DENSITY? WHAT WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT PARKING? RIGHT. THERE'S A LOT ACTUALLY TO TALK ABOUT WITH PARKING. WE AS YOU SEE THIS PICTURE, THIS, THE CURRENT CITY CODE DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO PARK IN YOUR FRONT SETBACK. SO THIS HAS SHOWN COULD NOT BE PERMITTED EVEN IF WE CHANGE THE DENSITY TO BE 13 UNITS PER ACRE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, EITHER MAKE IT A REAR LOADED PRODUCT WITH A PRIVATE ALLEY, OR PUSH THE HOME FAR ENOUGH BACK THAT YOU COULD PARK OUTSIDE OF YOUR 15 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. OR GARAGE WITH A UNIT ABOVE. BUT EVEN THEN, WE REQUIRE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A TWO CAR GARAGE ON A 30 FOOT WIDE. AND WITH THE SETBACK STILL RIGHT, OR A 20 FOOT WIDE. SO WE KNOW THAT THOSE ARE CHALLENGES. AND IN SOME WAYS, AGAIN, THOSE THINGS WOULD PUT A STOP TO THIS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. AND SO WE HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WE THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT IF WE DO WANT TO PROCEED, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO PROCEED. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING IS WE WOULD GET SOME EXPERT OPINIONS IN THE ROOM AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOME SOLID RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE COULD BRING BACK TO YOU AND BRING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL ON WHAT WE THINK IS A WAY TO PROCEED. PARKING FOR EXAMPLES. WE DO REQUIRE TWO STALLS PER DWELLING UNIT. THE CC ZONE ONLY REQUIRES ONE STALL PER UNIT. SO AS THE CONVERSATION IS, WE ONLY REQUIRE ONE. THESE ARE THESE ARE NOT PRIVATE STREETS, RIGHT? THESE ARE PUBLIC STREETS. YOU CAN PARK ON A LOCAL PUBLIC STREET. DO WE DO STREET PARKING? THERE'S A ARTICLE FROM A NEW HOUSING COALITION, CONVENIENTLY HEADED UP BY ONE OF THE SENATORS WHO BROUGHT THIS FORWARD, WHO BROUGHT UP PARKING. THEY SAID EACH STALL ADDS 15,000 TO $30,000 IN CONSTRUCTION. RIGHT. DEPENDING WHETHER IT'S A PAD OR, OR SOMETHING. CORRECT. RIGHT. AND SO WE REQUIRE DISTAL SURFACES. WE REQUIRE THEM TO BE CONCRETE OR ASPHALT. THOSE ARE QUESTIONS WE NEED TO LOOK AT. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE. AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THESE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN, THEY'RE AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF THE CITY. SO YOU'RE NOT NEAR SERVICES. YOU'RE NOT NEAR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS PER SE. THERE MIGHT BE SOME THAT WOULD. BUT SO THE ABILITY TO, TO WALK OR BIKE OR CHOOSE AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IS GOING TO BE LESS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. BUT THAT ALSO IS SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO IT MIGHT JUST BE A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL LIVING THERE TOO. IT'S ONLY ONE CAR IS NECESSARY. WHAT IS THIS FILTER FOR? DOES THIS INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WOULD MEET THIS MINIMUM? SO FOUR ACRES OF LESS WET THAT'S ALREADY ANNEXED IN THE CITY THAT'S ALREADY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AND RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. YEAH, YEAH.

AND NOT ALREADY DEVELOPED, I TAKE IT. CORRECT. YEAH. WE, I MEAN, THERE'S SOME REDEVELOP GETS STICKY ONE BECAUSE IT MIGHT OR IT MIGHT NOT. AND THEN ALSO WHEN YOU START SHOWING PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES ON THE SCREEN AND SUGGESTING THAT THINGS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN THEY'RE SURE IT GETS IN THE MIDDLE OF PLAN. YEAH, YEAH. THE ONLY, I MEAN, THE ONLY AREA ON THE MAP THAT I THINK WOULD MEET THE DESIRABILITY FROM, YOU KNOW, A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD

[01:35:02]

AND THEY'RE SHOWING THESE SMALLER LOTS, EACH DIVISION OR EACH PHASE OF THAT PLAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, 20 OR 30 UNITS AND PROBABLY 30 BECAUSE THEY NEED AFTER 30, THEY NEED TWO POINTS OF ACCESS. SO THE FIRST PHASE HAS 30 UNITS. YOU'LL SEE 30 UNITS. BUT THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE THING CAN BE PLATTED AS THE SMALLER LOTS. BUT EVEN THEN, ONCE THE LOTS ARE PLATTED, THEY CAN BE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY. IF A PERSON WANTED TO BUY FOUR LOTS TO BUILD A LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEY COULD. BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. BEING A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT GIVES US GUIDANCE OR REGULATION ON THOSE FOLLOWING STEPS, RIGHT? SO THE ONLY REALLY THING THAT SORT OF CAPTURES THAT IN TIME IS THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT. OR IF THEY'RE DIVIDING THE WHOLE THING AT ONCE, THE FINAL PLAT, RIGHT? SO ESSENTIALLY THEN HOW I'M HEARING IT IS THAT, AND I COULD BE TOTALLY DUMB, BUT THAT, THE, THE AS IS RIGHT NOW, THE ORDINANCES IN EACH ZONE ARE KIND OF JUST IRRELEVANT. AND IT GOES FROM THE MINIMUMS OF THIS NEW LAW ALL THE WAY UP TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCES OF THAT. AND IT COULD BE ANYTHING IN BETWEEN. THE, OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE AND THE NEW LAW, AM I THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM AND WHAT A DEVELOPER WOULD WANT TO DO IN BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S OVER FOUR ACRES AND AS A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, THE TABLE THAT KATELYN SHOWED YOU BECOMES IRRELEVANT, RIGHT? WHAT IS RELEVANT NOW TO THAT AREA OF LAND IS THESE NEW STANDARDS. THEY CAN'T DEVELOP PIECES OF PROPERTY LIKE ONE OF R1 AND R2.

LIKE THEY CAN'T DO MULTIPLE OPTIONS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT LIKE A SLIDING SCALE, LIKE CHOOSE BETWEEN THIS AND THIS. IT'S JUST ONE TABLE OR THE OTHER, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? RIGHT. IF SOMEONE COULD, IF THEY HAD A LARGE PIECE OF GROUND THAT WAS, SAY, 80 ACRES, THEY MIGHT CHOOSE TO DEVELOP TEN, TEN OF IT AS STARTER HOME. AND THE OTHER IS COMMERCIAL AND THE OTHER AS SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL. BUT WITHIN THAT TEN ACRES. CORRECT. IT WOULD JUST BE THE ONE RULE WOULD APPLY. YEAH. NOT EITHER OR BETWEEN ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS.

AND WE WOULD CLARIFY THAT ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, RIGHT. THE DIFFERENT AREAS. AND IF ANYTHING, I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO SEE DIFFERENT HOUSING CHOICES IN WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS IF THIS IS THE STARTER HOME, IF THIS IS THE ONE AREA THAT WOULD BE RIGHT. SO THEN IT WOULD NEED TO BE NAMED AND SAID AS A STARTER HOME VERSUS JUST A NORMAL PLOT. THAT'S WHERE I'M

[01:40:05]

AND SO WE SORT OF JOKED INTERNALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IN 30 OR 50 YEARS, SOMEONE WILL COME UP WITH A NEW ZONING CODE THAT'S LIKE THE, THE TRADITIONAL STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION ZONE THAT MAKES EACH RECOGNIZE EACH OF THESE SMALL LOTS, RIGHT? SO WE KIND OF DONE IT BEFORE, BUT THESE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT SHOWS HOW MANY MOVING PIECES AND LIKE, LIKE SIMPLY HOW DO WE PRESENT IT TO YOU? RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT ON THE FLY RIGHT NOW. AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE BRUNT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? NO WAY AROUND ANNEXATIONS, RIGHT? BECOME NOW WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT THIS IS AN APPROVED USE. THE COMP PLAN STILL HELPS WITH THOSE ANNEXATIONS. I GUESS THE COUNCIL WILL SEE THOSE. BUT WHEN IT'S SET UP AND LAID OUT, IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE SAY IT'S R1 OR RFP DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHAT WE'VE TRADITIONALLY THOUGHT THAT LOOKS LIKE, RIGHT? RIGHT. IF YOU COULD DO ONE OR THE OTHER, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE, OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE NUMBERED STREETS, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT COMPARISON FOR US. I THINK YOU SAID 25 BY 100 IS A TYPICAL LOT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY 180. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS SOMETHING THAT'S SLIGHTLY WIDER, BUT SIGNIFICANTLY SHALLOWER IN TERMS OF DEPTH. AND SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DEFINITELY NEED TO CONSIDER PARKING BECAUSE THIS IS ALREADY, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ALREADY, YOU KNOW, IT HAS REAR LOADED ALLEYS, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, REAR FACING PARKING AND STILL HAS EVERY STREET LINED WITH CARS, YOU KNOW, BUMPER TO BUMPER PARKING AND STRUGGLES IN THE WINTER ON WHERE TO PUT THOSE CARS WHEN SNOW PLOWS COME AROUND. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO ONE BENEFIT, THESE ARE 50 FOOT WIDE ROADS. SO YOU'D HAVE AN EXTRA TEN FEET IN THE WIDTH, WHICH HELPS THE SNOW PLOW AND SANITATION TRUCK GET THROUGH. DOESN'T ALLEVIATE THE PARKING CHALLENGE. YEAH, YEAH. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT A TYPICAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE? IS IT LIKE A SINGLE STORY OR JUST AN AVERAGE ON THE NUMBER OF STREETS? IT'S ABOUT 1500FT■S. SO THAT'S THE LOT SIZE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. YEAH. AND IN SOME WAYS, I MEAN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT SOME OF THESE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS, WE ARE SORT OF RECREATING THAT PRODUCT IN THE MODERN WAY. AND THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGES WERE MUCH SMALLER. YOU MAYBE HAD A SINGLE BATHROOM, BUT 2 OR 3 BEDROOMS FOR SOME OF THOSE HOMES ARE. NOT RIGHT HERE.

I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF, YEAH, RIGHT IN THERE. MAYBE IT'S SECOND STREET. NO, IT'S ON THERE ON THERE ON SECOND. THOSE LITTLE SHOTGUN HOUSES. OH, THE NEW ONES THAT ARE GETTING BUILT UP. YEAH. THOSE ARE GETTING BUILT ALL OVER. AND THE NUMBER OF STREETS OR THESE IN THE END ZONE. AND I STARTED THINKING ABOUT MOST OF THEM ARE FOUR BEDROOM, TWO AND A HALF BATH.

YEAH. BECAUSE THEY HAVE SQUARE FEET. YEAH, YEAH. SO THEY'RE, WE THINK THEY'VE BEEN A POSITIVE. WE'VE BUILT ABOUT 90 OF THOSE UNITS. TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES ARE GREAT.

YEAH. IT'S JUST THE PROBLEM OF LIKE, NOW TRY PROPOSING SOMETHING LIKE THAT OFF OF TIFF.

RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE. LIKE I'M ALL FOR IT. YEAH. I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GOING TO TELL US IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT. LIKE HAVE AT IT, YOU KNOW, BUT IF WE TRY TO DROP ONE OF THESE IN THE MIDDLE OF A GOLF COURSE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT. AND SOME OF THE NOT WE THE DEVELOPER. YEAH, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE

[01:45:04]

LIKE DOING THIS ON A LARGER SCALE WORRIES US. BUT AGAIN, IF WE THINK ABOUT THESE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THE ZONING RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THESE WERE ALL BUILT WERE VERY THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF THEM, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THE DYNAMIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU DO. AND WE ALL VALUE AND LOVE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE OF THEIR CHARACTER AND THEIR INTEREST. AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE UNTIL YOU START WALKING THROUGH THEM THE MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, MIX OF PRICE POINTS. I MEAN, YOU'LL HAVE A MULTI UNIT RIGHT NEXT TO A LARGE SINGLE UNIT NEXT TO A DUPLEX, RIGHT? ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AND SO THIS IS CREATING THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. I THINK WHERE MAYBE WE'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT IS WE HAVE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPERS NOW WHO PRODUCE THE SAME PRODUCT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND SO YOU GET THE SAN ANTONIO EXAMPLE WHERE THERE'S A NEW GIVE THE DEVELOPMENT THE INTEREST, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, MIX OF HOUSE PLANS OR A CERTAIN TYPE OF MATERIAL, USE SOME OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. YEAH. AND THEN WHEN WE GET CONCERNS ABOUT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND EVEN NEW NEIGHBORHOODS, PROTECTIVE COVENANTS ARE STILL IN PLACE. RIGHT? AND SO, I MEAN, THOSE, THE CITY ARE THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO ENFORCE, BUT A PRIVATE SUBDIVISION, IF SOMEONE ACQUIRED A FOUR ACRE PIECE OF GROUND IN A, IN A LARGE RURAL SUBDIVISION THAT HAD EXISTING COVENANTS ON IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO POTENTIALLY LEGALLY ABIDE BY THOSE. A DEVELOPER COULD ALSO PUT IN PLACE COVENANTS TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN STANDARD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO REVIEW THOSE OR HAVE INPUT ON THOSE. SO IT'S A. BUT IT'S ALL OF THOSE SAME THINGS THAT WE SEE ALL THE TIME ARE STILL IN PLACE. IT'S A BIT OF AN UNKNOWN. WE'RE ALL LEARNING TOGETHER. I DO NOT ENVY THE TASK BEFORE YOU TO WRITE A CODE THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THESE THINGS. WELL, CALEB STARTED IT AND IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE. YEAH, IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE UNTIL YOU ADDRESS DENSITY AND PARKING AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO ADDRESS, RIGHT? THINGS THAT ARE NOW, IF WE WANT TO DO IT CORRECTLY, THEN IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD EXAMPLES, I THINK UNLESS, UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES YOU THINK WE, YOU CAN THINK OF OR WE SHOULD SHOW.

THEN I JUST DON'T KNOW, LIKE WHAT ELSE MORE TO DO WHEN IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE THE LAW IS PRETTY RIGID. LIKE YOU WILL ALLOW, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S LIKE, WELL, YEAH, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IN THE, IN THE LAW AS PASSED IS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN REQUIRE INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE DON'T OVERLOAD. I THINK PARKING IS POTENTIALLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT COULD OVERLOAD INFRASTRUCTURE IF WE, YOU KNOW, WE SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T PARK ANYWHERE IN YOUR SETBACKS. AND ALSO THE LOT WIDTHS ARE SO NARROW THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY FIT A CAR ON THE STREET IN BETWEEN A DRIVEWAY. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT THOSE CARS? AND SO MAYBE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUIRE A REAR LOAD ALLEY LIKE WE HAVE IN THE NUMBERED STREETS. YEAH. TO MITIGATE THAT. IS THAT AN OPTION? I DON'T KNOW, WE CAN REQUIRE IT BY THE NATURE OF OUR YOU CAN'T PARK IN A FRONT SETBACK. IT WILL NATURALLY LEND ITSELF TO THAT. OKAY. YEAH.

BECAUSE IF IT'S OFF OF AN ALLEYWAY THAT IMMEDIATELY THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. YEAH, I AGREE AND BUT THEN YOUR LOT COVERAGE STARTS GETTING AFFECTED BY THAT BECAUSE THEN IF YOU'RE HAVING DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE OFF THE BACK ALLEYWAY, THEN IT REALLY REDUCES THE. YEAH. AND TO ADD SALT TO YOUR WOUND, EACH OF THESE UNITS IS ELIGIBLE FOR AN ADU AS WELL. SO UP TO THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY. RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. RIGHT. WELL OVER 1000FT■S OR 1000FT■S. SO THEY ACTUALLY MIGHT EXCEED THE THEY MIGHT EXCEED. YEAH. THEY

[01:50:01]

YEAH YEAH. NO I'M WE'LL SEE A TREE LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A TREE HOUSE. I SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN MISSOULA. IT MIGHT BE AN AREA TO LOOK AT. THEY'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS AS WELL. THE REAR SETBACK ISSUE WITH THE THREE FOOT SORT OF CONSIDERATION. THAT'S WHERE GARAGES WITH ABOVE, ADUS ARE GOING WITH THE HOUSE ON THE FRONT. THE FOOTPRINT OF THOSE HOUSES IS AVERAGING 800FT■!S FOOTPRINT. AND THEN THEY'RE GOING UP THREE STORIES. SO THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS ALREADY HAPPENING IN MISSOULA. AND I KNOW BOZEMAN IS EXPERIENCING THE SAME LEVEL OF. AND THEY'RE PROBABLY EXPERIENCING SOME OF THE SIMILAR ISSUES AS A RESORT CITY WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE WORK, YOU DON'T HAVE WORKFORCE HOUSING.

EXACTLY. AND YOU'LL SEE WE DIDN'T PUT HEIGHT ON THIS LIST OF FOUR CRITERIA BECAUSE WE ASSUME THAT THE HEIGHT WOULD STILL BE GOVERNED BY THE ZONE. SURE. YEAH. YOU KNOW, TWO STORIES ALLOWED. GREAT. IF THREE STORIES ALLOWED ARE TWO AND ABOVE, BASICALLY, THEN THAT WOULD ALSO BE OKAY. JUST SO THAT WOULD MAKE IT ALSO A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, RIGHT? BECAUSE YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE, IF WE CAN GET IT TO WHERE IT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. I MEAN, I'M A REALTOR. I SEE IT LITERALLY EVERY DAY. IF WE'RE SOLVING THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY STILL GETTING IN HOMES. BUT YOU'RE NOT LEFT WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS GOING TO LOOK TERRIBLE IN 40 YEARS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU'RE KIND OF CREATING NEW NUMBERED STREETS THAT HAVE THAT TURN INTO A, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STILL HAVE PRIDE 50, 60 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. I THINK THAT'S LIKE THE PERFECT WORLD TO ME. YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE STATE DOES WITH THE MARKETABILITY OF IT BECAUSE WE DON'T DICTATE THE MARKET.

RIGHT. AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN, AT LEAST IN THE SAN ANTONIO. LIKE, WE'RE NOT ENTIRELY SURE IF THESE HAVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO SEE WHAT THE STABILITY OF THEM AS FAR AS PRICE AND RESALE VALUE. LIKE, DO THEY APPRECIATE LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE OR. YEAH, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE PRICED LOW ENOUGH TO, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF INVESTORS PROBABLY JUST BUY THEM UP AND TURN THEM INTO RENTALS. THAT IS A HUGE CONCERN. BUT NOW WE HAVE A LOT THAT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT. RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS. SO LIKE, WE'RE IT'S THEN NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. WE'RE JUST CONTINUING THE RIGHT. YEAH. IT'S WHAT WE CALL A WICKED PROBLEM PLANNING. IT'S A ACADEMIC TERM, RIGHT? WICKED. HUGE PROBLEMS THAT THIS IS A REALLY THIS IS THEIR ATTEMPT AT IT. BUT IT'S A LOT THERE'S SO MANY COMPONENTS INTO IT. YEAH.

YEAH. I'M NOT SAYING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. ALL I WAS SAYING IS LIKE POTENTIAL OTHER POTENTIAL ISSUES. THERE'S A LOT OF THEM. YEAH. AND MOST OF THEM WE DON'T CONTROL. RIGHT. AND I'M NOT SAYING WE TRY TO CONTROL IT. NO, NO, NO, I JUST IT'S LIKE, HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME? I WANT TO SAY CONSEQUENCE. BUT WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, LIKE, YEAH, YOU'RE JUST HOPING FOR THE BEST. YEAH. SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T SEE ANYMORE IS APARTMENTS FOR SALE, LIKE THE THREE FOUNTAINS AND I DID FOR MY FIRST HOME, TRY TO BUY THREE FOUNTAINS APARTMENT. AND BECAUSE OF THE RATIO OF RENTED APARTMENTS TO OWN APARTMENTS, YOU COULDN'T GET A TRADITIONAL LOAN HOME LOAN ON THEM. I'VE HAD THAT ISSUE AS A REALTOR AND THEY HAVE APPRECIATED THEY WERE 60,000 WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THEM, AND NOW THEY'RE LIKE, WE'RE UP TO 190. SO YEAH, THESE CONDOS THAT ARE LIKE 900FT■!S, SUPPOSEDLY PART OF THE NEW FEDERAL HOUSING BILL, WAS SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE FINANCING ISSUES, WHICH WE THINK ARE REALLY PART OF THE CHALLENGE, TOO, IS A LOT OF IT IS A FINANCING PROBLEM, NOT NECESSARILY A SUPPLY PROBLEM. I MEAN, ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT THE FINANCING ONE ALSO NEEDS TO

[01:55:02]

AND I'M CURIOUS HOW THE PUBLIC WOULD RESPOND IF THEY WERE OWNED RATHER THAN RENTED THE APARTMENTS. RIGHT. I MEAN, A BIG PART OF IT IS THE RENTAL ISSUE. PEOPLE NOT WANTING RENTERS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT SHOWS A PRODUCT WE DON'T SEE ANYMORE AROUND HERE. IS THAT TO DO WITH STATE STATUTE? LIKE IT'S HARDER TO BUILD CONDOS IN IDAHO THAN OTHER PLACES OR YOU, YOU CAN CONDO PLOT LIKE IT'S, IT'S A PROCESS. YOU JUST GO TO THE COUNTY AND RECORD. IT'S NOT EVEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY. BUT, BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU'RE SEPARATING AIRSPACE, NOT ACTUAL LAND. YEAH. SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHAT PLAYS INTO IT, BECAUSE WE DO HEAR THAT A LOT WHEN PEOPLE DO PUDS, THAT'S USUALLY THE MAIN REASON WHY THEY WANT TO DO THAT ACTUAL REAL PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT IS BETTER FOR FINANCING. YEAH. THE CONDO IS CHALLENGE HAS BEEN AT LEAST WE'VE HEARD THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES, BUT IT IS HARDER TO LAND ON THOSE. YEAH, BECAUSE I LIVE IN NORTH PARK VILLAGE, IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME SETUP, BUT WE HAVE SOME UNIQUE THINGS WHERE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE OTHER PEOPLE'S GARAGES, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND SO THERE'S SOME SHARED UP AND DOWN SPACE THAT WAY, BUT NO ONE'S BUILDING ANYTHING LIKE THAT HERE. NOW IT'S ALL SIDE BY SIDE TOWNHOUSES. YEAH. HONESTLY, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE OF THE BETTER EXAMPLES OF CONDOS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF IN BECAUSE JUST HOW THEY'RE LAID OUT, THEY'RE VERY INTRICATE AND THEY ALL SEEM DIFFERENT IN THEIR OWN FUN WAY. BUT YEAH, THEY'RE AT A LOWER PRICE POINT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF BUILDING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS DIFFICULT OR NOT IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, LIKE HOW MUCH MORE EFFORT IS IT FOR A DEVELOPER TO GO THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, TO, BUILD VERSUS YEAH, THEY JUST DID IT SIDE BY SIDE TOWNHOMES. AND I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF DIVERTING OFF OF THIS BECAUSE THAT'S CONDOS, BUT, YEAH, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT. WELL, IN ORDER TO GET THIS IN FRONT OF YOU IN ON THE BOOKS, BY FEBRUARY, WE WERE THINKING WE'LL BE IN FRONT OF YOU IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER AT THE LATEST. EXACTLY. VERY MUCH TOMORROW. SO IT FEELS LIKE TOMORROW. IT'S QUICK FOR TRYING TO I MEAN, WE AND OUR CHECK IN FOR SEPTEMBER'S IS ALREADY CLOSED, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN ADD IT THERE LIKE OCTOBER. WE WOULD HAVE TO WE KIND OF HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING BY THE END OF THE MONTH. SO IF YOU SEE US, WISH US THE BEST. HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANY GUIDANCE FROM CITY COUNCIL YET ON THIS, OR IS IT JUST THE WORK SESSION WILL BE THE FIRST TIME? YEAH, MONDAY, MONDAY THE 10TH. THAT'S THE GUIDANCE. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY WEIRD QUESTIONS. NO, NOT WEIRD AT ALL.

JUST HELPFUL. FIGURE IT OUT. I WAS ON THE SAME PAGE. OKAY. YEAH. SO WATCH CLOSELY. YOU WILL SEE THE SAME QUESTIONS. I KNOW, COMMISSIONER ME AND HE PROBABLY UNDERSTANDS IT WAY BETTER BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE BILL. SOUNDS LIKE APPARENTLY THE WRONG VERSION, BUT I MEAN, I'M LIKE, YEAH, YOU'RE LIKE, OH, THAT'S A LOT IN TWO PAGES AND NOT A LOT AT ALL. YEAH, THAT'S THE THING. YEAH. IT'S SO VAGUE. YEAH, YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO STILL FIGURING OUT THE NEW RULES OVERLAID WITH EXISTING AND WHAT MATTERS AND WHAT DOESN'T MATTER.

IT'S JUST SO MAYBE I NEED A PICTURE FLOW CHART OR A VENN DIAGRAM. HOW ABOUT THAT? AND THAT'S HELPFUL. WE CAN, WE CAN DEFINITELY TRY TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS WE PRESENT IT TO YOU IN OCTOBER. YEAH. INSTEAD OF JUST WORDS SAYING IF THIS, THEN THAT IS MORE. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M A VISUAL LEARNER. SO AND WE'LL BE ELECTING A NEW CHAIR COME JANUARY. SO DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS GO, YOU GUYS CAN GET THE SAME CHAIR. SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT HAVE TO MANAGE THOSE HARD MEETINGS. YEAH, BUT HONESTLY, IT COULD TAKE A WHILE BEFORE A DEVELOPER EVEN LATCHES ON TO EVEN TRY WHAT THEY'VE BEEN CALLING. OH, REALLY? WANTING TO DO. YES, WE'VE HAD AT LEAST FOUR SEPARATE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN WANTING TO KNOW WHEN THEY CAN START. AND THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING. WE HEARD THAT IN A WORK SESSION AS WELL. THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING. WHAT IN THE POCATELLO WORK SESSION I WATCHED WHEN THEIR STAFF PRESENTED IT. THEY'RE GETTING THE SAME CALLS. REALLY? YES. ARE ARE THESE DEVELOPERS WANTING TO DO LIKE MAXIMIZE THE RULES LIKE THE BARE MINIMUMS OR IS IT LIKE A MIX? THEY'RE JUST YEAH, YEAH, THEY'RE WAITING ON US TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY CAN PROVIDE. SO YEAH, BECAUSE DEVELOPERS WILL DO THE BARE MINIMUMS AND TIMES AND YEAH, YEAH. SO A FEW OF US ATTENDED THE PLANNING ASSOCIATION SUMMIT

[02:00:03]

BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. YEAH. FOR CONTEXT FOR EVERYONE, CITIES AS SMALL AS 10,000, RIGHT? SO PLACES LIKE BURLEY AND BLACKFOOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. YEAH. AND IT'S NOT IN THE COUNTY, RIGHT. WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO ANNEX. YEAH. OKAY.

INTERESTING. OKAY. WELL, THANKS. THANK YOU. THANKS. WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR NEXT WEEK OR NEXT MONTH? NO, NO. KIND OF A REGULAR SIZED AGENDA. NOTHING HERE. WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR FEEDBACK AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND STAYING FOR THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. SO I HOPE YOU GUYS, BUT YOU GUYS DO A GOOD JOB. SO. ALL RIGHTY.

WELL, WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.