[00:00:01] WELL, I READ 6:30 ON THE ATOMIC CLOCK, SO WE [1. Call To Order: ] WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. MY NAME IS FORREST EYLER AND I'LL BE HOPEFULLY RUNNING THE SHOW WELL TONIGHT. SO THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE. [ Minutes: September 01, 2026] JUST THE MINUTES. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS, ANYTHING ABOUT THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING? I HAVE ONE THING THAT STUCK OUT TO ME. YES. MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE MARY SCALES INSTEAD OF MARY SCALES. I JUST CORRECT THAT. TOO MANY RS FOR HER. TOO MANY RS. EVERYTHING ELSE LOOK GOOD TO ME. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. ALL RIGHT. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO PASS OR. YEAH, TWO. YES. APPROVE THE MINUTES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR MEETING. SEPTEMBER 1, 2026, AS WITH THE ONE CORRECTION. PERFECT. ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND THAT? SECOND. WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. SO ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. PERFECT. MOTION PASSES. SO NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS SWAPPING [3.1. PLT26-025: Final Plat for Harvest Village Division No. 1. SE 4 of the SW % of Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E 65" North, east of Glen Abby Lane, south of Commons Road, and west of the Idaho Canal. ] THINGS UP. SO FINAL PLATFORM. HARVEST VILLAGE DIVISION NUMBER ONE. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THAT? SWEET. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. SO, YEAH, WE GOT OUR. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY. YEAH. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. THANK YOU. JULIAN STEMMER. 3193 SOUTH DICK GROVE, DANIEL, UTAH. WE GOT OUR P APPROVED AND NOW WE'RE DOING A FINAL FLAT FOR THE FIRST DIVISION. WE SEE IT OUTLINED RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY. LOTS OF ROCKWELL. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THE NEXT SLIDE. AM I SUPPOSED TO BE THIS. SEE IF THIS. OH. WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO WHAT ROCKWELL HAS GOING ON. AND WE LOVE BEING ACROSS THE GOLF COURSE AND HAVING KIND OF BLENDING IN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT ROCKWELL HAS PLANNED. I KNOW THEY HAVE SOME TUNNELS AS WELL IN A LATER PHASE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHERE THE R2 ZONE WITH THE BEAUTY. WE OVERALL GOT TO 175 UNITS. WE'RE RIGHT. OUR FIRST PHASE IS RIGHT NORTH OF 65TH. AND DO I HAVE. DO WE NOT HAVE THE DIVISION 1 PLATINUM HERE? OKAY. IT'S IN YOUR. IN YOUR PACKET. SO THE FIRST DIVISION IS 30 TOWN HOMES. SO WE'RE PLANNING THOSE 30 TOWNHOMES AND WE'RE GIVEN A RIGHT OF WAY TO THE CITY. IT'S 60 FOOT RIGHT AWAY. WE HAVE PRIVATE ROADS AND IT'S SIX BUILDINGS. THEY'RE ALL FIVE PLACES. SO SIX TIMES FIVE IS 30 UNITS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THE FIRST DIVISION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE AXIS BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT AT 30 UNITS WITH THE SECOND PHASE, WE'RE GOING TO CONNECT ACROSS AND DOWN TO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS. BUT FOR THIS FIRST DIVISION AND THE 30 UNITS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TURNAROUND ON THE VERY NORTH END. AND SO THAT'S. THAT'S ABOUT IT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SWEET. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. GOOD EVENING. I THINK THE APPLICANT COVERED IT PRETTY WELL, BUT. YEAH, THE RECOMMENDED. THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR HARVEST VILLAGE DIVISION ONE, TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. IT'S WHERE YOU'VE SEEN THE PUD. THAT WAS JUNE, I BELIEVE IT CAME TO Y'ALL. YEAH, JUNE 2ND. AND IT WAS APPROVED. THIS IS DIVISION ONE. IT'S 32 LOTS, 30 OF WHICH ARE BUILDABLE. ALL OF THOSE LOTS ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OR ALL THE BUILDABLE LOTS ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN YOUR PACKETS. YOU CAN'T SEE ON THE SLIDE BECAUSE, OF COURSE, I FORGOT TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT. LET'S SEE. THE ACCESS IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO COME UP 60 BIT WITH THAT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT WILL END IN A CUL DE SAC. AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE'VE REVIEWED THE FLAT AND FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE ZONING [00:05:02] ORDINANCE. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. SWEET. YOU'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY CONCERNS? ANYTHING ANYONE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THIS? YEAH. SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION? DO IT. PERFECT. I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLATFORM, HARVEST VILLAGE DIVISION NUMBER ONE, TO THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. PERFECT. TIE. TIE. WE'LL GO. OKAY. WE'LL LET HER DO IT. SO WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT? AYE. PANTER? AYE. OGDEN? AYE. AYLER? AYE. MEEHAN? AYE. AYE. SOAR? AYE. PERFECT. OKAY. NOW WE'RE GONNA GO INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION [4.I. ANX26-009:- ANX26-009: Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M, Industrial and Manufacturing for approximately .440 acres in the SW ‘4 of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 37 East. Located north of W 65"" South, east of S 15%" West, south of Professional Way, and west of S Yellowstone Avenue.] OF OUR MEETING, WHICH IS THE REST OF OUR MEETING. WE'VE GOT SIX ITEMS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO WE WILL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS A ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF INM FOR. WHERE'S THAT? WELL, IT'S THE ONLY IM. SO IF THAT'S YOU APPLICANTS, YOU'RE UP. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS STOCKTON BERRY. ADDRESS IS 1335 ENTERPRISE STREET IN NIAGARA FALLS. WE ARE JUST PROPOSING TO ANNEX THE ROAD JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THAT HIGHLIGHTED LOFT THERE. OVERALL, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS RIGHT NOW IT'S ALL ONE PARCEL. WE'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE BUILDING OFF FOR BANKING REASONS, POTENTIAL SALE REASONS. WE JUST DIDN'T WANT ALL OF THAT LACK OF TIES TO THE BUILDING. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SWEET. THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. THE REQUESTED ACTION FOR THIS ITEM IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE MARION CITY COUNCIL OF THIS ANNUAL STATION WITH THE INITIAL FUNDING OF IMM INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING. THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. LET ME GO TO THE. SO IT'S A VERY SMALL, VERY SMALL SLIVER RIGHT THERE THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED A1 IN THE COUNTY. THE REQUESTED ZONE IS IMM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING. INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING ZONE ALLOWS MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, WAREHOUSING AND RELATED INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS. IT'S ALSO FAIRLY FLEXIBLE FOR MOST OF OUR COMMERCIALLY. WELL, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS INDUSTRIAL. SO THE REFESTED ZONE MATCHES THE INDUSTRIAL TRANSECT DESIGNATION, ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH LONG RANGE PLANNING GOALS. AM PROPERTY AND SUPPORTS THE CITY'S LONG RANGE PLANNING FOR EMPLOYMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAND AVAILABILITY. AND THE SITE IS IN PROXIMITY OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES. THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL USES. I SAY LEGACY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE NEARBY. AS THOSE REDEVELOPED, THEY WILL NOT REDEVELOP AS RESIDENTIAL. BUT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENTS WHILE THEY'RE THERE WILL NEED TO BE APPROPRIATELY SCREENED AND BUFFERED FROM THE. FROM WHATEVER'S BUILT IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE. THIS PROPERTY IS INTENDED, AS AFTON SAID, TO BE DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. THAT WILL END WITH CUL DE SAC. RIGHT. KIND OF WHERE YOU SEE THAT LINE. WHAT THAT WILL DO ALSO IS GIVE FRONTAGE AND ACCESS TO CONTINUE FRONTAGE AND ACCESS TO THE GRAVEL PIT IN THE BACK, SEPARATE THE ANNOTATION AND INITIAL ZONING AND FINDS THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE AND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL FOR THE SWEET. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FOR STAFF. THAT. SORRY, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE. I GUESS ANY OF THESE IS FINE. BUT THE PHOTO SHOWED A GOOD ONE. WHERE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A [00:10:01] ROAD THAT WE ARE ANNEXING AND DEDICATING AS A RIGHT OF WAY. WELL, THE. SORRY, THE SATELLITE PHOTO. YEAH. IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO THE END OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND WE'RE KIND OF STOPPING HALFWAY DOWN. THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF THE COLD ATTACK IS 400FT. GOT IT. SO IF IT WENT FARTHER, WE WOULD NEED FOUR EFFORT. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NO. SWEET. YOU'RE GOOD. SO NOW I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS ITEM. SO JUST A FEW QUICK THINGS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. JUST COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME, GIVE YOUR ADDRESS JUST FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THEN YOU JUST. IT'S MORE JUST KIND OF GIVING YOUR COMMENTS ON OR WHAT YOU. YOU KNOW, ANY CONCERNS OR WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT OR WHATEVER WITH THE PROJECT. AND THEN UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ISN'T A Q AND A. BUT ANY OF YOUR CONCERNS WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS LATER IN THE PORTION OF THE MEETING. SO WE'LL DO OUR BEST. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. TAKERS? NO. YOU'RE ALL FOR ANOTHER ONE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE? STILL NOTHING. OKAY. WELL, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I DON'T MIND. ALL RIGHT. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE TO OR RECOMMEND MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ANNEXATION OF THE 0.440 ACRES IN THE SOUTHWEST QUEUE OF SECTION 36 TN T2N AS PRESENTED. PERFECT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT? I'LL SECOND. PERFECT. THANK YOU. WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT. AYE. PANTOR? AYE. HOPTON, AYE. EILER. AYE. IAN. AYE. PARKER. AYE. STOR. AYE. MOTION. PERFECT. NOW WE'RE GOING [4.Il. PLT26-026: Preliminary Plat for EZ Exteriors Division No. 1 in the SW ‘4 of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 37 East. Located north of W 65™ South, east of S 15™ West, south of Professional Way, and west of S Yellowstone Avenue. ] TO GET ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM WHICH IS PRELIMINARY PLATFORM EASY EXTERIORS DIVISION NUMBER ONE. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? OH, THAT'S PART TWO. I SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. YES. OKAY, SO LET'S GET MANY OF US. STOCKTON, BARRY. ADDRESS 1335 AND MCBRIDE STREET IN IDAHO FALLS. THIS IS JUST THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THAT SUBDIVISION. BASICALLY, WE. ONCE AGAIN, WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH THE LOWER PORTION. WE. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE ONCE AGAIN IS TO SEPARATE FOR BANKING REASONS. BACK TO YOUR QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT FULL STACK. IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE. WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE IS PULL THIS BACK AND THEN THERE WILL IN THE FUTURE POTENTIALLY BE A ROAD GOING. GOING VERTICAL. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND I'M ASSUMING THEN THERE'S A. OH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT HERE. CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE GRAVEL PIT AS WELL. SO IT'S LIKE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY, IS THERE? YEP. EXACTLY. SWEET. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY, WE WILL HEAR FROM. SO THE REQUESTED ACTION FOR THIS ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAQUE FOR EASY EXTERIORS. THE SOME HISTORY ABOUT THE PROPERTY WAS ADDED IN MOST OF THOSE IN 2009. INITIAL VOTING OF AM1. AS WE JUST SAW, THE APPLICANT HAS A FOR THE INTERCESSION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTH. THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESULTING ORDINANCE WITH THE. SO THE PROPERTY ZONED IN THE PRELOAD PLAQUE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INM ZONE. ALL LOTS MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE AND FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AGAIN SHOWS THIS AREA AS INDUSTRIAL. THE ALSO MEETS ALL OF THE. IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRANSECT, WHICH EMPHASIZES LOCATIONS NEAR MAJOR ROADWAYS AND ACCESS CORRIDORS WHICH WE HAVE ON 15 WEST IN SOUTH GILLISPELL HIGHWAY. THE SITE IS ROUGHLY 16 ACRES AND IS [00:15:02] CONSENSUS OF 11 LOTS. THIS SOUTHWEST LOT RIGHT HERE IS DESIGNATED FOR A STORM POND AND UTILITY UNIT. IN ITS ENTIRETY THERE IS A CROSS AXIS MEN CONNECTING THE CULDESAC TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. THIS EASEMENT IS WIDE ENOUGH I BELIEVE TO ACCOMMODATE A LOCAL STREET. HOWEVER, THAT STREET NETWORK HAS NOT YET BEEN FIGURED OUT THROUGH A PREVENTION PLAN. BUT OUR ONLY PUBLIC STREET NETWORK RIGHT NOW IS THE CULP TECH. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. BUT THIS CROSS ACCESS EVENT WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND ACCESS TO ALL OF THESE OTHER. UTILITIES AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EASEMENTS ARE ALL SHOWN ON THE PUNARANG PLA. WATER AND SEWER ARE IN THE VICINITY. I THINK THEY'LL NEED TO BRING WATER FROM THE NORTH WHICH IS WHERE PROFESSIONAL WEIGHT IS JUST UP HERE THE WATER STUFF TO AROUND THIS AREA. SO THEY'LL. THEY'LL PULL WATER FROM THERE. WHO ARE. SO THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PARENT CLASS AND SIGNS AGENCIES PLAN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE COVERAGE OF THE BUILDING ORDINANCE AND RECOMMENDED PURPLE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YOU'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. NOW I'M GOING TO OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. SAME THINGS AS BEFORE. SO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? NOPE. OKAY. WELL THEN I'M NOW GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? NOPE. PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. OKAY, GREAT. DO. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL DO IT. PERFECT. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EASY EXTERIOR. SO WE ARE THE APPROVING BODY. SO I RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLATFORM EXTERIORS. PERFECT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. PERFECT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL THOUGH. PLEASE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT? AYE. CANTOR? AYE. OGDEN? AYE. EILER? AYE. NIYANG. AYE. HARGER? AYE. STEWART? AYE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA GO TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. MR. CHAIR. YES. ON THE PRELIMINARY. BECAUSE YOU ARE THE APPROVING BODY, YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THE RECENT STATEMENT TO RELATE CRITERION STANDARDS AS WELL. MY BAD. SHOULD BE THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR PACKET THERE IS. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE. OH, I'M THE ONLY WOMAN THAT HAS IT. OH, OKAY. YEAH. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO DO THAT? I GUESS I'LL PROOF IT OUT HERE. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLOT OF EASY EXTERIORS LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF WEST 65TH SOUTH, EAST OF SOUTH 50 15TH WEST SOUTH OF PROFESSIONAL WAY AND WEST OF SOUTH YELLOWSTONE AVENUE. PERFECT. SECOND. AWESOME. WE WILL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT. AYE. PANTER. AYE. AUSTIN. AYE. TYLER. AYE. AYE. HARGER. AYE. STEWART. AYE. OKAY, REAL QUICK. I NOTICED AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS RECENT STATEMENT WHERE I NEED TO SIGN SAYS VICE CHAIR. DO WE NEED TO CHANGE ANYTHING WITH THAT OR IS IT JUST. WE CAN. I CAN STILL SIGN IT. IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE'LL MAKE A CLAIM WHEN THAT JUST SAYS CHAIR. OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. SIGNATURE. OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD TO REDO EVERYTHING OR WHATEVER. SO JUST MAKING SURE. THANK YOU. [4.Ill ANX26-010: Annexation and Initial Zoning of R3, Multiple Dwelling Residential with the Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone for approximately 35.367 acres in the SE 4 of Section 23 and the NE *% of Section 26, Township 2 North, Range 37 East. Located north of W 17" South, east of Grizzly Avenue, south of Pancheri Drive, and west of 5 Skyline Drive. ] THANK YOU POINTING THAT OUT. OKAY, NOW WE'RE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R3 DOWN THERE BY SKYLINE OFF OF 17TH SOUTH. DO WE HAVE AN APPLE? [00:20:03] YOU DO. PERFECT. THERE YOU ARE. PERFECT. AND READY? READY TO GO. AWESOME. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARCO DIAZ. ADDRESS IS 10999 SOUTH BIRCH CREEK ROAD IN SOUTH GEORGIA. SO I COME BEFORE YOU TO TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN ANNEX THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY INTO THE CITY FROM THE COUNTY. AS WELL AS INITIAL ZONING ON R3, WE ONLY INTEND TO DO RESIDENTIAL. AND EVEN THOUGH R3 WILL ALLOW FOR A LOT HIGHER DENSITY, AS WE LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPE OF THE CITY AND HOW MUCH MULTIFAMILY HAS BEEN APPROVED AND APARTMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED, THE REASON WHY WE'RE GOING WITH R3, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T NEED AS MUCH DENSITY IS BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US FOR SMALLER LOTS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING MY COMPANY AND I HAVE BEEN DOING FOR A WHILE. WE BELIEVE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABILITY. WE WANT TO DO SMALLER LOTS INSTEAD OF MULTI FAMILY. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, BUT I JUST WANTED YOU. I HAD A CONCEPT PLAN, BUT THEY SAID THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW WHAT OUR GOAL IS AND WHAT THE. THE PLAN IS TO GO WITH SMALLER LOTS. THERE MIGHT BE A FEW TOWNHOMES, BUT BUT MAINLY 90% WOULD BE A SMALLER 5 TO 07,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? WE MAY HAVE MORE LATER. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. THANK YOU, COMMISSION. SO TONIGHT THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING OF R3 MULTIPLE TO ONE LAKE RESIDENTIAL WITH A CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE TO THE MARIN CITY COUNCIL. SO THIS PROPERTY, THIS ANNEXATION WAS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT IS IN THE AREA OF IMPACT AND IT IS CONTIGUOUS ALONG MOST OF THE PROPERTY LINES IN THE CITY. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS R3 MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT IS A ZONE CHARACTERIZED BY A VARIETY OF DWELLING TYPES WITH A DENSER RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OR SMALLER LOTS. AS POINTED OUT, THIS ZONE IS SITUATED OFTEN NEAR MAJOR STREET SUCH AS COLLECTORS MATERIALS. THE PROPOSED ZONING THE COMP PLAN HAS ITS PART SUBURBAN PARK, MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS. OF COURSE WE LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THESE ARE LOOSELY DRAWN LINES. THEY'RE NOT EXACT ON THESE PARTS FOR IT WANTED TO POINT OUT. SO THERE ARE UTILITIES IN THE AREA. GRIFFEY AVENUE HAS UTILITIES. WATER, SEWER, POWER. WE SEE POWER RUNS ALONG IT AND THEN FIBER AS WELL. SO UTILITIES ARE IN THE AREA AND ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS ALIGNED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. UTILITIES ARE IN THE AREA. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT. UNDEVELOPED LAND, MOSTLY SAGEBRUSH AND LARGE AREAS OF BASALT OR LAVA ROCK ARE ON THIS PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE PHOTOS. SO WHEN THE STAFF REPORT SAYS IT'S CLEARLY VISIBLE THAT IS WHAT WE'RE MEANING. AND BECAUSE OF THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG TIME. THE LAVA ROCK DOES CAN CAUSE A CHALLENGE FOR IT. SO HAVING A ZONE WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSER SMALLER LOTS NOT DO MAYBE LARGE BASEMENTS STAFF WOULD THINK WOULD BE MORE APPLICABLE HERE. ON TOP OF THAT THE R3 ZONE WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY CLOSE TO THE CITY CENTER VERSUS DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE CITY FRINGE. THE AREA IS WELL CONNECTED TO SCHOOL DEPLOYMENT SERVICE AREAS AND THE CITY'S PATHWAY SYSTEM WITH THAT STEP HAS REVIEWED THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO MERIT COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? AWESOME. THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW I AM GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS AGAIN. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YEAH, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS LATER IN THIS MEETING. GO AHEAD AND START. THANK YOU. FIRST PUBLIC MY NAME IS BRUCE HILTON. I LIVE AT 1-848 STILL STAGE LANE WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED ANNEX. WELL I GUESS MY WE OUR GUIDANCE WAS TO STICK TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DON'T GIVE ANY [00:25:01] OPINIONS. SO I CAN'T REALLY SO I PREPARED SUCH A STATE. I I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED R3 ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS THE STAFF JUST SHOWED UP ON THE BOARD. YOUR PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THIS AREA TO BE R1. SO AND THEN THE PARAGRAPH IN THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES SOME SUPPORT ONLY FOR DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSES. THEY USE THAT TO SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSION. AND THOSE ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH R3. THOSE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH R1. THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES BY MY CALCULATION OR 64% R1 21 COUNTY ROAD AND A MUCH SMALLER FRACTION THERE'S LIMITED COMMERCIAL AT 9%, R3 AT 6%. SO OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE BOUNDARIES ARE R1. YOU CAN SEE FROM AS YOU ZOOMED OUT AND THE NEXT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ALL THAT REGION IS R1. AND THEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO STATES A CONCERN WITH THE RESIDENTS. THEY MAY BY THEIR SURVEY WHICH HAS ITS. SOME FAULTS WITH THAT. BUT ANYWAYS THE EMBEDDED IN THAT WITH THE PARAGRAPH QUOTED BY THE STAFF HERE IN OUR STAFF REPORT, IT STATES SPECIFICALLY CONCERNS FROM THE SURVEY IS THAT NEW BILLS SHOULD BE VISUALLY COHESIVE WITH EXISTING HOUSE STYLES. THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH R3. THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MET AND SATISFIED BY R1 CONSTRUCTION WHICH STILL COULD ALLOW MULTI UNIT. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARIANNE HILTON. I LIVE AT 1848 SAUSAGE LANE AS WELL. IF YOU JUST LOOK AT MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE HAPPEN TO BE EIGHT HOUSES THAT BORDER THAT PROPERTY. SIX OF THOSE HOUSES ARE ON A HALF ACRE AND THE OTHER SIX HAVE MORE THAN A HALF ACRE. OKAY, SO. SO AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD SAY OKAY, WELL THEN WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE HALF ACRE LOTS. SO 35, THAT'S 35 ACRES. YOU WANT TO DO HALF ACRE LOTS, THAT'S 70 HOUSES. OKAY, WELL YOU GO TO R3, THAT ALLOWS FOR 35 UNITS PER ACRE. 35 TIMES 35 GIVES YOU 1,200, 225 UNITS, WHICH IS REALLY NOT CONSISTENT AT ALL WITH THE NEIGHBORING AREA. RIGHT. SO I UNDERSTAND FROM MR. DIAZ, HE GAVE YOU HIS PLAN, HE DOES NOT PLAN ON GOING THE R3 ROUTE. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT HE'S A DEVELOPER AND IF HE CHOOSES TO SELL HIS DEVELOPMENT, HIS SOMEONE ELSE, IF IT'S ALREADY ZONED AS R3, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE A STOPGAP MEASURE IN WHAT THAT PERSON DOES WITH THE LAND. CORRECT. YOU KNOW, THEY MAY, YOU KNOW, HE DOES SAY, WELL, WE WANT TO KEEP THESE SMALL HOUSES AND THAT'S GREAT. I'D BE OFFERED, I'D BE ALL FOR NOT DEVELOPING IT. I'M ONE THAT'S HAPPY THAT IT'S BEEN EMPTY FOR SO LONG. RIGHT, OF COURSE. BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEXT PERSON WITH THIS, OUR THREE ZONING ISN'T GOING TO COME IN AND SAY, OH WELL, SAYS I CAN HAVE 35 UNITS PER ACRE. SO I'M JUST GOING TO, YOU KNOW, SHOOT UP ALL THESE HUGE APARTMENTS, WHICH REALLY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA. SO OBVIOUSLY I WOULD LIKE ZERO DEVELOPMENT. BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT REALISTIC. AND SO I WOULD JUST PROPOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS I LOOKED AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE RESIDENTS IN AREA 3, WHICH IS OUR AREA ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN, THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN. COMMENTS SAID THAT RESIDENTS SPEAK HIGHLY ABOUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE MORE SPACE AND A RURAL FEEL WHILE STILL BEING CONNECTED TO THE CITY. AND THAT REALLY IS THE WEST SIDE FEELING. ANOTHER PERSON SAID, I WANT TO KEEP MY CORNER OF THE CITY COUNTRY. NOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT WE DO NOTHING WITH THIS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALISTIC AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I AM ASKING YOU TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT. THAT FACT OF MOVING, JUMPING TO AN R3 SEEMS PRETTY KIND OF A DRASTIC MOVE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MUST [00:30:05] BE ANOTHER ITEM. SO. OKAY, SWEET. WELL THEN I WILL. WITH THAT WE WILL LET THE APPLICANT MAYBE. YEAH. GIVE HIS LAST TWO CENTS. SO IT IS TRUE. I'M A DEVELOPER. NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, THANK YOU. YEP. MARCO DIAZ, 10999 BIRCH CREEK ROAD SOUTH JORDAN, UTAH. SO AS I WAS SAYING, I AM A DEVELOPER AND YES, DEVELOPERS HAVE A BAD REPUTATION SOMETIMES. BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM PUTTING ANYTHING AS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, ONCE EVERYTHING IS REZONED, IT IS 35 UNITS A DAY. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPERS ARE SMARTER THAN JUST TRYING TO GET THINGS APPROVED IF THEY CAN'T MOVE. YOU COULD HAVE A THOUSAND UNITS THERE AND SITTING THERE AND NO DEVELOPERS MAKING ANY MONEY IF THEY'RE NOT SELLING. RIGHT NOW THE CITY'S APPROVED OVER 1200 TOWNHOMES. THERE'S A LOT OF INVENTORY OUT THERE. THE ECONOMY IS KIND OF ROUGH RIGHT NOW. INTEREST RATES ARE HIGH AND SO PRODUCT IS NOT MOVING. SO SELF INTEREST OF A DEVELOPER WOULD SAY WHAT IS MOVING? SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO NORMALLY IF YOU SEE THERE, WHENEVER WE BUILD NICHE TO A FREEWAY, NORMALLY THAT'S WHAT WE CALL BUFFER ZONES. RIGHT. WE TRY TO PUT TOWNHOMES IN THAT AREA, BUT WE FOUND THAT FOR THIS AREA, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE HIGH SCHOOL AND YOU HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE, WE THOUGHT THAT HAVING SMALLER RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE A GOOD BUFFER. NOW I JUST WANT TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR THE RECORD. R1 VERSUS R3. R1 IS RESIDENTIAL. R3 IS RESIDENTIAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE CAN. YOU CAN HAVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN AN R3. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE SEEKING AN R3 DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO APARTMENTS OR TOWNHOMES OR GO UP TO 35 UNITS AN ACRE. YES. DOES IT ALLOW US TO DO THAT? YOU BET. AND ONCE IT'S REZONED. YOU'RE RIGHT, IT CAN MEAN THAT. BUT LIKE I SAY, I HAVE NO PROBLEM PUTTING ANYTHING IN WRITING. I HAVE NO PROBLEM CREATING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND WHAT OUR, WHAT OUR PROPOSAL WILL BE FOR US AND ANY FUTURE USE. SO. AND THEN. THAT'S IT. WE JUST THINK THAT THAT AREA BEING THAT CLOSE TO A FREEWAY IS A BUSY AREA AND THEREFORE IT WILL BE A TRANSITIONAL AREA BETWEEN THIS FREEWAY AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE IN THE AREA. AND WE BELIEVE THAT SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IS A GOOD USE OF THAT OPEN LOT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I WILL. WITH THAT WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? YES, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON R3. JUST LOOKING ON THE, ON THE SHEET, IS THERE. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN R3? IT'S BLANK ON MY. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A MAXIMUM. NO, MAXIMUM. OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION IS MAXIMUM DENSITY IN GROSS UNITS PER ACRE. DOES THAT MEAN ANY SINGLE ACRE OR AVERAGE OVER THE. IT WOULD BE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU COULD HAVE 70 UNITS IN ONE ACRE IF YOU HAD NONE IN THE NEXT ACRE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO GET. BUT WE WILL LOOK AT OVERALL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT THAT IS. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, YEAH, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY OPINION IN REVIEW THAT I ALSO OR I FEEL THAT THIS ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE R3 ZONE. I THINK THE IDEA OF SMALLER HOMES AND THE DEVELOPERS INTENT TO PRESENT THOSE IS APPRECIATED. BUT I AGREE THAT LOOKING AROUND THIS AREA THAT I THINK R1 WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. AND THEN I SEE THAT AREA [00:35:01] TO THE EAST, KIND OF ALONG SKYLINE DRIVE. IT'S KIND OF MORE THAT TRANSECT OR THAT TRANSITION TO A MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT TYPE. COMMISSIONER OGA. YEAH. THANK YOU. WOULD IT BE OKAY IF WE PUT THE SLIDE BACK UP THAT SHOWS THE KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU. SO AS WAS POINTED OUT, I MEAN THIS PARCEL IS SPLIT BETWEEN SUBURBAN AND URBAN USE OR MIXED USE CENTER CORRIDORS. WHICH ONE IS THAT? THE DARKER ALONG THE FREEWAY. MIXED USE CENTER. SO MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT WE HAVE R1 IN THE BULK OF THE AREA SURROUNDING. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST MONTH ON SOME OTHER THINGS. CLOSE TO THIS AREA, ANOTHER PARCEL SIMILAR THAT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE R3A, BUT IT DOESN'T TOUCH ANYTHING. JUST THAT NORTH CORNER AND THEN ONE TO THE SOUTH. SO TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE THIS, WE WANT TO SEE A BUFFER BETWEEN R1, MAYBE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE MAYBE TO THEN SOMETHING QUITE DENSE. AND I THINK R3 IS TOO ABRUPT OF A CHANGE FROM R1, EVEN RIGHT UP TO THE FREEWAY. WE'VE HAD PRECEDENCE FOR THIS WITH OTHER PARCELS THAT WE'VE ANNEXED AND SUBDIVIDED TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST GRANT THE WHOLE THING R3. I WOULD PREFER TO SAY, SEE, WE HAVE A. SEE SOMETHING MAYBE TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST, WHERE IT IS BUFFERING THE R1. SORRY. YEAH. TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST, WHERE IT IS BUFFERING R1. SAY SOMETHING LIKE AN R1 OR R2, MAYBE R2, SO THAT WE HAVE THAT BUFFER BETWEEN R1 AND THE HIGHER DENSITY. AND I'M COMFORTABLE ALONG THE FREEWAY WITH R3. I THINK THAT FITS. AND SO WE HAVE. WE HAVE IN THE PAST BEEN ABLE TO SAY, WELL, FOR A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY, WE'RE TO GRANT R3, AND FOR A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY, WE'RE GOING TO GRANT R2. IT ISN'T NECESSARILY WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS, BUT I THINK THEN GIVES US THE BUFFER TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE ON OTHER PARCELS. AND THIS IS THE FIRST ON THAT CORRIDOR RIGHT ALONG THE FREEWAY, REALLY, TO FULLY DEVELOP. AND I APPRECIATE MR. DIAZ'S COMMENTS AND BEING WILLING TO PUT THINGS IN WRITING OR WHATEVER, BUT AS WE'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, OUR ONE CHANCE TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS WITH DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY IS WHAT IT'S ZONED. AND OURS CAN DO A LOT, BUT OUR TWO CAN, OR VICE VERSA. AND SO I AM. I AM DEFINITELY NOT COMFORTABLE SAYING, YES, THE WHOLE THING ARE THREE, BUT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE IF WE WERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD LET MR. DIAZ COME BACK WITH MAYBE A DIFFERENT SOLUTION, HAVING A PORTION OF IT R2, AND THE PORTION ALONG THE FREEWAY SOUTH AND TO THE EAST R3. I. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. I WAS KIND OF HAVING THOSE THOUGHTS, TOO, BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTING MAYBE TWO DIFFERENT ZONES, BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THAT. I KNOW IT'S TRICKIER, FOR SURE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I'M FOR SURE FOR THAT YET OR NOT. BUT I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, BECAUSE I WAS THINKING I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONLY ONE, YOU KNOW? I GOT YOU, BROTHER. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. SO DO WE HAVE. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO LIKE. YEAH, I APPRECIATE IT. I'LL SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT. I'M ON RECORD MULTIPLE TIMES IN OUR HEARINGS AS I THINK RESIDENTIAL USES NEXT TO EACH OTHER ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER. I DON'T THINK THAT R3 NEXT TO R1 IS INAPPROPRIATE, AND WE HAVE MANY SPOTS LIKE THAT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE WAY MY CO COMMISSIONERS FEEL ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SPOT, THOUGH I DO WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS. SO, ONE, WE HAVE SOME FOLKS HERE WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT BEING ADJACENT. THE REAL ADJACENT LOTS TO THIS PROPERTY ARE LARGE UNDEVELOPED LOTS OR A SEMINARY OWNED BY THE CHURCH OR THE HIGH SCHOOL OR A LARGE UNDEVELOPED ELSI PLOT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE INFRINGING ON NEIGHBORS. IN MY OPINION. I THINK THE SURROUNDING USES ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND IF I'M IN THE MINORITY OPINION STATING FALSEHOODS. I'M SORRY, SIR, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE COMMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THEM. PUTTING HIS WORDS ON RECORD, AND THEY'RE INCORRECT. THEY'RE STILL HIS WORDS AND THEY CAN STILL BE INCORRECT, BUT IT'S STILL HIS OPINION. BUT. BUT, SIR, WE HAVE TO KEEP DECORUM HERE, PLEASE. [00:40:01] I'M GOING BASED ON. I'LL JUST. I WILL ANSWER. I'M GOING BASED ON WHAT I CAN SEE ON THE MATERIALS PRESENTED TO US AND THE SATELLITE IMAGERY THAT WE HAVE. A LOT OF THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT LOTS TO THE NORTH APPEAR UNDEVELOPED. THE ONES THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS AND THE ONES TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED R3 ALREADY. THAT'S WHAT I CAN SEE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. THE WHEELS ARE TURNING SILENTLY. OKAY. DO YOU NEED ANOTHER MINUTE OR. OKAY, GO FOR IT. I WILL SAY ONE THING, THAT I APPRECIATE THAT HE HAS NOT BROUGHT THIS AS A PUD BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OPTION FOR DEVELOPING THIS PERSON, WHETHER OR NOT. OR WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY EVEN POSSIBLE. I'M JUST SAYING WITH ALL OF THE ASSAULT, THAT PROPERTY, THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF IT THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT A FAIR AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO REMOVE THAT BASALT. SO I THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING SMALLER UNITS AND NOT DEVELOPING THE WHOLE PROPERTY, WHICH I KIND OF GATHER IS THE INTELLECTUAL. BUT PERSONALLY, IN SPITE OF THAT, I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT IF WE ZONE THIS R3 AND THE PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS, IT'S OUT OF OUR CONTROL WITH WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH IT. AND WE HAD A REAL HARD TIME PASSING THE R2 AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING ACROSS THE STREET THERE. AND I. I THINK SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS STILL PERTAIN. AND SO I. I THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING MR. DIAZ COME BACK WITH A. WITH PROPOSAL LIKE GLENN WAS TALKING ABOUT, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, I THINK I COULD SUPPORT. BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT ZONING, HOPEFULLY. NARCISSIST. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SCORN. I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF. I THINK MY THOUGHTS ARE SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT WITH COMMENTS BY MR. OGDEN. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE A SPLIT TYPE OF ZONING AS HE DESCRIBED IT PROVIDES A LITTLE BETTER BUFFER. AND THAT WOULD BE MY SENTIMENT, WHICH IS THAT ALL I CAN SAY. WELL, WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. I THINK HERE'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THE R3 ZONE BESIDE. SO A LOT OF. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE BETWEEN R3 AND R2, THERE'S ONLY THREE DIFFERENCES. AND. AND SOME CONSIDER THEM HUGE DIFFERENCES. YOU HAVE R2 IS 6,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT, AND R3 IS 05,000. YEAH, THAT'S A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET DIFFERENCE. BUT SOME WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT THAT MUCH. I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO GO FROM RP TO R1, THAT'S ALMOST. THAT'S 12,000 TO 7,000. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A HUGE JUMP. RIGHT. VERSUS R2 TO R3, IT'S ONLY 1,000FT. ALL THE OTHER SETBACKS, WELL, FRONT SETBACK IS IN R2 IS 20, R3 IS 15. SIDE IS THE SAME, REAR IS THE SAME LOT COVERAGE IS THE EXACT SAME. SO THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THERE. IF HE WANTS TO FILL THE WHOLE LOT, YOU HAVE MORE OF THE LOT, BE MORE HOUSE, YOU COULD STILL DO IT. THAT IDEA IN R2, IT JUST WOULD HAVE TO BE 06,000 SQUARE FEET VERSUS 05,000. BUT THE BIG DIFFERENCE, OBVIOUSLY, IS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IN GROSS UNITS PER ACRE. AND THIS IS THE THING THAT IT'S 17 IN R2 VERSUS 35. NOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT DEVELOPERS, EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS 35, THERE'S NO WAY A DEVELOPER COULD EVER GET 35, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO COUNTER IN OR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LANDSCAPING, ROADS, PARKING LOTS, ALL THAT STUFF. BUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE END, IT COULD STILL BE A PRODUCT OR AN AREA WHICH DOES HAVE HIGHER DENSITY. THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS THAT WE'RE LIKE, IF THIS WAS IN ANOTHER PART OF TOWN WHERE IT WAS NEXT TO MORE OTHER HIGHER DENSITY OR MORE COMMERCIAL, WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE A DEVELOPER IS PROBABLY DOING APARTMENTS OR [00:45:01] WHATEVER. BUT WHEN WE'RE DENYING IT BASED OFF OF IF SOMEONE'S WANTING TO DO A, YOU KNOW, A UNIQUE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEY'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE CODE IN A WAY TO BE ABLE TO STILL DO A PRODUCT THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE AREA, BUT LIKE WITH THE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT IS STILL MORE HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, WE'RE PENALIZING IT, EVEN THOUGH THE CODE ALLOWS IT. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO. ESSENTIALLY, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO LOWER DENSITY, BUT WE'RE TOTALLY OKAY IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO HIGHER DENSITY IF IT'S IN ANOTHER PARK TOWN. AND SO I HOPE I'M MAKING ANY KIND OF SENSE. BUT TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALWAYS ONE WAY. LIKE IF R3 IS. THE DEVELOPER'S PLANNING ON DOING ONE THING WITH R3, IT'S TOTALLY OKAY. BUT IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO CREATE SOMETHING UNIQUE BUT THEY'RE NEEDING THE HIGHER DENSITY ZONE, IT ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M BARKING UP A TREE OR NOT, BUT THAT'S THE ONE THING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. I'M ALSO STILL OPEN TO THE IDEA OF SPLITTING THE PROPERTY IN HALF, YOU KNOW, SOME WAY WE'VE SEEN IT DONE BEFORE, A BUFFER. BECAUSE, YEAH, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R2 AND R3 REALLY IS. YEAH, JUST A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, BUT IT WOULD BE A NICE BUFFER. AND IF IT'S R2 ON THAT SIDE, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT'S THE PROPERTY THAT WE ANNEXED ACROSS ON THE OTHER SIDE RIGHT THERE? BECAUSE IF CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THAT, WHAT ZONE IS THAT GOING TO BE? R2. OKAY. SO WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY. SO WHAT I ALSO, WHAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THIS, THOUGH, IS NOW WE'RE TAKING TWO VACANT PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME AND KIND OF HAVE THIS HOLE IN THE CITY, AND WE'RE FINALLY BEING ABLE TO FILL THIS IN. AND WE'RE ANNEXING 17 SOUTH AND THAT ROAD ALONG THE FREEWAY. AND THEN IT ALSO HELPS WITH PLANS TO HELP INCREASE THAT DANGEROUS CURVE RIGHT THERE. THERE WAS HUGE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT CURVE LAST MEETING. AND NOW IF WE'RE ANNEXING THE OTHER SIDE, IT JUST MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN. THESE PROJECTS AND THE CITY CAN WORK TO CREATE A BETTER, SAFER ROAD RIGHT THERE, YOU KNOW, AND SO WHETHER IT'S R2 OR R3, THAT CAN STILL HAPPEN. SO I DON'T KNOW. I JUST. I'M KIND OF TORN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S TRYING TO DO SOMETHING UNIQUE AND. OH, AND ALSO PRELIMINARY PLATS. ONCE A PRELIMINARY, YOU KNOW, IF THE DEVELOPER BRINGS A PRELIMINARY PLOT, IT DOES MAKE IT HARDER FOR. IF YOU WERE TO SELL IT LATER, IT MAKES IT A LOT HARDER FOR A DEVELOPER TO COME ALONG AND TRY AND CHANGE THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER CHANCE FOR US TO BE LIKE, NO, SORRY, YES, IT'S R3. BUT WE AGREED ON THIS OTHER PRELIMINARY PLAQUE, HOWEVER LONG AGO, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WILL HOLD PRECEDENCE IN OF ITSELF. YES, THERE'S RISK BEFOREHAND THAT IT COULD BE SOLD BEFORE PRELIMINARY PLAQUE. BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN HERE, IN MY OPINION. PLEASE, SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING SO I DON'T SOUND CRAZY. WOULD YOU CLARIFY HOW DOES HAVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED TIE DOWN A FEATURE ONLY? SO, BECAUSE IT'S NOW. BECAUSE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, IT GOES INTO PLANNING DOCUMENTS. IT'S MORE SET IN STONE. AND SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, IT HAS TO COME BACK TO US. EVEN THOUGH IT'S PRELIMINARY, WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE A NEW ONE IF THERE'S ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. I MEAN, HOW MUCH CHANGE DOES THERE HAVE TO BE FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO NEED TO COME BACK TO US? IF IT'S BEING CHANGED FOR A RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY, IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE STREET NETWORK OR IF THERE'S AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS BY MORE THAN 5%. OKAY. THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU. GOTCHA. SO WHAT IF THOUGH, SOMEONE WERE TO BUY IT AND YOU HAVE ALL THESE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON IT, RIGHT. THAT ARE ALL PLATTED OUT, BUT THEN SOMEONE COMES ALONG AND THEY'RE THEN TRYING TO COMBINE THEM TO HAVE THESE BIG LOTS TO HAVE BIG OLD APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S ALL THEORETICAL. RIGHT, BUT I MEAN, YOU'D PROBABLY SEE A DIFFERENT STREET NETWORK. RIGHT. OKAY, SO MORE THAN LIKELY. SO IT WOULD. GOTCHA. GENERALLY SPEAKING. PROBABLY. OKAY, SO, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY MY POINT IS LIKE, THAT IS ANOTHER STOP GAP TOO, IS IF THE PRELIMINARY. WE PASS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THEN HE SELLS IT, IT STILL HAS TO COME BACK TO US. OKAY, WELL, [00:50:01] I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING BECAUSE ISN'T THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ONLY VALID FOR A YEAR AND, AND THEY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN EXTENSION IF THEY DON'T DEVELOP IT WITHIN THE YEAR. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, SO IF HE WERE TO SIT ON IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN SELL IT, WHAT'S THE PLAQUE GOT TO DO WITH IT? IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE REPLATTED ANYWAY. RIGHT, RIGHT. THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING THOUGH, AND COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE INPUT ON WHATEVER WAS PROPOSED AT THAT POINT. RIGHT, BUT WE'D ALREADY HAVE THE ZONING IN PLACE. YES, CORRECT. ZONING AND THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THAT ZONING. SO WOULD THE, WOULD THE PREVIOUS. I'M LEARNING SOMETHING NEW. WOULD THE PREVIOUS PRELIMINARY CLASS BE BROUGHT UP AT ALL IN THAT, LIKE, LET'S SAY IT'S FIVE YEARS LATER SAYING LIKE HERE WAS THE PREVIOUS ONE, OR WOULD IT JUST BE COMPLETELY IGNORANT? I MEAN, IT COULD, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY WOULD BE STARTING OVER WITH A NEW PRELIMINARY. GOTCHA. OKAY. WELL, FORGET WHAT I SAID ABOUT POLLINATOR. SO YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY. SO I'VE ONLY BEEN DOING THIS, WHAT, THREE YEARS NOW. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I THINK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR. IT GOT ME THINKING AND I GUESS TWO THINGS. THE IDEA OF THE PENALTY, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT MARKET. I SEE ALMOST THE R3 AS A BONUS. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A PENALTY, IT'S THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM A BONUS AND THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING CREATIVE. SO I JUST HAD THE THOUGHT AND THEN MY QUESTION ON YOUR COMMENT IS I WAS WONDERING IF THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO SOMETHING CREATIVE. I'M JUST WONDERING, BEYOND THE LOT SIZE, ARE THERE LIMITATIONS TO BEING CREATIVE WITH THE WAY THIS IS DEVELOPED? IF IT WERE TO BE R2 OR R1, I KNOW YOU HAVE THE LOT SIZE, SO PROBABLY THE PRO FORMA WILL, YOU KNOW, CHANGE IT. BUT I GUESS, I WONDER. I FEEL LIKE THERE COULD BE POTENTIALLY STILL SOME CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO DEVELOPING IT, TO MAKING IT MORE, MAKING IT AFFORDABLE EVEN WITH A MORE STANDARD DESTINY AND LOTS OF. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING. AND LAST COMMENT, AFTER REALLY GOING THROUGH THIS AND HEARING EVERYONE'S COMMENTS, I THINK ANOTHER BIG RED FLAG FOR ME AS FAR AS HAVING IT RELATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT IS THAT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. JUST GOING, IF I LOOK AT THE TABLE CORRECTLY, THAT R3, THERE, THERE IS NO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT? REGARDLESS OF DENSITY. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY WOULD COME IN AND BUILD A FOUR STORY BUILDING IN THAT AGAINST ONE OF THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER. THOSE ARE MY LAST THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR, CAN I PROPOSE, LIKE, MAYBE. I KNOW IT'S YOUR PUBLIC, BUT MAYBE A POSSIBLE SOLUTION? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF OUT OF THE ORB. YEAH, YEAH. LEGAL. BECAUSE HE'S THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW. YES. HE COULD SPEAK AGAIN. YEAH. IT'S NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO NOT. IT'S NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IF IT'S NOT BEING OPEN. I DO NOT, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE IF THE ENTIRE GROUP IS, IS TOGETHER. I COULD ALSO ASK MR. STORR. I THINK MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO REOPEN THE HEARING IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT MATTER OF RECORD FOR THAT LIMITED PURPOSE. OKAY. I REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I DID THAT, IT TURNED INTO A WHOLE THING. BUT I ALSO WANT TO. I, YOU KNOW, I, IT'S. I MEAN, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT OR NOT. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY, BUT. YEAH, THAT'S MY LIMITED OPINION. I THINK THAT MAYBE, AT LEAST FOR WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, I WAS LOOKING FOR FROM STAFF PERSPECTIVE ON, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY WHAT WOULD BE THE LIMITATIONS OR WHAT WOULD BE OPPORTUNITIES, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. I MEAN THIS IS, THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THIS. I THINK WE, WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT ALL OUT ON THE TABLE. LET'S HEAR WHAT PEOPLE HAVE [00:55:01] TO SAY. YEAH, OKAY, THEN I'LL. YEAH, FOR SURE. THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE ARGUING WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC BACK AND FORTH, BUT WHEN YOU COME BACK UP, JUST YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR THANK YOU AGAIN. MY NAME IS MARCO DIAZ. 10999 SOUTH BIRCH CREEK ROAD. MY APOLOGIES. NORMALLY I DON'T INTERJECT DURING COMMENTS, BUT IT FELT LIKE THE MAIN CONCERN. AND AS A DEVELOPER I ALWAYS TELL MY STAFF THAT MY ROLE IS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. AND THE WAY I SEE IT IS THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT DENSITY, OBVIOUSLY I ALSO HEARD A CONCERN ABOUT HEIGHT AND SUCH, BUT I THINK WE COULD SOLVE THAT. BUT DENSITY, YES. ONCE YOU REZONE IT, A NEW DEVELOPER COULD COME IN AND ASK FOR A LOT MORE DENSITY THAN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO. SO THE REASON WHY I STATED INITIALLY THAT I WENT WITH AN R3 IS BECAUSE OF THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MODEL. IT MAY NOT SEEM A LOT BETWEEN A 5,000, 6,000, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE MANY LOTS IT REALLY, YOUR NUMBERS START TO. DOESN'T SEEM TO PENCIL AS WELL. AND SO, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO MY SUGGESTION IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PRECEDENT OR THERE'S BEEN ANY PROTOCOL IN THE PAST FOR THIS, BUT TO SAY COULD WE GO WITH LIKE AN R2 WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING WITH SMALLER LOTS, YOU KNOW, AS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS SUCH. SO THAT WOULD SOLVE THE CONCERN ABOUT DENSITY AND IT WOULD MAYBE CUT THAT, YOU KNOW, BRIDGE THAT HALFWAY POINT OF SAYING BECAUSE OUR INTENTION IS TO DO SMALLER LOTS, WE'D LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY REASON WHY WE WENT TO AN R3, IF THE R2 ALLOWED FOR 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, WE WOULD HAVE GONE WITH R2. BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE HANDCUFFED BY THE CODE. YOU ARE, YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. AND IF THERE WAS A WAY, LIKE I SAID, THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR ANOTHER MECHANISM THAT WE CAN LOWER THE DENSITY, NOT HAVE TO GO TO AN R3 DENSITY 35 UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH WOULD CUT IT LESS THAN HALF. 17 UNITS AN ACRE. I BELIEVE THAT'S 17. R2, 17 UNITS AN ACRE. SO IT CUT IT LESS THAN HALF, ALLEVIATING THE CONCERN OF SOMEONE OVER BUILDING THIS AREA, BUT ALLOW US TO BUILD 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SPLIT THE LOT IN HALF AND GO PART R3, R2, IF THAT WOULD ALLOW. BECAUSE OUR INTENT IS NOT TO GO WITH MORE DENSITY. OUR INTENT IS JUST SMALLER LOTS. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'RE TRYING TO BE CREATIVE TO TRY TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK. AND SO AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERJECTING IN YOUR DISCUSSION, BUT I THOUGHT THAT MAY BE A. IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION, A WAY TO KIND OF SOLVE THIS PROBLEM A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. BRUCE HILTON, 1-848 STILLSICH LANE. SO I HAVE ONE OF THESE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHICH IS NOT UNDEVELOPED. WAS UNDEVELOPED. TWO LOTS, WHATEVER THOSE ARE, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE ANNEXED BY THE CITY. COULD YOU POINT OUT EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE AT? SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, SO I COULD HAVE BETTER CONFIDENCE. I'M IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CEMETERY. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE WERE ANNEXED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. OKAY. WHICH WE ATTENDED MANY THINGS BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO BE ANNEXED. THE ONLY THING I BENEFITED FROM THE ANNEXATION IS I GET TO PAY ABOUT THREE TIMES MORE TAXES. EVERYONE ELSE THOUGHT, WELL, SURELY THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE ROAD. NO, THE CITY DOES NOT DEVELOP THE ROAD. THE CITY WAITS FOR SOMEONE TO DEVELOP ANYWAYS. SO ON THIS, I APPRECIATE ALL THIS DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, THE MAIN CONCERN WAS R3 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT PARAGRAPH SHOWS. CITING FOR SUPPORT IS REALLY ALMOST 50 TO 67%. AND THOSE NUMBERS HAVE MUCH LESS CONFIDENCE. THE ONLY CONFIDENCE IN STATISTICS IS LIKE 50% CONFIDENCE LEVEL. AND THAT SUPPORT FOR DUPLEX TWIN HOMES. SO THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT. AS MUCH AS SOMEONE CAN PROMISE, ONCE YOU ZONE IT, THAT'S WHAT'S KEY. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE GET TO DO. R2 IS STILL NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE R1 PROPERTY. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, IF PEOPLE, YOU HAVE STAFF, PEOPLE, PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS, LET'S ADDRESS LOW COST HOUSING. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT. HOW TO LOWER THE COST OF HOUSING. MR. DIAZ HAS A GREAT SOLUTION. SO I WOULD PROPOSE YOU GUYS [01:00:02] WORK ON YOUR ZONING LAWS. ALLOW A R1 WITH AN EXCEPTION OF SMALLER BLOCKS. THAT'S WHAT HE'S PROPOSING TO BE A SUCCESS. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT SOMEONE GIVING R3 TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO IN R3. NO HIGH LIMITATIONS. MOST OF THE HIGHEST HOMES IN THE AREA ARE TWO STORIES. MANY OF THEM ARE TWO STORIES. THAT'S 20FT. THAT'S NOT 35FT FOR R2. THAT'S NOT UNLIMITED HEIGHT FOR R3, 20FT. SO THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT CITY ENTERTAINS AND WORKS BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ADDRESS AND SOLVE THE NEED FOR LOWER COST HOUSING. AND WHAT MR. DIAZ IS PROPOSING IS, I THINK, CONSIDERATION CONSISTENT WITH THAT. YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT. AND MAKING IT R3 OR R2 IS NOT THE WAY TO GO. MAKING IT R1 WITH AN EXCEPTION. I THINK R1A, LIKE YOU HAVE A 3A. SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION. THANKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NO. OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I APPRECIATE. I APPRECIATE THOSE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER OGDEN, QUESTION. IF WE DID AS MR. DIAZ HAS PROPOSED WITH A MORE LIKE AN R2 OR R1 WITH A SMALLER LOT SIZE, WOULD THAT NOT REQUIRE A PIECE OF THIS IS FOR STAFF? WOULD THEN TURN THIS INTO A PUD? IT WOULDN'T TURN IT INTO A PUD. THE COMMISSION NOR THE COUNCIL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MODIFY THE ZONE AS PART OF AN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONE DISTRICT AND ALLOW SMALLER LOTS IN THAT ZONE, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND AMEND THE ZONING CODE. SO THIS BODY IS REALLY LEFT WITH, CONSIDERING WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IN THE ZONE THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED, THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED AND THE STANDARDS THAT ARE ALLOWED, THERE'S NOT A PROVISION FOR YOU TO PICK AND CHOOSE OR CHANGE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE STANDARD AS PART OF ZONING. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I THOUGHT OUR. THE SCOPE OF OUR ABILITY, I GUESS, IS TO DECIDE WHAT ZONE THE PARCEL CAN BE ANNEXED AT AND THEREFORE ANY USE OF THAT ZONE IS ALLOWABLE. AND SO I STAND BY MY INITIAL COMMENTS. I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WHOLE THING BEING R3, BUT A PORTION R2 AND A PORTION R3. THANK YOU. SO HERE'S THE TURN. SO THIS, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HALF OF IT'S YELLOW, THAT DOESN'T. OR A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT HAS TO BE R1. SUBURBAN CAN ALSO BE R2 AND R3 AND R3, BECAUSE SUBURBAN, IF YOU GO LOOK UP WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SUBURBAN IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT MENTIONS DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES. RIGHT. AND SO THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT SHOULD JUST. IT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AN R1 ZONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT HOLDS UP BECAUSE AGAIN, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS MOSTLY LOOKING AT HOUSING TYPES, IN MY OPINION, AND WHAT'S GENERALLY SUPPOSED TO GO THERE. AND THEN YOU HAVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR, MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS THAT ALSO ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL AS WELL. THAT'S ALSO RESIDENTIAL FOCUS. AND SO, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS KIND OF A BROAD BRUSH, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO HAVE MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS RIGHT UP TO SUBURBAN. AND SO IT IS KIND OF A. IT IS MORE OF A DRASTIC CHANGE. AND SO I WOULD STILL BE OPEN TO EXPLORING THE IDEA OF MAYBE FIGURING OUT TWO DIFFERENT. TWO DIFFERENT ZONES JUST TO, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S A NICE BUFFER. BECAUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR YOU ALSO HAVE R2. RIGHT? AND MOST OF THIS PROPERTY IS FRONT. IS JUST FRONTING ROADS. [01:05:01] RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THE R1 LARGER LOT HOMES NEARBY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE AREA OF WHERE THIS IS AT AS WELL. SO I'M NOT SAYING COMPLETELY IGNORE THE NEIGHBORS, BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CREATIVE HERE IS WHAT I'M SAYING, IF I MAY. I DON'T DISAGREE. AND I THINK IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A LARGE PORTION OF THE PARCEL THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE R2 TO SATISFY ME. I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME BUFFER BETWEEN THE R1 AND THE R3. AND. AND MR. DIAZ, I'M SURE, IS QUITE CREATIVE AND A PROBLEM SOLVER, AS HE'S INDICATED, COULD COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD SATISFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE NORTH, EVEN IF IT WAS A NORTH PORTION. I MEAN, LAST TIME WE DID THIS, THE PRECEDENT THAT WE HAD WITH THE PROPERTY ON 65TH SOUTH, ONE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PARTICIPANTS BROUGHT A HOMEMADE MAP OF WHAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE, AND IT ENDED UP FAIRLY SIMILAR. BUT THE DEVELOPER CAME BACK WITH A PLAN. I THINK IF THERE WERE EVEN A BUFFER OF R2 ALONG THE NORTH END AND THE REMAINING R3, THAT WOULD SATISFY ME. BECAUSE WHAT WE DID LAST MONTH WITH THE PARCEL TO THE WEST ALL BEING R2, WE'RE STILL THERE. WE'VE GOT THIS BUFFER. I JUST. AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO R3, MUCH OF IT, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY ALONG THE FREEWAY CORRIDOR, IT'S A HIGH DENSITY AREA. IT FITS. I JUST THINK WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF A TWEAK. AND I'M GOOD BECAUSE HEARING MOST OF THE COMMENTS I MIGHT TRY, I'M GONNA VENTURE OUT AGAIN AND TRY TO THIS MONTH WHAT I TRIED LAST MONTH WITH THE NEIGHBORING PARCEL. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE APPROVE THE INITIAL ZONING OF R3 FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. BUT ASK. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE SAY THIS, CARRIE, YOU CAN CORRECT ME. ASK MR. DIAZ TO COME BACK WITH A. WITH A DIFFERENT MAP OF SOME PORTION BEING R2 AND R3. DO WE JUST DENY THIS AND TABLE IT, OR DO WE. DO WE RECOMMEND SOMETHING OF WHERE WE'RE AT, OF WHAT I WANT TO SEE? I MEAN, I'LL DRAW IT OUT FOR YOU IF YOU WANT. SO THE COMMISSION HAD. IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT COME BACK TO YOU FOR REVIEW, THEN THE APPROPRIATE ACTION WOULD BE TO TABLE IT AND PROVIDE THE APPLICANT CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AS WELL AS ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE REGARDING THE PROJECT. IF THE COMMISSION IS COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD, YOU. YOU COULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT IT GO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH SOME SORT OF MIXED ZONING ON THE PROPERTY BETWEEN R2 AND R3. AND THEN. THEN THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE THAT PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING. IT WOULD BE PART OF THE RECORD. IT WOULD GO OUT WITH THE NOTICE FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING, AND THEN THE HEARING HELD AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL WOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT. SO JUST DEPENDS WHAT THE COMMISSION IS LOOKING FOR TONIGHT, WHETHER YOU WANTED TO COME BACK TO YOU OR WHETHER YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT MOVING FORWARD WITH AT LEAST THE RECOMMENDATION OF A MIX OF ZONES. I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT IF YOU'RE. OKAY, CHAIR, MR. CHAIRMAN. THAT I MAKE THAT PROPOSAL. YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION. YEAH. WE'LL ALL TELL YOU. YEAH. CUT IT OR NOT. SO. SO I WOULD. I WOULD PROPOSE APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION OF THE THIRD 35.867 ACRES AS INDICATED, WITH A. NOT A COMPLETE R3 FOR ALL OF IT, BUT SOME MIXED R2 TO THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY AND THE REMAINING R3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR, THAT MR. DIAZ CAN THEN REVIEW WITHOUT HAVING TO WASTE MORE TIME COMING UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE AND BRINGING IT BACK TO US. OPENING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AND GOING FORWARD. SO. SORRY, SORRY. THOSE WERE EXTRA COMMENTS. ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY WITH A COMBINED USE ZONING OF R2 AND R3. R2 SPECIFICALLY BEING ALONG THE NORTH CORRIDOR OF THAT PROPERTY. I HAVE JUST A QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHAT. PERHAPS WE CAN DIRECT THIS TO LEGAL COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO MAKE THAT CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING MUCH PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPORTION THAT WE ARE CHANGING THAT. I GUESS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT GIVING EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AND ADD ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE TOTAL PROJECT. TOTAL CHANGE. WELL, AND THAT IS WHAT WE DID LAST TIME WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. AND IT WAS WHEN IT CAME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR THAT THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOTICED. AND EVERYBODY HAD THE RIGHT [01:10:01] TO SPEAK ON THAT CHANGE. SO IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE CAN GO FORWARD THAT WAY. WELL, THE DIFFERENCE IS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANOTHER HEARING. NOT. NOT BEFORE US. NO, IT'D JUST BE BEFORE THE PUBLIC, BEFORE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. AND THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION. THIS IS NOT A. CORRECT. WE DON'T GET TO SAY. THIS IS JUST US GIVING OUR IDEAS TO CITY COUNCIL AT THIS POINT. I'LL COMMENT THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE. THAT BECAUSE I. I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE PASSING IT ON WITHOUT BEING MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. I WOULD. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TABLE WITH THEM WHEN MR. DIAZ COMES BACK. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION FIRST. RIGHT. SO DOES ANYONE WANT TO SECOND? YEAH, I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION. OH, I'M SORRY. NO, NO, THAT'S OKAY. SATISFY THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. SO, YEAH, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SCOTT, JUST. COULD YOU CLARIFY? THE MOTION IS APPROVAL AS PRESENTED, EXCEPT FOR, OF THE ANNEXATION OF THE 35.867 ACRES WITH A MIXED ZONE OF R2 AND R3. R2, SPECIFICALLY BEING ALONG THE NORTHERN CORRIDOR. I VOTE NAY. HENDER. NAY. OGDEN. AYE. TYLER. AYE. MEEHAN. AYE. PARKER. AYE. DORAR. NAY. WOULD YOU LIKE. ALL RIGHT, I THINK THERE'S, LIKE, SEVERAL OF US, SO. WELL, THANK YOU EVERYONE, FOR YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS. THIS WILL THEN GO TO CITY COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW AT WHICH MEETING, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS TONIGHT, AND I APPRECIATE THE GOOD FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY. IT REALLY IS HELPFUL IN HELPING US MAKE [4.IV. RZN26-005: REZONE from RE, Residential Estate to RP, Residential Park. Approximately 1.062 acres in the NE Corner of the NE ‘% of the SE % of Section 31, Township ? North, Range 36 East. Located north of Castlerock Lane, east of Canterbury Way, south of Kinswood Street, and west of S Holmes Avenue. ] OUR DECISIONS. SO MUCH APPRECIATED. ALL RIGHT, ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM IS. YEP. SO, COMMISSIONER, I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE SITTING ON THE BOARD, AND I'M GOING TO GO STEP DOWN THERE AND BECOME AN APPLICANT. GREAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE AN APPLICANT. YEAH, WE DO HAVE AN APPLICANT. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. GLENN OGDEN. MY ADDRESS IS 4146 SOUTH HOLMES AVENUE, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, 83404. MY WHAT I'M ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS A POTENTIAL REZONE FOR THE PROPERTY, THE 1.062 ACRES THAT WE OCCUPY ON LONG HOMES. JUST SO THAT AS PART OF MY PRESENTATION, I WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY THAT HAVE A REPRESENTATION YOU HAVE IN THE PACKET. STARTS WITH THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY. JULY 2018. THIS HOME THAT I LIVE IN WAS BUILT IN 1954, AND IT WAS PART OF A LARGER, I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG ACREAGE FARM THAT EXTENDED ALL THE WAY TO TAYLOR MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT YOU SEE THERE. THE WEST BACK HOME, THE HOME WHEN TAYLOR BE MIDDLE SCHOOL WAS BUILT, THE WELL FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS CAPPED AND THE PROPERTY WAS MOVE DOWN TO CITY WATER. I WAS PART, THIS PROPERTY WAS PART OF THE COUNTY AND I'M TOLD BY MANY, MANY LONGTIME RESIDENTS I HOPE FALLS QUITE RURAL FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2018, RIGHT WHEN THE ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY WAS HAPPENING. THIS PROPERTY WAS A COUNTY ISLAND, PART OF MULTI COUNTY ISLAND ANNEXATION THAT THE CITY INITIATED IN THAT JULY 2018 TIME PERIOD. BECAUSE WE ARE ON A CITY WATER, WE'RE ON OUR OWN SEPTIC AND OUR ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, NOT IDAHO FALLS POWER. WE HAVE A CITY SERVICE. AND I THINK THE CITY WANTED TO ELIMINATE THOSE COUNTY ISLANDS BECAUSE IT'S JUST SLIGHTLY OVER ONE ACRE AND HAS ANIMAL RIGHTS AS BEING ORIGINALLY A FARM. THE ANNEXATION ZONING THAT WAS WAS GIVEN THE PROPERTY. IN FACT ALL OF THESE COUNTY ISLANDS THAT WERE ANNEXED AT THE SAME TIME WAS AN RE ZONE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE WHICH PRESERVED MY ANIMAL RIGHTS. AND SADLY I'VE NOT HAD COWS, PIGS, HORSES ON THE PROPERTY. BUT WE DID HAVE SOME CHICKENS MULTIPLE TIMES. WE DON'T HAVE ANIMALS AND THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE. THE HOME'S OLD, GETTING RUN DOWN. AND WE'D LIKE TO BUILD SOMETHING DIFFERENT. WE PROBABLY LIKE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT SOME POINT. NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT WILL LOOK. I KNOW THAT'S A CONCERN FOR SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS OF WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE. BUT I FOUND OUT EVEN FRIDAY NIGHT MY WIFE AND I WERE [01:15:01] AT DINNER AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT A HOME WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THAT PROPERTY IF WE BUILT. AND I FOUND OUT THAT EVEN SHE AND I ARE NOT ALIGNED YET WITH WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE OR WHERE THAT SITS IN PARCEL. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? AND I CAN HONESTLY SAY TO THIS DAY I STILL HAVE NO DEFINITE PLAN OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY, EXCEPT THAT EVERYTHING AROUND US, AS YOU SEE, THAT IS NOT COUNTY, WHICH IS THE NOT COLORED IN AREA YOU IS RP. AND ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS RIGHT NOW AN ISLAND OF RP, MATCH EVERYTHING AROUND US AND BE REZONED RP. THAT'S MY APPLICATION. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? YOU COULDN'T HEAR? I'M SORRY, NO, HE'S TALKING TO ME. OKAY. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU CAN RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WITH YOUR WIFE. YES, MA'AM. WELL, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY. YEP. STAFF REPORT. THAT'S RIGHT. I'M HEARING YOUR VOICE AND I THINK YOU WERE NEAR THE END. SORRY, MY BAD. COMMISSION TONIGHT. THE REQUESTED ACTION, CORRECT ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE FROM RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE TO RP RESIDENTIAL PARKS. THE MARIN CITY COUNCIL. SO YES, THAT THE INTERESTING HISTORY THAT YOU BOUGHT IT DURING THE ANNEXATION TIME TO ADD ON TO THAT THIS WAS DONE TO RE RESIDENTIAL STATES WHICH AT THE TIME WAS A NEW ZONE IN 2018 TO BRING IN THOSE LARGER COUNTY ESTATES. A NEW SUBDIVISION WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE ZONED RE IT WAS REALLY MADE AND IT'S REALLY MADE FOR THOSE TRANSITIONS. SO IT WAS RE AND THEN TO REDEVELOP OR TO MOVE TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE THE REQUEST IS GOING TO BE RP. THE RP ZONE IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE PRINCIPAL USED PERMITTED ZONE, IT SAYS SHALL BE SINGLE UNIT VOLUMES. SO AND IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE YOU CAN SEE THE USE TABLE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS AGRICULTURE BETWEEN THE TWO PERMITTED USES. THERE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RE AND RP OF 1 ACRE TO 12,000. OF COURSE 1 ACRE IS REALLY MEANT FOR COUNTY LOTS, NOT NECESSARILY CITY LOTS. AND THEN. AND HE CAN STILL HATCH YOUR TRANSFER. SO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES DESIGNATE AS A AREA AS SUBURBAN. RP WOULD WORK WITH SUBURBAN. THE REQUEST IS KNOWN WORKS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION FOR THE REFONE AND DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM RE TO RP. THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THIS ITEM. ANY TAKERS? MY NAME IS MIKE BAILEY. I PERSONALLY THINK LYNN AND MINDY OGDEN ARE REALLY GREAT PEOPLE. THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR NEIGHBORS. THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. IF YOU JUST LOOK RIGHT NOW AND I. I TOTALLY GET IT. GOING FROM AN RE TO AN RP. RE THAT LITTLE GENTLEMAN'S FARM MOST DAYS ARE GONE. AND THIS RP ZONING, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO AN EXTENT. BUT WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THE CITY IS ANYTIME THERE'S LAND, IT SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE TAKE IT TO THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IMMEDIATELY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT RP ZONING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S 12,000 SQUARE FEET PER LOT. NOW THE OGDENS HAVE 1.062 ACRES. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CORRECT NUMBER THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PUT 3.85 LOTS IN THERE. NOW I DO SEE A THING THAT SAYS IT HAS A DENSITY OF 40 UNITS PER ACRE. NOW I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, OKAY, WE'LL LET THEM PUT A TOWN HOME ON ONE LOT AND TWO HOUSES IN AND THAT'S FOUR. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE DILEMMA THAT MINDY AND LYNN HAVE IN DECIDING HOW TO DEVELOP THIS [01:20:01] BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME INTENTIONS AND THAT'S GOT US CONCERNED BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS JUST THE WHOLE SURROUNDING AREA. LET'S TAKE WORST CASE SCENARIO OF. I'D SAY IF YOU CUT THAT INTO THREE LOTS, IT DOESN'T EVEN MATCH ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOW ONE THING THAT HASN'T BEEN NOTED IS THE LOT IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARCEL IS ALSO OWNED BY THE ALLIGANS. SO NOW YOU INCREASE THIS 1.062 AND ADD ANOTHER 0.835. I BELIEVE THIS NUMBER SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THAT THAT NOW YOU'RE ALMOST UP TO TWO ACRES. AND NOW, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH. WELL THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IF IT'S A LAW. NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT IN SIX HOUSES ON AN ALREADY IN AN AREA THAT JUST DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW, I, I GUESS I JUST LIKE TO HEAR REALLY THE PLANS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, ONE DAY YOU WAKE UP, YOU BUY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS 0.75 ACRE LOTS. BACK IN THE DAY THERE WAS A ZONING THING THAT I THINK SPECIFICALLY I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WAS CALLED RESIDENTIAL PARK ESTATE OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS BUT IT'S FOR LARGER LOTS AND THAT'S WHEN CANTERBURY WAS DEVELOPED. I THINK THIS RP HAS KIND OF CAME ALONG BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE MOVING TO TOWN AND YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE BETTER USE OF THE GROUND. SO THAT, THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT REALLY IS GOING ON IS REALLY WHAT'S THE INTENT. ONCE YOU OPEN UP RP, YOU GOT THE GREEN LIGHT TO PUT IN AS MANY AS YOU WANT. THAT LOT TO THE SOUTH OF THE OGDENS IS A THREE DIVISION SUBDIVISION THAT GOES ALONG CASTLE ROCK LANE, CACHE ESTATES. THE ORDINANCES I DON'T BELIEVE ALLOW FOR HIM TO SPLIT THAT UP. WE TALKED THE NIGHT ON AUGUST 12TH SOME IDEAS IT MAKES SENSE. MAYBE, WELL YOU GOT ABOUT TWO ACRES. MAYBE IF, IF THE NEIGHBORS COULD SAY HEY, HAPPY OR NOT, THAT DOESN'T REALLY CONFLICT THAT MUCH. BUT IF YOU START TALKING ABOUT 0.275 LOTS COMING IN THERE, IT JUST DOESN'T MATCH. AND ON TOP OF THAT YOU GUYS CAN MAYBE ADDRESS THIS HOMES IS GOING TO BE WIDENED. RIGHT NOW THERE IS A STOP SIGN GOING DOWN AT 49. STOP. I, I THINK THAT'S. WHAT'S THAT? STOP LINE. STOP LINE. YEAH. OH, WHEN I SAY STOP, STOP SIGN. NO. OKAY, YEAH, STOP. JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO WHAT YOU MEANT, BUT YEAH, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE GREAT. CLEANS UP THAT AREA. DOES THAT CHOP OFF SOME OF THIS GROUND IN THE 1.062 OR NOT? I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE EVEN A SMALLER KNOT THAN WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE CURRENT TUX. I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT THAT EXPANSION ON HOMES TRULY LOOKS LIKE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE GETTING READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT SOON. AND THAT WOULD GO. THAT, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE ISSUE THERE. WHEN WE MET ON AUGUST 12, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE. WELL, WE MIGHT JUST BRING A ROD IN ALONG THE. FERGUSON SAID SCOTT FERGUSON IS HERE ALONG HIS PROPERTY LINE. WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT A LANE RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE, BUT I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS AND MAYBE SCOTT CAN DO IT. SO YOU KNOW, I, IT'S, IT'S. YOU WONDER WHY NEIGHBORS GET CONCERNED. YOU KNOW, YOU JUST HEARD THIS GENTLEMAN THAT HAD AN R1 THAT'S NOW GOING TO BE POSSIBLY HAVING AN R2, R3. YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOUGHT INTO NEIGHBORHOODS, SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE NICE BIG LOTS WITH NOW THE POTENTIAL FOR A CHANGE AND CHANGE ISN'T EASY. BUT I WOULD JUST SAY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPREHENSIVE, MAKE IT MATCH. AND I THINK GLENN COULD MAKE A BEAUTIFUL HOME ON THE LOT. AND EVEN IF YOU SPLIT IN HALF ACRE LOTS, I THINK YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY DO A COUPLE. BUT WHEN THEY START TALKING MAYBE BEYOND THAT WHICH THE RP ALLOWS THEN IT STARTS CAUSING CONCERNS. BUT JUST LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR MAP UP THERE AND SAYING OKAY, WORST CASE SCENARIO. [01:25:01] BEST CASE SCENARIO, ONE LOT. OH, NO PROBLEM. MATCHES PERFECTLY. NEXT SCENARIO, TWO LOTS. EH, NOT BAD. NEXT SCENARIO, THREE LOTS, FOUR LOTS DEPENDING WHAT HE DOES WITH THAT SOUTH LOT. DOESN'T MATTER. AND THERE, THERE IT STARTS BECOMING. PEOPLE STARTS GETTING ANXIOUS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF MY COMMENTS ON, ON THAT. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. SCOTT FERGUSON, 445 CASTLE ROCK LANE. IT'S HARD TO POINT OUT I'M THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SQUARE THERE, THAT ALMOST TRIANGLE PIECE. YES, THAT'S IT. THAT ONE. SO WE'VE TALKED, ME AND GLENN MANY TIMES ABOUT POTENTIAL WITH THE CORNER LOT THAT HE OWNS PLUS THAT LOT AND WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT HOLD. AND I AGREE WITH MIKE HERE. LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS IT ALLOWED? BECAUSE THOSE THREE LOTS DOWN THERE ARE LIKE YOU SAID, CASH ESTATES. SO ON CASH ESTATES WHEN I BOUGHT MY LAND TO BUILD MY HOME IT SAID SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, YOU KNOW, AND HAD TO BE A CERTAIN SIZE WITH CERTAIN SIDING, WITH CERTAIN STONE, WITH CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, I HAD TO FOLLOW ALL THESE RULES TO BUILD MY HOUSE, RIGHT? WELL, IF THIS CHANGES AND THEN HE ABLE TO MERGE THE CORNER LOT INTO THE TOP LOT AND THEY'RE ABLE TO NOW SUBDIVIDE HIM INTO QUARTER ACRE LOTS AND THEN BUILD ALL SIDING HOUSES OR WHATEVER THAT IS. NOW YOU'VE JUST SCREWED ME AS A HOMEOWNER BECAUSE I HAD ALL THESE DIFFERENT RULES BEHIND ME. HAVE TO BUILD THERE. AND NOW THAT'S ALL TAKEN AWAY, RIGHT? SO IT KIND OF TAKES AWAY MY. LIKE THIS IS MY THIRD HOME I BUILT AND I DON'T FALLS, YOU KNOW, I BUILT IN ST. CLAIR ESTATES, OKAY? AND THEN SOMEHOW NEXT TO KELLER WILLIAMS, ALL THOSE APARTMENTS GOT APPROVED, RIGHT? AND SO WE GO FROM R1 TO R3, NOT EVEN R2. AND IT WAS LIKE, HOLY CRAP, I WAS FORCED OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I'M. I DON'T WANT ALL THIS NEXT TO ME, RIGHT? AND SO I HAD TO SELL MY HOUSE DURING COVID AND BUILD THAT HOUSE DURING COVID SO WAS FUN PAYING $75,000 EXTRA FOR MY LOVER. BUT THIS IS MY THIRD HOME. AND I WAS TELLING GLENN'S WIFE THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAD MY FIRST HOME AT ONE POINT. WE THEN BOUGHT ANOTHER LOT, BUILT ANOTHER HOME, AND WE KEPT UPGRADING, RIGHT? AND TO THE POINT WHERE WE BUILT THAT HOME 5,000 SQUARE FEET ON COMMUNITY, THIRDS OF AN ACRE. LIKE IT WAS A PROGRESSION, RIGHT? AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ALL ENCOMPASSES. AND BY CHANGING THIS LOT, YOU KNOW, IT OPENS PANDORA'S BOX ON WHAT NOW COMES NEXT TO THAT CORNER. THIS MORNING YOU CAN CHECK RECORDS. 911 WAS CALLED ON THE CORNER OF CASTLE ROCK LANE AND HOLMES RIGHT THERE BECAUSE A 13 YEAR OLD WAS RAN OVER BY A CAR, OKAY? FOUR COP CARS, AMBULANCE, ALL THAT. WE'RE RIGHT THERE AT THAT INTERSECTION. THAT INTERSECTION IS HELL IN THE MORNINGS. OPENING THIS UP TO BUILDING SIX HOMES ON THE CORNER CHANGES VISIBILITY, CHANGES EVERYTHING, RIGHT? MAKES THAT INTERSECTION WAY MORE DANGEROUS THAN IT ALREADY IS, OKAY? THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE FLASHING LIGHTS WITH THE CROSSWALK, ALL THAT STUFF. PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ON HOMES. SPEED OF IT'S 35. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES WHERE IT'S 25. IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, I'VE GOT PEOPLE GOING 60, 65 IN FRONT OF TAYLOR PEOPLE. AND I'VE GOT KIDS PLAYING HIGH FIVE. YOU KNOW, IT IS AN ABSOLUTE CRAP SHOW. GLENN KNEW WHAT THAT LOT WAS ZONED WHEN HE BOUGHT IT IN 2018. IT CAN STAY THAT WAY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THAT PANDORA'S BOX TO OPEN. HE KNEW WHAT THAT LOT WAS ON THE CORNER WHEN HE PURCHASED THAT LOT. OKAY. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE OPENED UP TO WHERE HE CAN CRAM AS MANY HOUSES ON THAT CORNER AS HE CAN. BECAUSE I BUILT THERE KNOWING THAT THERE WERE RULES AND COVENANTS THAT I HAD TO ABIDE BY IN ORDER TO BUILD THERE. SO THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN. YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THIS OPEN? AND SO IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHEN HOLMES IS WIDENED THAT POINT, THAT 0.835 ACRES ON THE CORNER, DOES THAT SHRINK TO 0.7? BECAUSE IF IT DOES, YOU KNOW, THAT NOW CHANGES WHAT CAN BE DONE THERE. YOU KNOW, ARE THERE RULES ON WHERE HE CAN BUILD A ROAD? HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BUILDING [01:30:01] AN ACCESS ROAD RIGHT ALONG MY FENCE LINE, RIGHT BY MY BEDROOM WINDOW ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MY PROPERTY THERE TO ACCESS WHAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE MORE LOT SMALLER HOMES. I DON'T WANT A DRIVE FOR FIVE HOMEOWNERS THAT NOW HAVE TEENAGERS DRIVING AND ALL THAT STUFF. DRIVING RIGHT UP AND DOWN BY MY BEDROOM WINDOW. LIKE, THAT'S. I DIDN'T BUY THAT HOUSE. I DIDN'T BUY THAT LOT AND BUILD THERE FOR THOSE KIND OF THINGS TO HAPPEN. RIGHT. THAT'S NOT A HIGH DENSITY AREA. KIND OF WHAT HE MENTIONED EARLIER WITH THAT LAST LOT. IT DOESN'T FIT. RIGHT. SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. SO I THINK IT SHOULD STAY THE WAY IT IS. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO REBUTTAL AFTER WE CLOSE THE PUBLICATION HEARING. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST. SO USUALLY YOU DO IT AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR LIKE THREE YEARS. I SWEAR. IT'S LIKE ONE OR THE OTHER. LIKE IT'S EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER I. YOU CAN DO THAT? YEAH. RIGHT. YOU CAN STILL TALK TO THE APPLICANT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT GENERALLY THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL IS PART OF YOUR PUBLIC. OKAY, THANK YOU. I. THAT'S MY FAULT, NOT ANYONE ELSE'S FAULT. I JUST CAN NEVER KEEP TRACK. SO GO ON. YOU MORE THAN WELCOME TO COMP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY A COUPLE ITEMS. NO, WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN JUNE 2018. THEY GOT ANNOUNCED JULY 2018. SO I DIDN'T BUY IT. I BOUGHT IT. AS COUNTY, THE CITY BOUGHT THE FRONT 25FT ALONG HOMES THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, TAKING WHAT WAS A ONE AND A QUARTER ACRE LOT TO THE 1.062 I HAVE TODAY. SO THE CITY ALREADY OWNS THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE WIDENING OF HOMES. THE ACREAGE THAT EXISTS IS THE CURRENT ACREAGE REGARDLESS OF WHAT HOMES WILL BE. AND BEFORE I BOUGHT THE LOT TO THE SOUTH CACHE ESTATE, THE CITY ALREADY OWNED THE 25FT RIGHT OF WAY INTO THAT PROPERTY FROM THE MIDDLE ROAD TO. SO WHAT IT IS IS 1.062. AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO HOMES BETWEEN 28. THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY SIZE IS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT IT DOES NOT BECOME SMALLER IN HOMES IS WHY WE'VE ALREADY SOLD THIS RENT 25. THANK YOU. WITH THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS ENDED UP BEING WAY MORE INTERESTING THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE. I LIKE THAT. SO A LOT OF GOOD COMMENTS MADE TONIGHT. ONE THING THAT I REALLY WANT TO DIVE INTO FIRST AND MAYBE STAFF CAN HELP ME AND IT'S NOT USUALLY READILY AVAILABLE IN OUR PACKETS, BUT MAYBE JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE SMARTER THAN I AM, YOU'RE ADJACENT TO THAT. WHAT ARE. BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH HOLMES, WHICH IS AN ARTERIAL. HERE'S THE TWO THINGS THAT REALLY COULD MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE. HOMES IS AN ARTERIAL. SO NOW WE'RE DEALING WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT RULES. HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW SPACED CAN DRIVEWAYS BE AND IF THIS PROPERTY COULD EVEN BE SPLIT POTENTIALLY BECAUSE IT'S ON A MAJOR OR ON AN ARTERIAL AT LEAST. WHAT DOES ACCESS MANAGEMENT LOOK LIKE LIKE FOR THERE THEN THE OTHER THING IS, IS THIS CORNER LOT HERE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. CHANGING WHAT DOES THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE TO THEN CHANGE THE ONE TO THE SOUTH? I KNOW IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY PART OF THIS, BUT I MEAN IT'S ALL RELATIVE. SO I. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME MORE LIGHT ON THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH PUBLIC OR ACCESS MANAGEMENT. SO THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS ONE ACCESS ON HOMES. OKAY. IF IT WAS TO REDEVELOP, THEY WOULD. IT STILL HAS TO HAVE ACCESS. SO IT'D PROBABLY BE A SHARED ACCESS ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR THAT PROPERTY. OKAY. AND THEN THE BOTTOM PROPERTY REALLY SHOULDN'T BE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR DECISION TO REZONE. I UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY COULD DEVELOP SRP CURRENTLY TODAY. RIGHT. SO THIS IS REALLY ONLY JUST ABOUT THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE REZONED. OKAY. WHAT IS HERE? GO BACK TO THE. ARE WE ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING IF WE PULL. NO, AT THIS POINT? NO. WE WOULD HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MAYBE I'LL COME BACK TO THAT. BUT SO LET ME, LET ME. I [01:35:01] DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS CLOSE BECAUSE HE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK. SO IN THE LAST HEARING WE LET THE APPLICANT REBUTTAL RIGHT. DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE STILL CLOSED IT JUST LIKE THIS ONE. BUT THEN HE BROUGHT UP, WELL, COULD I BRING UP A SOLUTION? AND THE BODY FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. NOW IT'S. IT'S REALLY. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION, BUT LET'S. LET ME DO THIS WITH THE CITY REAL QUICK AND THEN I CAN OPEN THAT UP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE DEFINITIVE DECISION HERE. SO. BUT I'M SURE. THANK YOU. AND I KNOW THIS OTHER LOT. YES, IT. BUT IN GENERAL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, LIKE IF EXISTING SUBDIVISION EXISTS. RIGHT. IT'S. THAT LOT IS PRETTY MUCH THE LOT. RIGHT. SO THE LOT CAN BE REPLATTED. OKAY. ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE COVENANT? YEAH. YEAH. SO COVENANTS ARE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS. CITY DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THEM. ZONING CODES AND ZONING CODE TO MEET THE ZONING CODE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND. OKAY. SO THE COVENANT IS NOT ALSO PART OF THE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MR. MAN, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A. MUCH TO YOUR CHAGRIN. MY UNDERSTANDING WE ARE LOOKING AT ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE AND IT WILL BE TO THE CHAGRIN OF OUR NEIGHBORS AS WELL. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, NOT THE ONE TO THE SOUTH. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE SIDING SHOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THAT LOT SHOULD DEVELOP LIKE ARE IMMATERIAL TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY, IF I GO. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. I JUST HAD A QUESTION TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT RE FOR AN ZONE AND THEN THE SURROUNDING ZONING, IF I'M LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, IS RP. SO THE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE GENTLEMAN'S HOME RIGHT TO THE WEST IS ALSO RP. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. EVERYTHING AROUND IT THAT IS IN COUNTY IS CURRENTLY RP. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WITH THE CONCERN THAT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE CONSTRAINTS ON. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS COULD THOSE OWNERS, IF THE COVENANTS CHANGED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY DO SIMILAR DENSITY THAN THIS PROPERTY OWNER. BASICALLY EVERYONE HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. WITH THIS ZONE CHANGE. THE DIFFERENCE IS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS. I'M GUESSING THIS PARTIAL IS NOT PART OF THE SURROUNDING SUBDIVISION, SO IT WOULDN'T BE CONSTRAINED BY THE COVENANT. IS THAT ACCURATE? YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE EXISTING SURROUNDING SUBDIVISION, BUT YEAH, IT COULD ESSENTIALLY BE ITS OWN LITTLE MINI SUBDIVISION IF YOU WANTED TO. OKAY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. MY COMMENTS. WHAT WAS YOUR AIR FORCE. THERE'S A LOT OF WHAT IFS. WE'RE DEALING STRICTLY WITH THE ZONE CHANGE. WE'RE NOT RE PLANNING. WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROPERTY SOUTH? YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH THAT WHEN IT COMES. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD INFLUENCE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. IT'S AS ZONE SAYING, SIMPLE. IF THEY WANT TO BREAK THAT UP INTO FURTHER LOTS, THAT'LL COME BACK IN FRONT OF US AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION FLAT. SO I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ANTICIPATE TOO MANY THINGS IN OUR PERFORMANCE. I APPRECIATE THE CORRECTION. YOU KNOW, I'M VERY BIG PICTURE GUY, SO I CAN STRAT ABOUT HIM SOMETIMES. SO I APOLOGIZE AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. CORRECTION. GO AHEAD. ONE MORE QUESTION. AS A NEW COMMISSION MEMBER, WHEN CONSIDERING A REQUEST FOR. FOR A ZONE CHANGE, I GUESS FROM MY LAYMAN'S PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, I'M THINKING A ZONE CHANGE AS A BONUS AND VALUE TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BIGGEST CHANGE FROM THE RE TO THE RP WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM 1 TO 4 AND THEN THE MINIMUM LOTS SIZE. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT IF SOMEBODY COMES AND ASKS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FOR CONVENIENCE OR PREFERENCE, LIKE IS THERE, ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, NO, WE'RE NOT CONSTRICTING ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS? YEAH, I GUESS [01:40:03] I'M GRAPPLING WITH HOW TO MEASURE THAT COMPARED TO THE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE TWO OF OUR PACKET ON THIS ITEM, WE HAVE A TABLE CALLED CRITERIA FOR REZONING SECTION 11 6, 51 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE. AND THESE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT THE CITY IS EVALUATING OR THAT WE ARE EVALUATING AS COMMISSIONERS AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE STAFF'S RESPONSES TO THOSE SET OF CRITERIA IN THE TOP HALF AND THEN THE ZONING APPLICATION QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IN THE BOTTOM HALF. SO IF I COULD FOLLOW THAT FIRST. SO IF IT MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT SIMILARLY, THAT COULD REALLY. THE BENCHMARK AND MECHANISM TO REALLY SAY NO. WELL, I THINK THIS IS A JUDGMENT CALL FOR US. AND ALSO, AGAIN, WE ARE THE RECOMMENDING BODY ON THIS QUESTION AND NOT THE APPROVING BODY. SO WE COULD GO EITHER WAY IN A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON WHETHER WE THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE OR NOT. A CHANCE TO REBUTTAL. YEAH. SINCE WITHOUT. SO PERSONALLY, I SEE NO PROBLEM JUST QUICKLY REORDERING THE PUBLIC HEARING. JUST I THINK IT'S TOTALLY FAIR THAT WE CAN HEAR FROM MORE PEOPLE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, MORE CONVERSATION IS BETTER. IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE A FULL PACKED ROOM WHERE IT CAN GET OUT OF CONTROL. I FIND IT APPROPRIATE. BUT I MEAN, I GOT TWO HEAD NOUNS OVER THERE. I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO. YEAH, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING YET THAT MAKES ME WANT TO REVISIT A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT IF I'M IN THE MINORITY, THAT'S OKAY. WHAT, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL. WE'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BE QUICK. YEAH, FOR SURE. IT'D BE ONE THING IF THIS WAS A FULL ROOM. IT COULD GET OUT OF CONTROL. BUT I THINK, I THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE. OKAY. SCOTT FERGUSON, 445 CASTLE ROCK LANE. AGAIN, WE'LL TAKE THAT CORNER LOT OUT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY'S WANTING TO DO. OKAY. IF WE ALLOW THE CHANGE OF ZONING. RIGHT. IT NOW ALLOWS, ACCORDING TO LAW. WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THAT FOUR LOTS WITHIN. HE COULD SUBDIVIDE THAT INTO FOUR BOX AND MAKE FOUR HOMES. QUARTER ACRE LOTS WITHIN THE ONE ACRE. CORRECT. THAT WOULD NOT FIT WITH ANYTHING IN THAT WHOLE ENTIRE AREA. THERE'S NOT A LOT SMALLER THAN A HALF ACRE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO KIND OF GOING WITH WHAT HE HAD MENTIONED WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE ON SKYLINE, HOW IT'S LIKE R1 TO ALL OF A SUDDEN R3, RIGHT. HE'S LIKE, WELL THAT DOESN'T FIT. WE CAN'T DO THAT. QUARTER ACRE LOTS DON'T FIT. SO WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING THE CORNER LOT THERE. WE'RE SAYING IF YOU REZONE THAT HE COULD POTENTIALLY, POTENTIALLY PUT UP TO FOUR HOMES ON QUARTER ACRE LOTS RIGHT THERE, WHICH DOESN'T MATCH ANYTHING IN THAT WHOLE AREA. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO, OKAY, LET'S ROLL THAT CORNER LOT OUT OF THERE. OKAY. WHAT THAT ONE LOT OPENS UP TO IS THAT. AND THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF WHERE WE LIVE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THAT'S OUR VACANT CONCERN, RIGHT, IS WHEN YOU START, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TOWN HOMES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TAYLOR GREEN JUNIOR HIGH. THAT'S THE HIGH DENSITY OVER THERE. YOU KNOW, CONTINUE IT, WHATEVER, THAT'S ITS OWN TOPIC. BUT TO ADD IT JUST RIGHT THERE ON THAT ONE LOT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE. THIS ONCE AGAIN, PANDORA'S BOX. WHAT DOES THAT DO TO EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THIS? THE GUY ACROSS THE STREET ON HOMES AND OUTSIDE THE LIGHT IS 40 LOT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S JUST A BIG BANDWIDTH BOX. SO JUST THAT ONE LOT. IF HE'S NOT PLANNING ON BUILDING MULTI HOMES ON THAT LOT, WHY DOES IT NEED TO CHANGE? RIGHT. IF HE'S JUST PLANNING ON REBUILDING HIS HOME ON THAT LOT, THEN IT CAN STILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. STILL ZONE THE EXACT SAME. CORRECT. IF IT STAYS THAT WAY, HE TOO BUILD A NEW HOME ON IT. RIGHT. CARRY ON THIS OLD ONE OR CARRY ON THE OLD ONE AND BUILD A NEW HOME BECAUSE IT'S A ONE. THE WAY IT'S ZONED RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE HOME ON IT. CORRECT. THIS IS NOT A Q A. IT'S NOT A BACK AND FORTH. I'M SORRY, LIKE I KNOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME FOR A RESPONSE. I CAN'T GIVE YOU ONE TO EACH QUESTION. OKAY, COOL. WE CAN TRY AND ADDRESS IT THOUGH. WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. JUST AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, COOL. YEAH, WE JUST HAVE TO. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS JUST BEING ABLE TO THROW FOUR HOUSES IN THAT ONE LOT AND IT DOESN'T MATCH THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF EVERYTHING ELSE. IT SUCKS BECAUSE YOU KIND OF MOVE UP IN LIFE AND KIND [01:45:01] OF YOUR DREAM IS TO BUILD INTO A NICER NEIGHBORHOOD. NICER, WHATEVER. AND THEN TO HAVE THAT ONE LOT CHANGED, CHANGE THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF WHERE WE LIVE. SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. GO FOR IT. I JUST MY MATH WITH 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS PUTS THAT AT 3.85. SO A FOURTH HOME I DON'T THINK IS ALLOWED. I, I GUESS IT JUST I WENT TO SCHOOL FIRST MY MATH BUT SO I MEAN WORST CASE SCENARIO THREE IS WHAT I'M ASSUMING WE TALK FOR. BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MORE THAT TAKE 48,000 SQUARE FEET AND I THINK AN ACRE IS 43,560. OH MY GOD. HE'S NOT IN HIS HANDS. MY BIRTH MAP IS GOOD. SO THAT'S JUST WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE SAY. OKAY, WHAT REALLY ARE WE LOOKING AT WORST CASE SCENARIO? I, I, I WISH GWEN AND MENDY THE BEST. I, I THINK HE'S GOT BUILT A LOT. THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GO IN THERE AND PROBABLY I GUESS IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS. WHAT ABOUT HALF PAPER LOTS THAT KIND OF MATCHES. THERE'S HALF PAPER LOTS IN CANTERBURY. CASTLE ROCK ESTATES. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME. MOST ARE BIG, BIG STATES. BUT GOSH, IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE AND REMODEL THE OTHER ONE OR TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD A SECOND ONE, I, I DON'T THINK YOU GET A BUNCH OF PUSHBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S JUST THAT CONCERN OF SCENARIOS TOO. THANK YOU. I THINK I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. AND PUTS CONCERN REST THE LARGEST ISSUE WHICH I HAPPEN TO KNOW BECAUSE I'M ON THE PLANNING AND ZONE COMMISSION NORMALLY IS THE 600FT REQUIREMENT BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF CASTLE ROCK AND HOLMES AND A ENTRANCE TO A SUBDIVISION, NONE EXISTS. AS CARRIE HAS POINTED OUT, I HAVE ONE OR I'M SORRY CAITLYN POINTED OUT, BUT I ABOUT THAT, AS KAYLA POINTED OUT FOR ME, WE ARE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE EGRESS FROM HOMES INTO THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD REMAIN. AND SO ANY SUBDIVISION ON THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE FED BY ONE EGRESS, A SHARED DRIVEWAY. ESSENTIALLY THAT SHARED DRIVEWAY SITUATION EXISTS A LITTLE FURTHER UP THE ROAD. THERE ARE TWO LOTS WITH ONE DRIVEWAY. THEY THEN SPLIT OFF FROM EACH SIDE INTO THAT ONE ACRE. THAT'S ABOUT WHAT WE COULD GET. THREE HOMES POSSIBLY COULD SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY. TWO MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE TO SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY. FOUR COULD NOT SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY. SO IF THAT PUTS SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS CONCERNS AT EASE, A MAJOR STREET OR A ROAD OR SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY ISN'T SIMPLY FEASIBLE OR EVEN ALLOWED BY THE CITY. SO THAT MIGHT HELP. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL GIVE MY OPINIONS REALLY FAST. I APPRECIATE ALL THAT. I. ONE THING WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THE LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE BETWEEN RE AND RP IS 30% TO 40%. THAT'S SUPER LOW COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER ZONES. SO EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, WE DID THE PERFECT MATH AND MADE IT TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE THREE HOMES THERE, THE COVERAGE OF EACH LOT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOW. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE SO PACKED IN THERE. I JUST, AND I KEEP MEANING TO SAY THIS, BUT MOST OTHER REZONES OR ANNEXATIONS INTO THE CITY, IT'S SOMEONE TRYING TO DO A HIGHER ZONE THAN LIKE A HIGHER DENSITY ZONE THAN THE EXISTING ZONES AROUND IT. THIS IS LITERALLY MATCHING THE SAME ZONES THAT ARE ALL AROUND. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COLOR UP THERE. AND SO LIKE IT JUST TO ME IT'S LIKE THAT PRECEDENT OF LIKE WORK. YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE ALWAYS ALL THE TIME SAYING WE WANT THIS NEW ANNEXATION TO AT LEAST BE THE SAME ZONE AS OUR ZONE. RIGHT. THAT'S ALWAYS A REQUEST. AND THEN NOW WE GET TO THIS ONE WHERE IT'S TRYING TO MATCH IT AND IT'S JUST LIKE IT'S HARD TO SAY NO TO THAT WHEN IT JUST, IT'S ALL THE SAME AROUND IT AND IT'S NOT CONFLICTING ALSO WITH THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT [01:50:04] ISSUES AND ALSO THE 600FT BECAUSE IT'S AN ARTERIAL, IT SEEMS PRETTY CONSTRAINED AS IS EVEN IF IT STAYS RE. SO IF IT'S RP, IT'S JUST AS CONSTRAINED OVERALL IN MY OPINION. SO. YES, ABSOLUTELY. I JUST WANT TO GIVE MY TWO CENTS NOW THAT I'M LOOKING ON THE TABLE TOO. SO THANK YOU TO MY SPELLING COMMISSIONER FOR HELPING ME WITH THAT. I GUESS MY OPINION IS I AM STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I DO FEEL THAT, AS YOU STATED, YOU KNOW, THE SURROUNDING ZONE IS THE SAME. BUT I GUESS I, AS EVERYONE'S PROBABLY LEARNING, PRETTY CONSERVATIVE WHEN IT COMES TO SOMEBODY REQUESTING ITS OWN CHANGE. I SEE THAT AS YOU'RE GIVING SOMETHING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IF THERE'S A REASON FOR IT, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A PLAN AND THERE'S SOME REASON FOR IT. BUT IN THIS CASE, I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT WARRANTED. AND ALTHOUGH I FEEL LIKE, LIKE IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR TO COMPARE IT TO THE COVENANTS WITH THE SUBDIVISIONS AROUND IT, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, AN IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA BY GRANTING A ZONE CHANGE TO THE HOMEOWNER. THAT'S MY OPINION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD MY COMMENTS. I GUESS I HUNG UP ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS RP ALL AROUND. AND SO ALL OF THE WHAT IFS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WITH THIS PROPERTY ALSO APPLY TO ALL THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES. AND I DON'T JUST DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD HAVE A STRONG REASON NOT TO NOT TO ALLOW THIS. IT IS, YOU SAID THIS IS GIVING THE PROPERTY OWNER SOMETHING TO REZONE, WHICH IN A SENSE IT IS BECAUSE IT'S INCREASING POSSIBLY. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT A REALTOR OR REAL ESTATE REAL ESTATE PERSON. AND POSSIBLY IT'S INCREASING THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DON'T SEE, BASED ON JUST LOOKING AT THIS MAP AND WHAT'S SOUTH OF IT AND WHAT OTHER PROPERTY IS ZONED AS. I JUST SEE A REASON NOT TO ALLOW THIS. THANK YOU. YES, I SHARE BOTH OPINIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE APPLICANT. RIGHT. SO IT IS A CHALLENGE FOR ME TO, YOU KNOW, TO NOT ALLOW IT JUST BECAUSE ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME WAY. BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND AND SYMPATHIZE WITH THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, AND THEIR PROPERTIES AND WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. SO OUT TO MIND. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, NO, THANK YOU. I'LL SPEAK UP. I AM SYMPATHETIC TO NEIGHBORS WHO THINK THEY'RE BUYING SOMETHING AND FIND THAT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGES AROUND THEM. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I DO NOT THINK IT IS FAIR OF US TO SAY THAT A PROPOSAL FOR AN RP ZONE IS INAPPROPRIATE LAND USE WHEN ALL THE LAND AROUND IT IS AN RP ZONE. IF NEIGHBORS HAVE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS ON THEIR PROPERTIES THAT THEY BUILT TO A CERTAIN STANDARD. THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY MADE WITH A PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO PURCHASE THAT LAND. WE CAN'T HOLD MR. OGDEN TO THOSE STANDARDS JUST BECAUSE HE IS ADJACENT TO THAT LAND. THAT'S NOT HIS FAULT THAT THEY AGREED TO CERTAIN COVENANTS. AND YEAH, ANY OF THESE EXISTING RP LOTS AROUND COULD BUILD ON 12,000 SQUARE FEET IF THEY CHOSE TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR PROPERTIES. RIGHT. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF OPEN SPACE ON THE LAND TO THE NORTH THAT COULD BE ANOTHER HOME IF THAT HOMEOWNER CHOSE TO DO SO. AND SO, AND ALSO JUST TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING COMMISSIONER HARBOR BROUGHT UP, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, REZONING IS GIVING SOMETHING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY INITIATED ANNEXATION ON. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ALREADY CEDED RIGHT [01:55:01] OF WAY ALONG. HOMES NEEDED RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE CITY TO IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK THE CITY SHOULD BE INCLINED TO WORK WITH THIS HOMEOWNER IN THAT REGARD. IN MY OPINION. YEAH. JUST BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S ALL THE SAME. I HAD A THOUGHT THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED YET, BUT MAYBE IT'LL COME AFTER SOMEONE SUGGESTS A MOTION. ARE WE READY FOR ONE? BECAUSE. YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE IT IF SO. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? DISCUSSION. OH, I REMEMBER IF THIS DOES GET SPLIT, THERE WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE A PRELIMINARY PLAQUE. AND THAT IS. AND WE ARE THE APPROVING BODY FOR THAT. AND WE CAN ALL. MR. CHAIR, THEY'RE MOST LIKELY WITH THE NOT BE A PRELIMINARY FLAT. THERE WOULD NOT BE A STREET. OH, BECAUSE IT NEEDS A STREET NETWORK. RIGHT. AND IT WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH OF A SIZE TO WARRANT. YES. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT PRELIMINARY FLATS TONIGHT, SO FORGET THAT. SO GO AHEAD WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. MY APOLOGIES. OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE FROM RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE TO RP RESIDENTIAL PARK THIS PROPERTY TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SECOND, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT. AYE. COUNTER. AYE. OGDEN. SORRY. EILER. AYE. MEEHAN. AYE. HARGER. NAY. STUART. AYE. MOTION HEAD. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS TONIGHT. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW CHANGE CAN BE HARD, BUT YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HAVE OUR RULES AND ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. AND WE REALLY DO TAKE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE DO OUR BEST. SO THANK YOU AGAIN. [4.V. RZN26-006: REZONE from LC, Limited Commercial to RMH, Residential Mobile Home. Approximately 15.9 acres in the SE % of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E 33 North, east of N boulevard, south of the Hatch Pit, and west of N 5" East.] SO WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WHICH IS. WHAT ARE WE AT LC2 RMH ON 33RD NORTH. DO YOU HAVE AN APPLE CAN COME BACK. THANKS FOR STICKING WITH US. YOU KNOW YOU SAVED THE BEST FOR LAST. CONNECTED ENGINEERING AT 2295 NORTHFIELD. HIGHWAY SW6 HERE IN IDAHO FALLS TONIGHT I'M JUST GOING TO BE SUPER QUICK BECAUSE MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT NEED TO ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS SO I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE TO REOPEN ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CERTAIN TIMES. SO ANYWAY JUST A I BELIEVE A SIMPLE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR YOU TO CONSIDER TONIGHT JUST REALLY QUICK IT'S WEST OF THE NEW EXCUSE ME WEST OF THE NEW MAVERICK OFF OF EAST NORTH FIFTH EAST AND NORTH OF 33RD EAST OF THE POTENTIAL FUTURE NORTH BOLER EXTENSION THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE CITY CURRENT HATCH PIT THAT SOMEDAY WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME SOMETHING DIFFERENT BESIDES THE HATCH PIT. WE ALL HOPE SO ANYWAY ROUGHLY 15.9 ACRES THAT'S THERE IT WAS INITIALLY REQUESTED FOR ANNEXATION WITH AN LC ZONE ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THAT BACK IN I BELIEVE IF I REMEMBER RIGHT 2021 I WAS PART OF THAT REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AS WELL. THIS BODY SAW A PUD THAT CAME FORTH EARLIER THIS YEAR CALLED CREEKSIDE TOWNHOMES THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL THIS YEAR AS WELL THAT IS PROPOSED AND PLANNED TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NEXT YEAR ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS SO IN IN GENERAL I KNOW I'LL LET BRIAN KIND OF GIVE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF REASONS BEHIND IT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HIM REPEAT A LOT OF WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY SO I'M GOING TO CUT IT SHORT AND THEN WE CAN ASK ANY FURTHER ONES BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THIS THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA AND WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE AREA ONE THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER THIS DOES PASS OR GET RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL THAT DOES PASS BY COUNCIL IS SOME DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE TYPE OF HOUSING WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF TOWNHOMES A LOT OF DIFFERENT APARTMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT ORGANIZATIONAL AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT REQUESTING HOPING FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE REASON TO ARM AGE IS FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY THAT MIGHT BE OUT THERE FOR HOUSING THANK YOU ANY [02:00:01] QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OKAY WE WILL HEAR FROM C SNAP WE DON'T SEE BRIAN VERY OFTEN OUT HERE. YEAH IT'S ALWAYS FUN TO COME BEFORE COME BEFORE YOU GUYS I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THIS TIME THE THE OF REST REQUESTED ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE REZONE FOR THE LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO RMH RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME AND MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PRETTY PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD I'M JUST GOING TO READ I'M GOING TO GO DOWN LET'S SEE INTO THE STAFF COMMENTS THE COOL THE REQUESTED ZONE IS RMH RESIDENTIAL, MOBILE AND MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE. THIS ZONE PROVIDES RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED BY A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT. A MANUFACTURED OR MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION, MOBILE HOME PARK OR A TRAVEL TRAILER PARK. OUR SPECIAL FACILITY SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE MOBILE OR RECREATIONAL WHICH MAY NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMANENT LOCATION WITHIN OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THIS ZONE. SO THIS AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF MY AERIAL IMAGE GOES OUT FAR ENOUGH, BUT AS WE LOOK AT THIS AREA, THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THIS AREA. RIGHT. WE HAVE SEVERAL SALES OF POTENTIAL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO USE THIS AREA AS WELL AS THIS WOULD BE BRINGING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TO THIS AREA. AND LIKE HE TALKED ABOUT, IF THE. IF THE PIT OR THE, YOU KNOW, IF THE DUMP I GUESS BECOMES CAPPED, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A POTENTIAL FOR DENSER LIVING NEXT TO A NICE AMENITY. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME WITHOUT GETTING INTO A LOT OF THE DETAILS AND I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF CRUISE THROUGH THIS SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. BUT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK THOSE OF THE APPLICANT OR MYSELF. UH, SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME, BUT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK THOSE OF THE APPLICANT OR MYSELF. UM, BUT THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND, HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FINDS THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SURROUNDING ZONE OF THE AREA, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REZONE FROM LC TO RMH. AND THE ONLY OTHER THINGS I REALLY WANT TO HIT IS CURRENTLY THIS IS LOOKING INTO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT, UH, WILL BE DEVELOPED, AND AND IT IS ADJACENT TO BOTH AN HK LOT THAT, UH, THEY'VE FILLED WITH SOME DEBRIS, AND THEN THE HATCH PIT THAT'S BEING FILLED WITH CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND NEARING, UH, THE CLOSE BASED ON THE COUNTY. I DID INCLUDE SOME COUNTY INFORMATION FOR THE PIT AND WHAT'S ALLOWED TO BE PLACED IN THERE. UM, SO IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT. OTHERWISE, I, I DON'T HAVE A LOT ELSE TO ADD. ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FOR, UH, CITY STAFF? YES, I HAVE ONE. I'M JUST CURIOUS, UH, OUR PACKET INCLUDED A LONG LIST OF THINGS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DUMP AT THE LOT, OR AT THE HATCH PIT, AND THE COSTS FOR THOSE. IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? I THINK I, SO I PULLED THE INFORMATION FROM BONNEVILLE COUNTY, JUST SO YOU WERE AWARE OF THE DESCRIPTION AND WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT PIT. IF THERE WERE ANY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. AS FAR AS WHAT IS ADJACENT TO AND/OR NEIGHBORING THIS PROPERTY. APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. YOU BET. UM, ANYONE ELSE? NO? YES, NO? GOT COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS. OKAY, GOTCHA. UM, OKAY, WELL, WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM. WAIT, I NEED SOME REBUTTAL. I'M JUST KIDDING. UM, SO WITH THAT, YOU HAVE YOUR, UH, COMMENTS NOW? YEAH, UM, I'M ALL FOR THAT. IF I WORK A COUNT, I'D MORE NEED MORE THAN ONE [02:05:01] HAND TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF TRAILER PARKS AND MOBILE HOME PARKS I LIVED IN, YOU KNOW, ON MY WAY GROWING UP, AND I, I, I FEAR THAT A, A LOT OF THEM TEND TO GET CLOSED DOWN BECAUSE OF HIGHER AND MORE, UM, COST EFFECTIVE USES FOR THE PROPERTY. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING. I, I THINK THIS IS A DYNAMITE PROJECT. IT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR IT. UM, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS, YOU KNOW, AS A REALTOR, I SEE ALL THE TIME JUST, JUST THE PRICE POINT ENTRY FOR A MOBILE HOME IS ALWAYS MUCH LOWER, AND IT'S WAY MORE FLEXIBLE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, UM, EVEN AS, YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO JUST EVEN THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE IN IDAHO FALLS. AND SO IT DOES REALLY OPEN UP A NEW OPPORTUNITY, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A STIGMA WITH MOBILE HOME PARKS, BUT ALSO THERE'S SOME REALLY NICE ONES TOO, YOU KNOW, AND SO, UM, IT JUST OPENS UP ANOTHER AVENUE FOR PEOPLE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA, IN A NICE AREA, AND, UH, I'M, I'M ALL FOR IT. IT'S, UH, WE'RE BEING CREATIVE, AND ALSO AS A REALTOR, I GET PEOPLE ALWAYS ASKING ME, HEY, COULD I PUT A MANUFACTURED HOME OR MOBILE HOME ON THIS WHATEVER LOT, WHETHER IT'S, UH, IN A SUBDIVISION OR NOT, AND ALMOST EVERY TIME IT'S LIKE, NO, SORRY, AND IT'S JUST VERY LIMITING FOR PEOPLE, AND SO THIS JUST GIVES ANOTHER OPTION, SO I'M ALL FOR IT. YEAH, WE WE TALK A LOT ABOUT COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES. UM, IT IS UN- AN UNFORTUNATE REALITY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NOT, AT LEAST IN THE YEAR PLUS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, NOT SEEN ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR A MOBILE HOME PARK COME ACROSS. I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST ONE SINCE I JOINED THE COMMISSION. UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT TO BE NEXT TO SOMETHING LIKE THE DUMP. UM, THAT DOESN'T SPEAK GREATLY OF, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE VALUE THAT KIND OF HOUSING, BUT, UM, IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND CREATING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER INCOME SIDE, I REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. WELL, WITH THAT, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? BUT I GOT ONE MORE, JUST. OKAY. UH, FREEMAN PARK USED TO BE THE CITY DUMP. YES, IT IS NOW PERHAPS THE NICEST PARK IN THE CITY. AGREE. I AM LUCKY TO LIVE ADJACENT TO IT, SO, UM, IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE MOST ATTRACTIVE USE RIGHT NOW. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP INTO A TREMENDOUS ASSET TO LIVE NEAR IN THE FUTURE. YEP. SO. UH, IF I COULD COMMENT, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNFORTUNATE TO REFER TO THE HATCH PIT AS A DUMP BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY. IT'S A- IT'S TRUE. IT'S A, UH, CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND SO FORTH. IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL DUMP. LIKE TRASH. YEAH, THAT IS FAIR. UM, ALSO, WE ALSO HAVE TO KNOW THAT, I KNOW WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHWAY COULD POTENTIALLY GO TO THE NORTH THROUGH THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, NEW HIGHWAY HELPING OUT, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA ALONG WITH A, YOU KNOW, A NICE PARK OR WHATEVER OTHER ASSET. I THINK THIS JUST HELPS FURTHER THAT PLAN OF OPENING UP AREAS TO FUTURE RESIDENTS, SO I'M ALL FOR IT, SO. ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION? YEAH. I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE FROM LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO RMH RESIDENTIAL MOVABLE AND MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. I HAVE A SECOND MOTION. GREAT, THANK YOU. UM, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT? AYE. PANTER? [4 VI R&N26-007: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the PUD, Planned Unit Development. Ordinance amending Sections 11-2-3; 11-2-4; 11-2-5; 11-2-6(w) Planned Unit Development; 11-3-4; 11-6-3 and Tables 11-2-1; 11-2-2; Planned Unit Development as a development option for the Zoning Code. WITHDRAWN ] AYE. OGDEN? AYE. IHLER? AYE. MEEHAN? AYE. HARGER? [5.I. Planned Unit Development Ordinance Discussion] AYE. STORER? AYE. MOTION PASSED. SWEET, THANK YOU. UM, OUR PUD THING HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO OUR WORK SESSION, QUICK OR CONVERSATION ABOUT PUDS, GLENN ASKED THAT I GIVE HIM SOME TIME TO, UM, MENTION SOMETHING. THANK YOU. UM, IT WAS FASCINATING FOR ME, COMMISSIONERS, TO SIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS AN APPLICANT, UH, TO WORK WITH CITY. I APPRECIATE SO MUCH THE WORK THAT BOTH, UM, CARRIE AND CAITLIN HAVE PUT INTO THIS. CAITLIN, I THINK, IS MAYBE SICK OF ME FOR THE EMAILS AND THE PHONE CALLS AND THE, THE CONVERSATIONS, EVEN PRE-APPLICATION. UM, I TRIED NOT TO BE SUPER ANNOYING, BUT I KNOW I CAN BE PRETTY ANNOYING. UM, WHAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING, AND I WANTED TO BRING UP HERE, WAS THAT, UH, SEPTEMBER 28TH, I SENT CAITLIN [02:10:02] AN ALARMING EMAIL, UH, FORWARDED ON TO ME THAT I GOT FROM COMMISSIONER IHLER, UH, UH, SAYING, I HOPE THIS FINDS YOU WELL. WE'VE APPROVED YOUR, UH, THE CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UH, WE JUST NEED YOU TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL 4,400 DOLLAR FEE, UH, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND I THOUGHT, AND NOW I'LL PASS THIS AROUND TO YOU, BUT IT THIS TH- THIS CAME FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOT CITY OF IDAHO FALLS DOT BONNEVILLE COUNTY, AND I THOUGHT, WOW, WHAT WHAT THE WORLD? THANKFULLY, I HAD THE WHEREWITHAL TO EMAIL CAITLIN AND SAY, CAN YOU PLEASE POINT ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THIS FEE, BECAUSE THE 600 I PAID I THOUGHT WAS ALL I NEEDED TO PAY TO APPLY TO REZONE. I LOVED CAITLIN'S RESPONSE, DO NOT PAY THIS, IT IS A SCAM. UH, SO I DIDN'T. I, I, MY HEART CALMED DOWN, AND I SAID, OKAY, GOOD. I, I DIDN'T HAVE 4,400 MORE DOLLARS. UM, TODAY, UH, THAT WAS FROM COMMISSIONER IHLER. TODAY, CARRIE, YOU'LL BE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT YOU SENT ME AN EMAIL. UM, THIS ONE ONLY REQUESTED 3,950 DOLLARS. UM, UH, BUT BUT I DID LOVE THE BOTTOM PART THAT SAID WE THAT WE APPRECIATE THE DETAILED OPERATIONAL COMMITMENTS OUTLINED IN YOUR SUBMISSION, INCLUDING ENHANCED SECURITY PRESENCE, NOISE CONTROL MEASURES, RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL SERVICE ADHERENCE, AND STRUCTURED MANAGEMENT OF PARKING AND LIGHTING. SO THAT APPARENTLY MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR THE CITY. UH, WHAT I'M BRINGING THIS UP FOR IS BECAUSE I KNOW I'M NOT ALONE, AND YOU PROBABLY SEE IT. I GOT IT TOO. YOU'RE AWARE OF IT, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT. I'M SOME DUDE WHO JUST WANTED TO REZONE MY SINGLE LOT. IS THERE ANYTHING THE CITY CAN DO TO ALERT APPLICANTS THAT, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SLAMMED WITH, BECAUSE THESE ARE PUBLIC RECORDS, YOU'RE GONNA GET REQUESTS THAT ARE SCAMS, OR MAN, I'D LOVE TO SHUT THEM DOWN, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT, BUT AT LEAST MAKE SOME GET MORE AWARE. AWARENESS. SO, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. UM, WHEN WE GOT YOUR EMAIL, I NOTIFIED ALL THE OTHER PLANNERS TO NOTIFY THEIR APPLICANTS AS WELL. OKAY. SO. ANYTHING FROM COMMISSIONER IHLER OR CARRIE BUTLER IS, IS A SCAM. I'M JUST KIDDING. AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME IT'S HAPPENED. WE HAVE ALSO NOTIFIED IT AND, YOU KNOW, YEAH. TRIED TO MANAGE THINGS ON THAT SIDE AS WELL. OTHER, OTHER CITIES HAVING TO EVERY OTHER CITY. NO, I'M, I'M SURE IT DOES. THE ONLY THING I'M SEEING IS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING SOMETHING ON THEIR WEBSITE SAYING THAT THERE'S A SCAM. OKAY. UM, WHERE EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC RECORD. YEAH, NO, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING IT UP AT THE TAIL END OF THIS MEETING, TO MAKE IT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AGAIN FOR ANY FUTURE APPLICANTS. YOU'RE GOING TO GET REQUESTS THAT ARE SCAMS. THE, THE CITY HAS THE FEE SCHEDULE, IT'S THERE, YOU'VE PAID IT WHEN YOU APPLIED, YOU'RE DONE, JUST IGNORE THESE. MADISON COUNTY GOT IT AS WELL. DID THEY? INTERESTING. SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE CITY IS DOING PREEMPTIVELY, LIKE JUST GIVING A FAIR WARNING BEFORE ANY SCAM HAPPENS, OR IS IT JUST KIND OF MORE LIKE, IF IT DOES HAPPEN, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, YOU EMAIL ALL THE APPLICANTS SAYING, DO NOT LISTEN? I- I MEAN, INTERNALLY, THE CITY STAFF DOES A LOT OF IT TRAINING. FOR SURE. SO WE CAN TELL YOU NOT TO DO THAT. RIGHT. WE CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE WEBSITE, UM, BUT THAT'S ALL I'VE REALLY SEEN FROM OTHER CITIES. I- I DON'T THINK EVEN THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WHEN I WENT, I MEAN, WHEN I FIRST GOT IT, I CAME TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND WAS LIKE, WHERE IS THIS? YEAH. AND THEN I EMAILED IT AND SAID I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING. SO RIGHT THERE, IF I HAD SEEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET SCAMMED REQUESTS, RIGHT. IGNORE THOSE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY ENOUGH TO NOT HAVE ME RIGHT, BUT THERE COULD BE PEOPLE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT AREN'T AN ENGINEER OR WHATEVER, WHO COULD SEE THAT AND BE LIKE, OH, CLICK THE LINK, I GUESS I GOT TO PAY, YOU KNOW, AND YOU WOULD HAVE NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO SAY DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THAT, YOU KNOW. I'M NOT, I DON'T MAKE THE RULES OR ANYTHING. I'M JUST WONDERING, LIKE, WHAT'S... YOU KNOW, I'M SURE YOU'RE VERY IT TRAINED. IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S A PROCESS THAT EVERY APPLICANT GOES THROUGH, AND THEREFORE THERE COULD BE A DOCUMENT WHERE THIS IS WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. SO THEN, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR YOU TO GET SCAM EMAILS OR EMAILS ABOUT OTHER FEES DUE, JUST KNOW THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY ADDITIONAL FEES DUE TILL THIS POINT, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I KNOW WHEN I WAS APPLYING FOR PERMITS, UM, FOR MY PROPERTY, THERE, IT WAS A VERY MURKY PROCESS, AND SO I THINK HAVING A BETTER, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURE IN PLACE WHERE A CITIZEN WHO'S APPLYING FOR SOMETHING WOULD KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE WOULD BE SO HELPFUL, JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA GOING IN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE A LOT MORE APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING OR SOMETHING, WHICH MAY ALSO PRESENT AN ISSUE, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, A PROCESS I THINK WOULD HELP A LOT. I LIKE THAT, EVEN THE DISCLAIMER OR SOMETHING ON THE APPLICATION THAT I FILLED OUT AND BROUGHT INTO THE CITY, JUST THIS IS THE PROCESS, AND HEY, AT THE BOTTOM, [02:15:01] THIS IS YOUR ONLY FEE. NO MATTER WHAT EMAILS YOU GET, YEAH. THIS IS IT. YEAH. I MEAN, WE ONLY DEAL WITH APPLICANTS THROUGH OUR CITYWORKS SOFTWARE, AND IF YOU HAD LOGGED IN, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL FEE BALANCE. OH, BECAUSE I'M ON THE COMMISSION AND CAME IN PERSON, THEN I DIDN'T. AND WE TOOK YOUR PAPER APPLICATION. CORRECT. WE NORMALLY DON'T DO PAPER APPLICATIONS. WE REFER EVERYONE TO THE WEBSITE AND THE PORTAL. THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THAT I REALLY MESSED IT UP. NO. BUT NO, WE CAN ALWAYS REACH OUT TO APPLICANTS AND MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR SURE, BUT WE ONLY PROCESS PAYMENTS THROUGH THE PORTAL, UM, OR A CHECK AT OUR OFFICE WHERE WE COULD, SOMEONE WOULD LOOK INTO THE ACCOUNT AND KNOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A BALANCE ON THEIR ACCOUNT. NOW, TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO NOT CLICK A LINK IN A SCAM EMAIL IS A HARDER CHALLENGE. RIGHT, YEAH. THANKFULLY, THERE WAS NO LINK IN EITHER OF THESE EMAILS. THEY WANTED ME TO ASK THEM OR TO REPLY AND GET THE WIRING INSTRUCTIONS. YEAH. GARY, THAT'S MY QUESTION TOO, IS THERE'S NO ACH TRANSFER POSSIBILITY TO, TO THE CITY, RIGHT? WE GOT SCAMMED AT OUR OFFICE WHERE THEY HAD TAKEN OUR INVOICE, A COPY OF THAT INVOICE, AND PUT THEIR BANKING ACCOUNT, AND IT WAS FUNNY BECAUSE IT SAID BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER AND ROUTINE NUMBER, NOT ROUTINE NUMBER. BUT I HAD A CLIENT THAT SENT 30,000 DOLLARS TO THE WRONG ACCOUNT. SO THEY HAD TAKEN THAT INVOICE AND THEY SAID, OH, SORRY, OUR ACCOUNT INFORMATION HAS RECENTLY CHANGED, AND PUT IT TO THE BOTTOM, SO WE HAD TO CANCEL ALL ACH AND MAKE THEM CALL THE OFFICE. SO I WAS JUST WONDERING. YEAH. THERE'S NO ACH, SO. WELL, WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, IF THERE'S JUST LIKE CONSTANT WARNINGS EVERYWHERE, LIKE EVERY EMAIL WITH A TITLE COMPANY, EVERY EMAIL WITH A LENDER, THERE'S ALWAYS LIKE CLEAR, LIKE AT THE BOTTOM, YOU KNOW, DON'T CLICK ON WHATEVER LINKS, DON'T WHATEVER, WHATEVER, YOU WILL HEAR FROM US X, Y, AND Z. SO IF THERE'S JUST THIS PREEMPTIVE, LIKE, CON- CONSTANT WARNINGS EVERYWHERE, THEN THE, THE ONE THAT COULD SLIP THROUGH THE CR- CRACKS AND JUST FOLLOW THIS FAKE PROCESS, MEANWHILE YOU HAVE NO IDEA THAT YOU, YOU'RE NOT EVEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO HELP THEM, IT MIGHT HELP WITH THE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I- I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE YOU GUYS MORE WORK, BUT JUST MORE. ME EITHER. I JUST YEAH. I, BECAUSE I GOT TO SEE IT FIRSTHAND, I THOUGHT I'D BRING IT UP. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. SO THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. THANKS FOR BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, AS COMMISSIONERS, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADVISE STAFF ON, ESPECIALLY ONE WHO'S RECENTLY GONE THROUGH THE REZONE APPLICATION PROCESS, OF WHAT IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR PROCESSES AND DOCUMENTATION AND SYSTEMS COULD LOOK LIKE FOR RESIDENTS, RIGHT? THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT WE'RE UP HERE IS TO HELP BE THE VOICE OF THE, OF OUR RESIDENTS AND HOW TO IMPROVE THE EXPERIENCE FOR THEM. UM, CONGRATULATIONS ON DODGING THE SCAM ATTEMPT. THANK YOU. WELL, I SHOULD HIRE AN ENGINEERING FIRM. YEAH, I- I'M, I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO WORK FOR AN EMPLOYER THAT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DRILL CYBERSECURITY PHISHING ATTEMPTS AND THINGS LIKE THIS ON US ALL THE TIME. UM, NOT EVERYONE GETS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT TRAINING. SO THE FACT THAT YOU HAD THE WHEREWITHAL TO SAY, HEY, THIS SEEMS WRONG, LET ME CALL THROUGH A MEANS THAT I KNOW TO BE CORRECT AND TALK TO THE PERSON WHO WOULD KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER TO THIS BEFORE JUST SHIPPING OFF 4,000 DOLLARS OR 30,000 DOLLARS, RIGHT? THAT CAN, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. YEAH. UM, BUT YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO TALK ABOUT IS, I WORK IN EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS, AND LOTS OF PEOPLE JUST WANT TO SEND A, A BROADCAST EMAIL OUT TO EVERYONE, WHETHER THEY'RE AFFECTED BY AN ISSUE OR NOT. THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE BEST WAY TO REACH SOMEONE. I REALLY LIKE COMMISSIONER PANTER'S, UM, SUGGESTION OF FINDING A PLACE IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS ON THE FORM THAT YOU'RE READING REALLY CLOSELY TO FILL OUT ON WHAT YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE, OF WHERE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT REMINDER OF THESE WILL BE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU. ANYTHING ELSE YOU HEAR OTHERWISE OUTSIDE OF OFFICIAL CHANNELS IS NOT CORRECT. OR CALL US IF YOU QUESTION. YEAH. YEAH, REACH OUT TO YOUR, YOUR CITY CONTACT FOR CLARIFICATION. GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY, WELL, STAFF IS SMART. I'M SURE, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL, UH, THEY'RE THEY'RE ALREADY DOING A GREAT JOB, SO APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, BUT I ALSO APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP AS WELL. SO, PUDS. PUDS. SO, UM, THE PREVIOUS ITEM, RIGHT, IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL HAD, AT A WORK SESSION, DIRECTED STAFF TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REMOVE PUDS FROM THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. UH, WE'VE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS AT WORK SESSIONS AND, UM, SINCE THEN, COUNCIL HAS SINCE AT ANOTHER WORK SESSION SAID, WELL, LET'S NOT WITH, LET'S NOT REMOVE THE PUD, BUT LET'S LOOK AT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES AND, AND WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE. [02:20:01] SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU TONIGHT, UM, IS JUST, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, KIND OF THE, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. WHAT IS IT YOU THINK WORKS WELL WITH PUDS? WHAT ISN'T WORKING WELL? WHAT FRUSTRATES YOU AS YOU'RE HEARING A PUD AND WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS? IS THERE SOMETHING FROM A CODE REQUIREMENT OR A STANDARD THAT YOU FEEL LIKE NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED, LOOSENED, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE DIRECTION IS? UH, THE COUNCIL'S INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THOUGHTS ARE REGARDING PUDS, AND THEN STAFF IS WORKING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES. WE'D LIKE TO INCORPORATE ANY OF THAT INTO WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON AS WELL. SO, SORT OF OPEN-ENDED, UM, NOT TOO FORMAL AT THE END OF THE NIGHT, BUT JUST, YEAH, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? SOME INITIAL COMMENTS, I THINK, JUST TO TO MAKE ABOUT PUDS, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE OF PUD IN CITY CODE IS THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT, I MEAN, IF A IF AN APPLICANT COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM CODE OR ZONING OR WHATEVER'S THERE, UH, THAT THAT WE WE CREATE THIS PUD OR HAVE SOME UNIQUE WAY TO HELP THEM ACCOMPLISH. I MEAN, WE SAW SOME OF IT TONIGHT WITH MR. DIAZ, A WAY TO FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE THE NORM, OR SO EVEN A LOT OUTSIDE THE NORM IN SOME CASES, WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UH, UM, OPEN SPACES OR DIFFERENT THINGS. AND AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THAT HAS BEEN, AND AND THIS IS JUST FROM MY TERM ON THE COMMISSION, IS THAT IF IF AN APPLICANT COMES TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING REQUESTING SOMETHING THAT'S UNIQUE OR OUTSIDE OF WHAT NORMALLY WOULD BE APPROVED OR IS IT WITHIN CODE, THAT IT'S, IT BECOMES SOMEWHAT OF A GIVE AND TAKE, THAT, THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE DON'T LIKE WITH THAT OR THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE WITH THAT, WE CAN PUT OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER REQUESTS WITHIN OUR APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION TO PLAN, UH, TO CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR. UM, BUT THAT HASN'T ALWAYS HAPPENED, AND SO THAT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD WITH OUR CURRENT PUD ORDINANCES. THE IMPRESSION THAT I, WE, WE AS A COMMISSION COULD MAKE REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANT FOR CHANGING THINGS THAT IS OUTSIDE OF CODE BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THINGS THAT IS OUTSIDE OF CODE. THAT WAS SHUT DOWN IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, AND I, I WAS CONCERNED BY THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IN WHATEVER PUD ORDINANCE WE HAVE, THAT IS THE CASE, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS A COMMISSION AND AS CITY AND COUNCIL AND MAYOR FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO SAY, WELL, APPLICANT, IF YOU'RE COMING IN ASKING FOR THESE CHANGES THAT DON'T FIT OUR CODE, THAT'S FINE, BUT WE THEN HAVE ALSO THE RIGHT TO REQUEST SOMETHING DIFFERENT OF YOU THAT MAKES US MORE COMFORTABLE TO GIVE YOU WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. MUCH WHAT YOU'D SAID TONIGHT, WE'RE GIVING YOU SOMETHING, SO WHAT ARE YOU GIVING UP BACK? CAN I ADDRESS THAT? PLEASE, YES. BECAUSE WE DID HAVE- THAT'S JUST BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING, SO YEAH. AND I THINK THERE'S SOME MISCONCEPTION AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL AS WELL. OKAY. UM, REGARDING THAT, SO I'LL DO MY BEST. UM, THE COMMISSION HAS THE MOST LATITUDE WHEN IT COMES TO DENYING, TABLING, PROVING HEARING ITEMS WHEN IT'S A LEGISLATIVE MATTER. A LEGISLATIVE MATTER, MATTER YOU HAVE FAR-REACHING, I JUST DON'T LIKE THIS, SO WE CAN RECOMMEND DENIAL. A PUD IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE HEARING. A PUD IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. SO WITH A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, YOU ARE WEARING THAT JUDICIAL HAT, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE, DOES THIS MEET THE STANDARD? DOES THIS MEET THE CODE? IN THE PUD CODE, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT GIVES THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY LATITUDE TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS. UM, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A LAND USE HEARING, BECAUSE IT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL, STAFF, AND I THINK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WOULD AGREE, WE WOULD ADVISE THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL AS THEY THINK ABOUT CONDITIONS, THAT THOSE CONDITIONS RELATE TO SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE MEETING, RIGHT? TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN. THERE WAS A CONCERN, AN ISSUE, UH, SOME SORT OF IMPACT TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE IMPACT, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE SOLUTION, AND THE TWO CORRELATE TOGETHER. IT'S NOT A LARGE BLANK CHECK, IF YOU WILL. IT'S A VERY SHORT LEASH. WE TRY TO KEEP IT VERY TIDY AND VERY CONSTRAINED SO THAT LEGALLY, IF WE GET CHALLENGED, WE'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NEXUS BETWEEN WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED DURING THE TESTIMONY, THE [02:25:01] CONCERN, THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO RESOLVE THAT IMPACT, AND THEN HOW WE'RE GO- WHAT CONDITION WE'RE GOING TO APPLY. ADDITIONALLY, WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTS, AND THIS IS IN THE STATE CODE, ANYTIME A COUNCIL APPLIES A CONDITION AND THE APPLICANT DOESN'T LIKE THAT CONDITION OR DISAGREES WITH THAT CONDITION, IT IS SUBJECT TO A TAKINGS CLAUSE, OR COULD BE. SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE REASON THAT THE LEASH IS VERY CONSTRAINED AND SHORT. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO TAKINGS CLAIMS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS VERY TIDY AND TO THE LAW. AND SO WHEN YOU SEE STAFF BRISTLE A LITTLE BIT, YOU SEE LEGAL BRISTLE A LITTLE BIT, LIKE WE'RE MOVING, I JUST DON'T LIKE THIS, OR I JUST DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD BE HERE. THERE'S NOT A NEXUS WITH THOSE TYPES OF COMMENTS. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING FOUNDATIONAL TO THE PUD ORDINANCE OR TO THE TESTIMONY THAT'S BEEN OFFERED DURING THAT HEARING THAT WOULD MAKE THAT NEXUS. SO WHEN YOU SAY WE WANT TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS US THAT BROAD LATITUDE. I DON'T THINK LEGALLY WE CAN. UM, WE MIGHT CAN CLARIFY, THOUGH, WHERE THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL HAVE THE LATITUDE TO MAKE CONDITIONS OR CHANGES. THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE APPROPRIATE. SO DOES THAT HELP? I- I THINK, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I THINK THAT THE GOAL WOULD BE IN WHATEVER ORDINANCE WE CREATE OR RECOMMEND OR WORK ON WITH COUNCIL, THAT IT EXTENDS THE LEASH THEN, PRETTY, SO TO SAY. UM. WITHIN BALANCE. WITHIN BALANCE. I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING, I'M NOT SAYING AN OPEN-ENDED, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT THAT, BUT, BUT IT GETS VERY HARD TO CONTROL THAT LEASH DURING AN EMOTIONAL PUBLIC HEARING. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. YEAH, OKAY. AND I THINK STAFF WOULD ALWAYS ADVISE, AND I, THIS REALLY SHOULD BE YOU, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR TALKING TOO MUCH. IT DOES THE RESIDENTS GOOD, IT DOES THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY GOOD, IT DOES STAFF GOOD, IT DOES COMMISSION AND COUNCIL GOOD WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS PREDICTABLE, RIGHT? THE RESIDENTS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING. WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO A HEARING, IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD WHAT'S ALLOWED AND WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED. WHEN THE COMMISSION STRAYS AND GETS INTO VAGUENESS, AND WHEN THE COUNCIL STRAYS AND GETS INTO VAGUENESS, EVERYONE GETS FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE, AND EVERYONE FEELS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GETTING WHAT THEY WANT. AND SO I WOULD ALWAYS ADVISE BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD AND CLEAR WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE IS A MUCH BETTER APPROACH THAN TRYING TO PROVIDE, JUST LETTING US RESPOND TO WHATEVER WE THINK WE WANT TO DO IN THE, DURING THE EMOTIONAL HEARING. SO IT FEELS ONE-SIDED TOWARDS THE APPLICANT THEN, BECAUSE THEY CAN COME AND REQUEST ANYTHING. ANYTHING WITHIN RELATED TO ZONING STANDARDS AND THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THEY CAN REQUEST ANY CHANGE, YET WE ARE SOMEWHAT HAMSTRUNG LEGALLY, YOU'RE SAYING, BECAUSE WE, WE CAN'T OFFSET THAT. YES, AND I WOULD SAY, AND AND THAT'S THE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM CAN CLARIFY, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW IS ALSO STRUCTURED. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. ME EITHER. YEAH. I'M JUST BUT I WOULD SAY READING THE LAW, IT IS STRUCTURED THAT WAY, RIGHT? WHEN A TAKINGS CLAIM IS ELIGIBLE FOR ANYTHING THE DEVELOPER JUST DOESN'T LIKE THE CONDITION, AND THAT IS HOW IT'S PRETTY, IT'S WORDED PRETTY BROADLY IN THE STATE STATUTE. THE LAW IS STRUCTURED THAT WAY. CAN YOU MAYBE BRING UP THE PUD ORDINANCE ON THE SCREEN THAT WE COULD LOOK AT SOME OF THE, THE WRITING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? AND COMMISSIONER STORER, I, I, I'M KEEPING YOU IN MIND. WE'LL BE TO YOU NEXT AFTER WE GET THROUGH GLENS. SO THANK YOU. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN. SO I THINK, I THINK SOME OF THE FRUSTRATION THAT COMMISSIONER OGDEN HAS BROUGHT UP IS, HEY, WE THINK WE HAVE MORE LEEWAY TO GO BACK AND FORTH. BASICALLY, ONCE THEY'VE SATISFIED THE PUD ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN, WE CAN'T TAKE YOU CAN. WELL, BUT SO LET'S. YOU JUST NEED TO DO IT IN A METHODICAL WAY. RIGHT. SO LET'S, LET'S, CAN WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE TEXT THAT YOU THINK IS LIMITING US IN THIS REGARD? WELL, SO HERE'S WHERE YOU HAVE THE, UM, STANDARDS. AND MAYBE ZOOM IN IF YOU COULD. YEAH, THANK YOU. THIS IS GREAT. SO HERE'S THE ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL STANDARDS LANGUAGE, RIGHT, RIGHT? IN ADDITION TO BU- BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, STANDARDS IMPOSED IN THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA OF THE PUD SET FOR IT IN THIS SECTION, THERE CAN BE [02:30:01] ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO IMPLEMENT THESE STANDARDS, AND THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESSING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN, UM, CHAPTER 6 IN THE ADMINISTRATION. SO THAT'S KEY, RIGHT? IT'S SAYING YOU CAN ESTABLISH SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. WHEN WE GO TO... AND NOW I'M SO CLOSE, I'M NOT GONNA DO SO. ZOOM BACK IN. WHEN WE GO TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION, WHICH IS CHAPTER 6, IT TELLS US HOW WE APPLY THE CODE AND WHEN AND WHO THE DECISION MAKERS ARE AND HOW THAT ALL WORKS. AND IF I CAN FIND THE LANGUAGE. NOW YOU ALL THINK I HAVE IT MEMORIZED, I DON'T. DECISIONS, APPEALS, HEARINGS. IN THE PUBLIC ART VERSION, RIGHT? OKAY, HERE WE GO. LONG PAUSE. SO HERE WE ARE IN THE DECISION MAKING CRITERIA, RIGHT, UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO THIS IS WHAT THE CODE IS REFERRING US TO. RIGHT. OKAY, IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THE ZONING CODE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING. MINIMIZING AN ADVERSE IMPACT. THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT YOU, UM, DEAL WITH THE MOST, RIGHT? SOMEONE IN THE MEETING HAS TESTIFIED SOMETHING, THEIR THEIR PROPERTY, EVEN THEIR MAYBE THEIR CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC OR SOMETHING ELSE. UM, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH. AGAIN, IT NEEDS TO BE LAND USE RELATED, AND WE TALK A LOT OF LIKE, WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES AND SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, CANAL COMPANY STUFF WE DON'T MENTION. WE CAN CONTROL THE SEQUENCING AND THE TIMING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT COMES TO THE PHASING, HOW THE DEVELOPMENT'S PHASED AND LAID OUT. THE DURATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, AGAIN, THAT WOULD GET TO THAT PHASING. THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S MAINTAINED PROPERLY, UH, EXACT LOCATION AND NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT GETS TO, WELL, REALLY THE PLAYGROUND WOULD BE BETTER HERE, RIGHT? OR, UM, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME ISSUE ABOUT HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO THIS PROPERTY LINE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. CAN WE MOVE THINGS FURTHER AWAY? THOSE ALL SEEM, RIGHT, THERE'S A NEXUS THERE. THAT'S THE KEY, IS DEVELOPING THAT NEXUS. LANDSCAPING OF ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE PUBLIC FACILITIES. WE'VE SEEN WHERE A PUD CONNECTS TO A PUBLIC PARK OR TRAIL SYSTEM, AND WE'VE ENHANCED THAT. HOURS OF OPERATION IS NOT REALLY SOMETHING WE DEAL WITH ON A C- A RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE. AND THEN SUCH CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER AND HARMONY OF THE ZONE. THAT IS SUPER BROAD, AND I WOULD SAY, THERE YOU GO, THERE'S YOUR REALLY BROAD THING, BUT I WOULD CAUTION, AGAIN, IT'S SUBJECT TO THE TAKINGS CLAUSE, AND SO WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRACKING IDENTIFIED IMPACT, SOLUTION, RIGHT, CONDITION, THAT THAT THOSE THREE THINGS OCCUR, AND THEN I THINK YOU'RE MAKING SOUND JUDGMENTS. WE WE INCORPORATE THAT ALL INTO YOUR REASON STATEMENT, AND AND I THINK THAT'S MORE DEFENSIBLE. THE THE CHALLENGE IS THE EMOTIONAL MEANING, TRYING TO DO IT ON THE FLY, AND WE KNOW THAT'S HARD. UM, AND SO ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN THE PUD COMES TO YOU, THE ENTIRE CITY REVIEWING STAFF FROM PUBLIC WORKS AND SANITATION TO BUILDING AND US HAS ALL LOOKED AT IT AND TRIED TO ADHERE WHETHER OR NOT IT COMPLIES WITH THE CODE SO THAT YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO DO THAT ON THE FLY. UM, I WANT TO COMMENT SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO ITEM D. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALWAYS CONCERNS ME WITH RESPECT TO PUDS IS SORRY, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK MORE INTO YOUR MICROPHONE? I CAN'T HEAR YOU VERY WELL. YEAH. WITH RESPECT TO ITEM D, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALWAYS CONCERNS ME IS, UH, THE PUD OFTEN BECOMES A MEANS OF OFFLOADING, IF YOU CAN. UH, PUBLIC FACILITIES BECOME PRIVATIZED, AND WE ALL ASSUME THAT THAT'S WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE ASSOCIATION. TOO MANY TIMES I'VE SEEN THAT DOESN'T [02:35:01] OCCUR. UH, AND WE SEE OVER TIME, AS A PUD BECOMES OLDER AND OLDER, THEY TEND TO LET THINGS GO. YOUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS NOT VERY PROACTIVE. THEY DON'T TEND TO WORK WELL. AND WHAT I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ON THE TYPE OF CONDITIONS THAT WE COULD IMPOSE TO ENSURE THAT, UH, WHEN WE SEE THEM UNDERTAKE, UH, CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OF, OF PRIVATE, OF WHAT NORMALLY WOULD BE PUBLIC FACILITIES, JUST THAT WE HAVE MORE AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE MAINTAINED PERPETUALLY, IF YOU WILL. I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN TOO MANY TIMES. YEAH. THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION JUST DOESN'T DO THE JOB. TOO THEY HAVE A SET OF PRESERVES. THEY DON'T TEND TO, THERE'S GENERALLY TEND TO BE DOMINATED BY ONE OR TWO PEOPLE, AND THEY DON'T, UH, REALLY FUNCTION VERY WELL, IN MY OPINION. TO THAT EFFECT, I HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH, UM, COUNCILMAN RADFORD ON THIS TOPIC. HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE AT THE FARMER'S MARKET ONE DAY, AND HE WAS TABLING THERE AND HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH HIM. HIS BIGGEST CONCERN GOES TO THAT SAME POINT, AND IT'S, UM, ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE STREETS THAT TEND TO GET INCORPORATED INTO THESE DEVELOPMENTS. UM, I LIVE IN A, IN A TOWNHOUSE COMMUNITY THAT I, I LOVE VERY MUCH, BUT IT IS, WE HAVE AGING FACILITIES, WE HAVE AN AGING SHARED DRIVEWAY, UM, WE HAVE SHARED ROOFS THAT NEED REPLACING, AND AND THOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON TOP OF YOUR MONTHLY HOA FEES CAN ADD UP VERY QUICKLY, UM, ESPECIALLY IN WHAT IS NOW A A 45-YEAR-OLD COMMUNITY, RIGHT? UM, AND THERE'S 42 UNITS IN MY DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? SO FOR 42 OF US TO GET TOGETHER AND TRY AND REPAVE A WHOLE LARGE PARKING LOT, DRIVEWAY, REGRADE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE DEGRADED OVER TIME, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN BE VERY CHALLENGING, AND SO, UM, I DO UNDERSTAND COUNCIL'S, UM, CONCERN IN THAT REGARD AS WELL OF, HEY, AS THESE THINGS GET OLDER, IS THERE A, A POTENTIAL LIABILITY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY JUST GOES TO, YOU KNOW, DISBAND THEIR HOA, AND NOW THE CITY'S ON THE HOOK TO MAINTAIN THIS PRIVATE ROAD THAT'S NOT BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS, RIGHT? SO THAT'S A CONCERN AS WELL. UM, TWO THINGS REAL QUICK WITH THIS. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS, UH, LIKE, LIKE I COULD NEVER FIND THE PUD CODE. IS THIS IN NORMALLY IN OUR, LIKE, RIGHT HERE IN OUR PACKETS WHEN WE GO OVER PUDS, THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE? NOT THIS SECTION, BUT THE CONDITIONAL USE SECTION. OKAY. BECAUSE, YEAH, I LIKE... TH- THIS IS SUPER HELPFUL NOW KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT'S WITHIN OUR BOUNDS, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S RIGHT THERE, THAT'S ALL I NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE JUDGMENTS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SUGGEST CERTAIN THINGS BASED OFF OF THAT CRITERIA. I'M NOT LOOKING TO BE LIKE, NO, I WANT THIS TO BE A WATER PARK, YOU KNOW. AND BE ABLE TO DO, AS CARRIE SAID, TIE YES. WHATEVER CONCERN YOU HAVE YES. LOGICALLY THROUGH. I, I AGREE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT PAGE TO INCLUDE IN PACKETS IF A PUD COMES BEFORE. JUST TO REFER, BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS SO WE GOT, BECAUSE I LOVE THE PEEPER YOU GAVE US, AND, AND FORREST ALWAYS KNOWS WHEN I WANT TO SPEAK BECAUSE HE SEES ME WRITING FURIOUSLY ON MY LITTLE MOUTH, RIGHT? I LIKE WHEN YOU'RE SITTING. SO GLAD YOU USE THAT. SAME KIND OF THING. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT IT HELPS ME. I COULD, I COULD TAKE THAT, WRITE DOWN MY THOUGHTS AND SAY, OK, BEFORE I SPEAK, IS THIS GOING TO MAKE LOGICAL AND LEGAL SENSE, OR AM I GOING TO MAKE A FOOL OF MYSELF? SO I WOULD PREFER NOT TO MAKE A FOOL BEFORE I SPEAK. YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS, YEAH, AND THEN IF IT'S OUTLINED RIGHT OUT THERE, THEN THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THAT THIS IS THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE'RE HELD TO, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE LITTLE LEASH THAT WE HAVE, RIGHT? BECAUSE, I MEAN, I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS, YEAH, IT WAS VERY VAGUE TO ME, AND KIND OF LIKE LEN, I WAS LIKE, SOMETIMES I'M LIKE, YEAH, YOU CAN SUGGEST THINGS, AND OTHER TIMES IT'S LIKE, NOPE, IT'S JUST THIS, AND I'VE ALWAYS JUST KIND OF BEEN CONFUSED, SO THIS IS HELPFUL. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MENTION IS, UM, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, I WATCHED CITY COUNCIL, UH, THE WORK SESSION, AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT PUDS, AND A LOT OF IT DOES REVOLVE AROUND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF STREETS. AND IT, THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE THIS ARGUMENT OF LIKE THIS OR THAT. SHOULD IT BE A PUBLIC STREET OR SHOULD IT BE A PRIVATE STREET? WELL, IF IT'S A PUBLIC STREET, THEN IT HAS TO MEET THESE STANDARDS. WELL, IF IT MEETS THESE STANDARDS, THEN YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, HAVE THESE EFFECTIVE INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES ARE WEIRD, WHERE YOU DO NEED SKINNIER STREETS OR MORE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS. AND SO IT'S NEVER THIS, LIKE, IN THE MIDDLE. BUT, I MEAN, WHAT IF THERE WAS A WAY TO BE IN THE MIDDLE WHERE IT'S LIKE YOU COULD HAVE THESE SMALLER STREETS THAT ARE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS POSSIBLE, BUT THEN THE HOA IS STILL RESPONSIBLE AT LEAST FOR SNOW REMOVAL, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE MOST OF THE ISSUES WITH THE SMALLER [02:40:01] STREETS OR WHATEVER USUALLY IS BECAUSE OF SNOW REMOVAL, RIGHT? THAT THE CITY HAS TO TAKE CARE OF. WELL, IT CAN STILL BE A PUD, YOU CAN STILL HAVE YOUR SMALLER STREETS, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO PLOW YOUR OWN STREETS. AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, AND BECAUSE THOSE AREAS ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN HOA, WHY NOT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF SMALLER, SKINNIER STREETS FOR CERTAIN AREAS AND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE IT HELPS CREATE A, JUST A NICER COMMUNITY ON A MAYBE A WEIRD SHAPED LOT, RIGHT? UM, IF YOU HAVE LIKE THESE HIGH DENSITY, SUPER HIGH DENSITY TOWNHOMES WITH THIS BIG OLD WIDE STREET, IT'S LIKE, WELL, YEAH, OF COURSE IT'S UGLY, YOU KNOW, BUT I JUST, I- I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MIDDLE GROUND THAT COULD BE HAD. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, I'M NOT IN PUBLIC WORKS, BUT I- I JUST THINK IT'S EITHER THIS OR THAT. IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHY CAN'T IT BE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, IN MY OPINION, YOU KNOW? SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST THING WITH PUDS. I- I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD GO AWAY. UM, I LIKE THE GIVE AND TAKE, UM, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, YEAH, WE HAVE THAT ONE NEXT TO YOU, UM, WHERE WE'RE LIKE, WELL, WHAT ABOUT A FENCE AND DON'T PUT THE TREES IN THE DOG PARK BECAUSE THEY'LL DIE? THAT'S PRETTY REASONABLE, AND THE RESIDENTS SEEMED PRETTY OKAY WITH THAT, YOU KNOW? UM, BUT TO BE, BUT TO GET RID OF THAT ABILITY TO HELP WITH THAT GIVE AND TAKE, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW? AND THEN THE NORMAL PUD CODE, I THINK THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND, PERSONALLY. SO I HOPE I DIDN'T MAKE A FOOL OF MYSELF, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. TO THE EFFECT OF, UM, WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST TO START THE CONVERSATION. LINE E THERE, DESIGNATING THE EXACT LOCATION AND NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT, TO ME, IS WHAT GIVES US A LOT OF THE POTENTIAL FOR, UM, DECISION MAKING HERE, RIGHT? THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE EXACT LOCATION AND NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S PRETTY BROAD LANGUAGE, RIGHT? BUT I WILL LET OUR CITY ATTORNEY SPEAK TO THAT. TWO THINGS. ONE, IT'S NOT LOST ON ME THAT IN THE FIVE MONTHS I'VE BEEN HERE, YOU ASKED ONE QUESTION, AND I'M JUST LIKE, I DON'T KNOW. THAT WAS FOR THE OPENING BACK OF THE PUBLIC MEETING. SORRY ABOUT THAT. UM, MY QUESTION IS, BACK AT THE ON, UH, WHERE IT'S, UH, POINT THREE, YOU GO BACK UP, UH, THE WHOLE, UH, WHERE IT SAYS THE, OR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. SURE. THAT'S A HUGE OPENING. YEAH. AND SO, YES. I MEAN, I C- I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S STILL BEING CAUTIOUS. RIGHT. RIGHT. YES. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I COULD SEE AS AN, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY MAKING THE ARGUMENT, BUT NOT LIMITED TO COULD BE ANYTHING. YEAH. RIGHT. AND SO, UH, LIKE I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S CASE LAW, WHICH IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE, I CAN GO AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. I WOULD LOVE THAT. I- I AM CERTAIN COUNCIL WOULD LOVE THAT. YEAH. WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE LIMITATION IN THE SHORT LEASH COMES FROM, IS THE CASE LAW, RIGHT? LIKE, THAT'S WHERE CITIES HAVE LOST THOSE DECISIONS, AND SO THE OTHER THING I ADVISE, RIGHT, YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WHEN YOU STRUCTURE A CONDITION, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT CAN MEET. WHEN YOU CONDITION THEM TO PUT A GATE IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S FENCE SO THAT THERE'S JOINING TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S BALL FIELD, MY ASSUMPTION IS THE DEVELOPER'S GOING TO GO ASK THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, HEY, CAN WE PUT A GATE IN YOUR FENCE? AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, FOR SECURITY REASONS, NO. AND SO IF YOU SAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAN ONLY BE APPROVED IF THEY DO THIS THING, BUT IT CAN'T BE ACHIEVED, THAT IS ALSO A PROBLEM, RIGHT? YEAH. I AGREE. YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S FAIR. YEAH. SO- I HAVE A FEW. UM, I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IS OF, LIKE, THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT OF A PUD, JUST GENERALLY. OBVIOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND THE GIVE AND TAKE, BUT I UNDERSTAND WE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK FOR THINGS AND THEN ALSO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT ON DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS. UM, I AM MORE ALIGNED WITH STAFF IN THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR EVERYTHING TO BE VERY CLEAR BECAUSE I DON'T, I THINK THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE VERY EMOTIONAL, AND WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE'S HOMES AND WHERE THEY LIVE, IT'S A TOUCHY, TRICKY CONVERSATION. UM, AND I THINK THE MORE FLEXIBILITY WE HAVE, ESPECIALLY LANGUAGE LIKE BUT NOT LIMITED TO, JUST CREATES SO MUCH ROOM FOR, UM, LEGAL ISSUES, I WOULD ASSUME, AND LOTS OF CONVERSATION AND UPSET, RIGHT? EVEN THOUGH I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMEWHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION, IS TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MAKE SUGGESTIONS, WE ALSO, I THINK, NEED MORE BOUNDARIES AROUND THAT AND LEASHES TO KNOW, SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THESE DOCUMENTS AND BE ABLE [02:45:02] TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'VE MADE DECISIONS WE'VE MADE, RIGHT? RIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE SUPER, SUPER BROAD, BUT I ALSO THINK, UM, HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A LEASH AND BEING ABLE TO HEAR CONCERNS AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TURN AROUND AND S- MAKE AND CREATE ACTUAL SOLUTIONS IN THE PUBLIC'S EYES, IN MY MIND, IS MORE BENEFICIAL THAN JUST SAYING, NOPE, SORRY, THIS IS A HARD, STRICT RULE, AND THE DEVELOPER, HE GETS TO MOVE FORWARD, AND EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID IS KIND OF IRRELEVANT. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE THINGS THEY ASK FOR OR SAY CAN BE OUT OF OUR CONTROL FOR SURE AND MIGHT SEEM, YOU KNOW, NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE, BUT THERE'S BEEN MANY PUD TIMES WHERE A RESIDENT HAS SAID SOMETHING, AND IT'S LIKE, OH, I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT, AND WE ARE ABLE TO CREATE A SOLUTION FOR THAT WITHIN BOUNDS. I'M SURE THAT RESIDENT FELT HEARD AND FELT LIKE, WOW, THIS COMMISSION'S ACTUALLY WORKING FOR ME. AND SO, IN MY EYE, THAT'S HOW I THOUGHT, THAT'S HOW I VIEW IT, IS LIKE, IF IT, IF IT'S SUPER HARD SET, THEN WE'RE NOT, WE'RE JUST TAKING THE ABUSE, AND WE JUST HAVE TO SAY SORRY, YOU KNOW. YEAH. BUT. I, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I THINK THAT FOR UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT WOULD HELP A LOT BECAUSE THEN WE COULD PUT PARAMETERS AROUND THAT SO THAT WE HAVE SOLUTIONS, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT MEANS A LOT TO PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO COME AND BE HEARD. YEAH. AND TO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A PLACE TO COME AND HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD. AND FOR US TO LISTEN AND TRY TO CREATE SOLUTIONS, I DO THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. SO I, I THINK THAT THERE'S TWO SIDES TO THAT, RIGHT? LIKE, BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN BEING ABLE TO PUT THOSE PARAMETERS IN PLACE MORE CLEARLY, MAYBE. RIGHT, BUT WITHIN REASON AND WHERE THE DEVELOPER ISN'T LIKE, WHAT? YOU KNOW? RIGHT. RIGHT, WHERE IT'S, YEAH, AND I THINK THERE IS A GROUND THERE TO BE HAD, I THINK. AND THEN THAT'LL JUST MAKE CITY COUNCIL'S JOB EASIER AS WELL, I THINK. SO, YEAH, I AGREE, I LIKE THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT. IF I COULD ADD MY TWO CENTS. YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE COMMISSION IS SAYING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO BE PROBLEM SOLVING IS, IS, IS SO POWERFUL. UH, BUT I DO ALSO, UM, STRUGGLE WITH THE AMBIGUITY, AND I THINK EQUITY TOO, THAT WHEN A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ARE COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION, YOU KNOW, TO A, UH, UM, A PROBLEM OR TO AN IMPACT. THAT'S WHAT I WORRY, UM, HAVING BEEN ON THE OTHERS, LIKE WEARING THE HAT, WHICH I USED A LONG TIME AGO, YOU KNOW, BEING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE WHEN YOU'RE, UM, ASKED TO DO THINGS, AND THEN YOU SEE A PREVIOUS APPLICATION COME THROUGH, AND MAYBE THE INTERPRETATION WAS DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I WORRY THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M A VERY BLACK AND WHITE PERSON. YOU SEE THE RULES, YOU FOLLOW THEM, AND PEOPLE NOT MIGHT NOT BE HAPPY, BUT YOU'RE TREATING EVERYONE EQUALLY, SO. YEAH, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT STUFF TOO. UM. IT'S HARD. YEAH, BECAUSE LIKE, AS THE PEOPLE, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT IN THE CROWD, THEY PROBABLY THINK WE WORK FOR THE CITY, YOU KNOW, AND SO IT BEING ABLE TO SHOW THAT, LIKE, NO, WE'RE HELPING YOU SOLVE PROBLEMS. SO I, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. BLACK AND WHITE'S GOOD, BUT I DON'T KNOW. RIGHT. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. YEAH, I'LL JUST ECHO A LOT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER PANTER SAID. UM, I THINK I TEND TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF A REPUTATION AS NOT CARING ABOUT NEIGHBORLY INPUT. IT'S NOT THAT. I CARE A LOT ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF PEOPLE, I WANT PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. I WANT PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT THE CITY. I WANT ENGAGED COMMUNITIES. IT'S JUST THAT SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT COME UP IN PUBLIC COMMENT ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR DOMAIN FOR WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER BY THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN, RIGHT? THE CODE SAYS THIS. OUR ULTIMATE JOB TO BE HERE IS IN FOR- IS EXAMINING THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE THE CITY AND WHETHER THEY MEET THAT CODE, RIGHT? AND IF THEY DO, I AM ALWAYS INCLINED TO SAY YES, EVEN WHEN PUBLIC COMMENT GETS REALLY HEATED, REALLY EMOTIONAL. UM, IT- IT'S NOT THAT THAT INPUT ISN'T IMPORTANT, IT'S JUST THAT SOMEONE HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOLLOWING OUR LAWS. YEAH. AND THEN WE HAVE TO SAY, ESSENTIALLY, DID YOU MEET THE LAW OR NOT? TO A ROOM FULL OF ANGRY FOLKS WHO SAID, RIGHT. WELL, I CARE ABOUT THIS THING AND THAT THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S- IT'S VERY TRICKY. RIGHT. SO I- I REALLY VALUE CLARITY IN THE LAW THERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN DO. I DO THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN THIS, UM, WELL, THIS IS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECTION, BUT THIS IS WHAT FLASH PLANNING. THIS IS WHAT THE PUD ORDINANCE REFERS TO FOR THE CRITERIA. UM, I DO APPRECIATE OUR CITY ATTORNEY BRINGING UP INCLUDING THAT BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THAT IS ALWAYS A DANGEROUS GRAY AREA. I THINK SECTION OR LINE E ON THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS FAR AS WHAT WE CAN CONTROL, AND THEN KERRY, WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP ON LINE H, UM, [02:50:01] SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, RIGHT? LIKE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS I ALWAYS GET CONCERNED WITH WHEN YOU SEE BROAD, VAGUE SECTIONS IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, THERE'S A FELLA WHOSE LAST NAME WAS AT ADAMS DURING THE CONSTITUTION CONVENTION. ONE OF HIS FAVORITE SAYINGS WAS WE SHOULD BE A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS RATHER THAN A GOVERNMENT OF MEN. AND WHAT HE'S SAYING IS, THE PURPOSE OF HAVING ORDINANCES OR STATUTES IS TO LEND PREDICTABILITY, SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. IF YOU HAVE TOO LOOSE OF STANDARDS, THEN YOU JUST PULL THEM OUT FROM NOWHERE, AND PEOPLE GET SURPRISED. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE HEARING. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT, UH, GETTING TOO LOOSE WITH IMPOSING, YOU KNOW, BROAD, VAGUE CONDITIONS. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET, GET HIT WITH. AND I AGREE, LIKE, I'M, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOT TO BE THE SUPER LOOSE THING, AND, AND I'M EVEN OKAY WITH MAKING IT MORE STRICT THAN THIS. THAT'S TOTALLY FINE. I JUST THINK BECAUSE IT'S A PUD AND IT'S NOT WITHIN THE NORMAL BOUNDS, UM, AND MOST OF THE TIME WHEN WE ARE MAKING CHANGES OR ASKING FOR CHANGES, IT'S A DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORS. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE DENYING THE PUD, WE'RE JUST MAKING IT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT NICER OR MAKING IN ONE ASPECT OR BEING A LITTLE BIT THOUGHTFUL, YOU KNOW? UM, AND IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE FOR A DEVELOPER, BUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHEN IT IS OKAY TO DO THAT AND BE A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TO WHERE WE ARE STILL GOVERNED BY LAWS, BUT IT'S STILL, YOU KNOW. THERE HAS TO BE A BALANCE. YEAH, AND I THINK THAT BALANCE IS MORE STRICT THAN THIS, BUT NOT COMPLETELY BLACK AND WHITE. THAT'S MY OPINION, SO. UM, BUT I LIKE CUTIES. I DO TOO. THEY, THEY LET US DEVELOP PROPERTIES THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT GET DEVELOPED. THEY PROMOTE INFILL INSTEAD OF SPRAWL. I LIKE ALL OF THAT. MM-HMM. UM. UH. THE, THE OTHER THING TOO, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE, UM, IF WE'RE STAYING IN THE SAME SECTION OF CODE, WE GO UP TO NUMBER 2. IN THE EVENT THE APPLICATION IS DENIED, THE COUNCIL, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OR PLANNING COMMISSION MAY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE APPLICANT UNDER WHICH IT WOULD APPROVE THE APPLICATION. SO THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL UNDERSTANDING TOO, WHEN YOU'RE REALLY THINKING ABOUT IT, A, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT, IS GENERALLY MEANT TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, RIGHT? YOU'VE IDENTIFIED AN IMPACT, YOU'RE APPLYING CONDITIONS. SO DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE RARE, UM, BECAUSE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY CONDITIONS. AND SO I THINK IF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU'RE THINKING THROUGH THE, WHAT THE TESTIMONY, AND YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, WELL, OKAY, WHAT WOULD I PUT ON A CONDITION THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO APPROVE THIS, THAT MIGHT HELP FOCUS THAT TO KEEPING IT WITHIN THE LAND USE BOUNDS AND CREATING THAT NEXUS, RIGHT? YEAH. I... YEAH, THESE, THESE PUDS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE BENEFICIAL, UM, BECAUSE THEY MAKE, THEY CREATE SOME, THEY ALLOW SOME TO BE MORE CREATIVE. SOMETHING I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF TOO IS I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE, NEIGHBORS, GET REALLY UPSET, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE EX- AND ON, IN, IN ALL HONESTY, I KNOW BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE, BUT I KNOW, LIKE, ARCHITECTURAL RENDERS OR WHATEVER, LIKE, MAYBE SET SOME RULES ON MAYBE WHAT IT HAS TO LOOK LIKE AT LEAST, OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE ALSO JUST, THEY JUST DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY ARE, THEY'RE, WHERE THEY LIVE. AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT BE OKAY WITH DENSITY AS LONG AS IT MAYBE LOOKED NICE. AND I DON'T KNOW, AND OBVIOUSLY NOW YOU'RE PUTTING A BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER AND HIS RIGHTS, BUT AGAIN, IT'S THE GIVE AND TAKE. WELL, YOU ARE ASKING FOR A PUD, YOU'RE ASKING FOR ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY DO. X, Y, AND Z, MAYBE MAKE YOUR STUFF LOOK BETTER. YOU KNOW, I THI- I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP SOFTEN A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THESE PUDS, IT'S JUST LINES ON A AERIAL VIEW, AND THERE'S NO, LIKE, WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE TO PEOPLE, AND SO PEOPLE IMAGINE THE WORST THING POSSIBLE, A BIG TWO-STORY WHITE BOX, YOU KNOW, FIVE FEET FROM THEIR BACKYARD, RIGHT? AND SO, YOU KNOW. YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY, YOU KNOW. I THINK IF WE REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO, YOU KNOW, BE MORE, UH, WHAT'S THE WORD? GIVE ME A WORD. TRANSPARENT ON WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, [02:55:01] BE MORE THOUGHTFUL WITH IT. THAT MIGHT HELP SOFTEN A LOT OF BLOWS TOO, PERSONALLY. I'LL PUSH BACK ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE GET A LOT OF PUD APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE ELEVATION DRAWINGS IN THEM THAT WE WOULD NOT SEE OTHERWISE. YEAH, THEY ARE REQUIRED, RIGHT? YEAH. THEY ARE. RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC STANDARDS BUT THE STANDARDS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SURE. YEAH. BUT THEY DO HAVE TO PROVIDE THE ELEVATIONS. YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T GET WITH JUST BY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? SO WE, WE GET A LOT MORE FROM PUDS. FOR SURE, BUT THEN, SO MAYBE WHAT I'M GETTING, NO, WHAT I AM GETTING AT IS, UH, BET HIGHER STANDARDS, I GUESS. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THE ELEVATIONS ARE PROVIDED, BUT IT'S USUALLY, DO THEY HAVE TO RE- UH, PROVIDE ELEVATIONS FRONT, BACK, AND SIDES, OR JUST TO FRONTS? THEY PROVIDE ELEVATIONS FOR ALL SIDES. OKAY. GENERALLY. WELL, SO YEAH, MAYBE THE STANDARDS NEED TO BE HIGHER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, THOUGH, BUT, YOU KNOW, BLOCKING, WHATEVER. SO THAT MIGHT HELP. TONIGHT WE HAD A GOOD EXAMPLE, I THINK, OF SOMETHING WHERE, AS COMMISSIONERS, WE DISAGREED. YOU KNOW, I, I WAS IN THE MINORITY OPINION ON, UM, WHETHER R3 WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PARCEL THAT WE LOOKED AT FOR ANNEXATION, UM, BUT I ULTIMATELY THOUGHT COMMISSIONER OGDEN CAME UP WITH A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND THAT I COULD STILL AGREE TO AS WELL, UM, AND THAT WE AS A COMMISSION WERE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY STILL SPLIT, BUT, UM, CAME OUT IN IN SOMETHING THAT WE, WITH A MAJORITY OPINION, WERE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH, WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR, UM, BUT WE THOUGHT WE'RE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL. UM, SO I, I THINK WE COULD, YOU KNOW, DO SOME OF THAT WITH PUDS HERE. THE, THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN CERTAINLY GIVES US THAT LATITUDE, BUT I, I TEND TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF, YOU KNOW, TRUSTING CITY STAFF THAT BY THE TIME SOMETHING HAS GOTTEN TO US, YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ALREADY ON, UM, WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAIR ASK FOR A DEVELOPER TO MEET, UM, AS FAR AS AMENITIES TO, TO INCLUDE ON, ON LAYOUTS, ON THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT YOU, THAT YOU'RE WORKING HARD TO SATISFY THESE THINGS LIKE MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT ON OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS THAT NEIGHBORS BRING UP THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. UM, SO I, I TEND TO TRUST YOU IN THAT REGARD, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN PROVIDES PROBABLY MORE LEEWAY THAN MAYBE WE'RE S- WE'RE FEELING LIKE WE HAVE OTHERWISE. YEAH. UM, AND TO EXTEND TO YOUR POINT, LIKE, TO GO ALONG WITH YOUR POINT OR TO CONTINUE WITH YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT THE, UM, I THINK CITY STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB. I KNOW THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT, AND THERE YOU, THERE'S NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS FOR PUDS, RIGHT? BEFOREHAND? YES. WE ALSO HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE COULD BE SOME PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T MAKE IT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OR NEVER GOT THEIR POINT ACROSS OR THEIR CONCERN ACROSS THAT IS VALID, THAT COULD, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WHICH THEN CITY WOULD HAVE REVIEWED OR ALSO MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, RIGHT, AND THEN GOTTEN TO US. SO JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, CITY GAVE US A THIS REALLY NICE, YOU KNOW, COHESIVE PROJECT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY ALL THE CONCERNS MAY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. AND I THINK THAT'S OUR JOB AS A COMMISSION, IS TO TAKE IN ACCOUNT THE EVENTUAL POSSIBILITY OF OTHER REAL CONCERNS. UM, AND SO IF WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, APPROVING SOMETHING, BECAUSE I AGREE, ONCE IT GETS TO US FROM THE CITY, IT'S A POLISHED PRODUCT, RIGHT? AND I TRUST IN IT AND I BELIEVE IN IT, BUT THERE IS STILL THE OP CHANCE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OF, AND IF WE MAKE IT TOO RESTRICTIVE TO WHERE IT'S LIKE, NO, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT, UM, THEN WHAT, IN MY EYES, WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS COMMISSION AT THAT POINT? YOU KNOW, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HEAR THE COMMENTS, THE, THE, THE OPINIONS, AND IF IT IS RELEVANT, WE HAVE TO CAST OUR OWN JUDGMENT AND HELP SOLVE PROBLEMS. AND SO THAT'S MY, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT. SO, UM, REAL STRONG JOKE RIGHT THERE. SO, UM, THANK YOU, EVERYONE. DOES EVERYONE, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? CARRIE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? NOT REALLY. I MEAN, IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU, SEND IT TO ME, BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW. UM, WE THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY SORT OF LOW-HANGING FRUIT RIGHT NOW, UM, AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK TO A WORK SESSION IN FRONT OF COUNCIL EARLY NOVEMBER, PROBABLY BACK TO YOU WITH AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PD THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER THAT WITH SOME BIGGER TICKET ITEMS THAT ARE [03:00:01] LIKE PRIVATE STREET STANDARDS. YEAH, THAT'S. THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT FOR US TO FIGURE OUT WITH FIRE AND PUBLIC WORKS AND THE DEVELOPED COMMUNITY, RIGHT? UM, SO THAT'S COMING. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME IF YOU'RE AWAKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND THINK, OH YEAH, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, SEND IT TO ME BECAUSE WE'D LIKE TO GET IT ADDRESSED AND FIGURE IT OUT FOR EVERYBODY. UH, I'LL SAY IT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, BECAUSE I KNOW COUNCIL DOES READ OUR MEETING MINUTES. UM, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THEY WALKED BACK THE INITIAL ORDER TO RESCIND THE PUD ORDINANCE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS, UH, REACTIONARY AND SHORT-SIGHTED, AND WAS GOING TO BRING UP A LOT MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WAS GOING TO SOLVE FOR US. UM, AND SO I'M GLAD WE'RE MOVING INTO A STAGE WHERE WE'RE DISCUSSING, UH, EDITS TO THE ORDINANCE RATHER THAN WHOLESALE RESCISSION. THAT'S, THAT'S THE RIGHT MOVE. AND WE'RE LOOKING STATEWIDE TOO. WHAT DOES EVERYONE ELSE DO? HOW DO THEY APPROACH IT, RIGHT, FOR SOLUTIONS TOO? SO WE'LL HAVE SOME OF THAT RESEARCH AND INFORMATION FOR EVERYBODY TOO AS WE PULL IT TOGETHER. WE'RE ALSO CREATING A PUD TOUR, UM, SO THAT YOU GUYS COULD ACTUALLY GO OUT AND. PLEASE. WALK THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. DOES THIS LOOK LIKE WHAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WHEN IT CAME ACROSS OUR DESK, RIGHT? DID WE GET WHAT WE WANTED? IS THAT AMENITY WORTH HAVING? SHOULD WE STRIKE IT? SHOULD WE NOT? YOU KNOW, HOW DO THOSE STORM PONDS WORK? ALL THOSE SORT OF QUESTIONS. IS THE HEIGHT REALLY THAT BIG OF A DEAL? WAS THIS AS CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORS AS THE NEIGHBORS MAYBE SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE DURING THE HEARING, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. UM, WE'D LIKE YOU TO GO OUT AND SORT OF EXPERIENCE SOME, AND SO THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DEAL WITH REAL LIFE DATA RATHER THAN SORT OF FEAR AND, AND ANECDOTAL STORIES, UM, IS OUR HOPE. SO THAT'S ALSO COMING IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. WE'RE WORKING QUICKLY. TRY WHEN IT'S STARTING TO SNOW AND GO WALK AROUND. YEAH. THAT'S THE BEST. RIGHT, WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO GET DONE BEFORE IT SNOWS, BEFORE, BEFORE HALLOWEEN, THE LAST 2 WEEKS OF OCTOBER. THAT'S TRUE. IT WAS ONLY 80 TODAY, SO BY CHRISTMAS IT'LL BE 60, SO WE'LL BE FINE. SO WE HOPE YOU'LL DO THAT AS WELL. WE APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS OF TIME. THANKS. SWEET. WELL, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. UH, ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING. YOU HAVE ANOTHER FULL AGENDA NEXT MONTH, SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I LIKE THESE. I'LL THANK OUR RECORDING SECRETARY ON THE RECORD AS WELL. I'VE SEEN HER CRACK HER NECK. IT'S A 3 HOUR MEETING TONIGHT. ON YOUR TIME. HARD AT WORK, SO THANKS. YEAH, SO I HOPE I'VE BEEN GETTING BETTER AT CONCISING MY WORK. SO WITH THAT, UH, MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.