I just.
Yeah.
Good evening, everyone.
Today is Thursday July 16th, 2026.
And the time is 601.
I will call to order this regular planning
and zoning commission meeting of the town of Firestone Roll
call, please.
Missy Vice Chair Haney here.
Commissioner Ray chairperson.
When it commissioner Sutton here Commissioner Hoskins here.
Commissioner Young.
Here you have a quorum Great.
If you'd all please stand and join me
in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands.
One nation under God.
Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all Thank you.
So next up we have the approval of the agenda.
Are there any before we do that, any amendments
and anyone needs to make to the agenda this evening No OK.
So I'd like to call for a motion to approve the agenda I'll make
a motion to approve the agenda.
Second.
First by Commissioner Young.
Second by Commissioner Hoskins All those in favor say aye.
Aye Hi.
Any opposed motion carries Next item is the approval
of the minutes for the meeting.
Minutes from March 5th 2026, to have a motion
to approve the minutes.
I so moved to approve those minutes of March 26.
Second first by Commissioner Haney,
second by Commissioner Hoskins All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All right.
I opposed motion carries All right.
Next up, we have our public comment
So the planning commission welcomes public comment
from anyone that is in attendance This public comment
is for items that are not part of the public hearing tonight,
but any other item that's on the agenda
Do we have anyone that has signed up for public comment
missing Okay.
We don't have anyone that signed it for public comment.
Is anyone here wishing to speak to any
public comment that did not stand up
for this First public comment ?
Okay. then I will close that public comment portion.
All right.
Moving on to agenda, item number six,
public hearing So the purpose of this hearing is for the Planning
commission to receive information,
documents and testimony in order to make findings and reach
a decision regarding public hearing resolution number 26,
DoorDash zero two, a resolution of the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the town of Firestone, Colorado,
recommending approval of the Barefoot Lakes filing five
Second Amendment preliminary plat At this time,
I'll open the public hearing for PC resolution
20 6-02 and the time is now.
604 Town staff will and they will make a presentation
and then the commission will hear public comment.
The town staff turn to you Great.
Thank you.
Can you all hear me okay Yes.
Perfect.
So what ?
Good evening, commissioners.
For the record, I'm on a for reserve planner,
one representing staff tonight The agenda item before you is
a preliminary plat for Barefoot Lakes filing Five Second
Amendment terracing a design as the applicant
for the Barefoot Lakes.
Finally, five Second Amendment summary plat.
And they're represented tonight by Jeff Mark this on the screen
as an aerial showing the location of the Barefoot Lakes
filing five Second Amendment preliminary plat located just
along the southern edge of sanctuary
Avenue between cove Street and Bend Street or Bend Court
This slide shows an outline of the development
procedures for the town there, highlighted up there in green
is the preliminary plat process the applicant is currently going
through with the town and the planning
and Zoning Commission and Board of Trustees
to approve these applications.
Application It will then move on to the final plat
for the property So this is the approved zoning map for
the Barefoot Lakes filing five.
The subject property is zoned Puti and C
for neighborhood center rC for regional commercial.
Are a residential a, r, B residential, B and R
residential The land is generally vacant with oil
and gas facilities Some activity that had been there previously
and is now wrapped up the property
to the northeast and west.
Have the same underlying zoning granted by the Puti
and have experienced development of mostly single family
detached homes while the property to the south
is zoned open space to protect that natural drainage
way that it's kind of along that southern border
and across that drainage way.
The land is zoned to be a mixture of the residential uses
from that.
But All right, the site area is 6.118 acres
and is currently vacant land.
As I said, the proposed preliminary plat
includes 11 single family detached
lots and a proposed trail connection
to the nearby trail system.
The gross density of the proposed subdivision
is 5.12 dwelling units per acre.
Accordance with the brief at Lakes
p p, d, and it also the Puti allows for a total of 5131
dwelling units, approximately 1170 have been built.
So far So the 11 proposed with this plat
are well within the allowed number of dwelling units here.
The lot sizes range from 7618ft² to 8972ft².
The firestone Development Code requires
Three forms of public notice for public hearings.
The property notice was posted and letters
were sent to adjacent property owners on June 30th, 2026.
While the notice was published in the Longmont Times.
Call on July 1 The town staff has reviewed the preliminary
plat application materials for compliance with the preliminary
plat approval criteria found in section 16 76C of the Firestone
Development Code With the first five criteria shown here
in the last five shown here based on this review are staff
recommends Staff also find that all the approval criteria are
met based on this review, staff recommends that the planning
and Zoning Commission approve draft resolution 120 602,
recommending approval of the Barefoot Lakes filing five
Second Amendment preliminary plat with the three
conditions listed on the screen And this
concludes My presentation.
I will be available after the applicant presentation
and any public comment.
Thank you Thank you. the applicant for their presentation
is.
All right.
It looks like this is on up.
Thank you and see just push.
She's on the right here to go to the air
The one without the arrow.
OK great.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Jeff Mark.
I'm a principal Terracing, a design
We are the planners and civil engineers for this proposal
in front of you tonight, we also have Representative here
from Brookfield that can answer any questions that you may have
that if I I'm not able to answer those for you
want to start off again by thanking you for having us
here tonight We're excited to be here.
Also want to thank all your staff for all
their help on everything.
We always work on and they're very
helpful and great to work with.
So with that need context map here which Monica kind of showed
again of where the site is.
If we need to, we can kind of come back
to this as we move forward.
So One of the questions is, is why was the site
not developed with filing five?
The reason for that was is that there
were oil and gas facilities on this piece of property.
So as you can see here on the left that's
an aerial from May of 2023.
You can see those oil and gas facilities on the site
And then an aerial here from just May
of this year where you see everything has been removed
from the site The This site has always been planned to be
future development Just wanted to bring
up the sales graphic here.
What you can see down there on the bottom
or it says a future development was the area that's
been on this plan showing that at one point in time,
this was going to be future development at the plant also.
So this is a filing five plat.
You could see here where it's labeled
track J and K on the plan over here
And we highlighted it in the land use summary table
over here.
Maybe a little hard to see, but it is
labeled as future development.
Also demonstrating the both that all of the site that you see
kind of in the brown and yellow was always intended
to be future development The site is located in planning area
nine, which is kind of filings five and six of the Barefoot
Lakes ODP within that planning area,
Nine there's 426 units allowed based off
of what has been platted There's technically 58 units that are
allowed on this piece of property
So with this information when we first started to look
at the site we really felt that it
was important that instead of trying to cram 58 units in here,
that we start to place homes on here
that are the same size and nature of what surrounds it.
So what you're seeing on here, these are the same size, lots
of the existing homes that are around it
and filing five We also wanted to generally honor
the schematic form you see in that sales graphic if we want
to go back to you could see there was a smaller sliver
of open space on the west side and a larger on the east side,
which this does.
And as we develop these plans, we're really trying to make sure
that we're kind of threading the needle here
with all of the criteria making sure we're meeting all
of your town standard when it comes to roads
civil engineering, the grading on it
One of the items that we've also added into here
was a propose trail that you could
see going from the existing walk along Barefoot Lakes
parkway that's connecting down to that existing trail
that you could see kind of the squiggly line there
and the bottom right hand corner Nothing is planned.
Appreciate it.
Is really with these 11 homes that we're proposing in here,
it's kind of creating this nice little cluster of homes
and within that, there's kind of just three smaller clusters.
You can see we just have a six, a significant open space
there with the connection.
Another three open space and another Two that you could see
is ten and 11 With this, we did have a neighborhood meeting,
so we took this, showed it to the neighbors
Some of the primary concern is where we did hear a little bit
of mixed bag Some people saying, yes, I knew development
was going to happen here.
No, I didn't know it was going to happen here.
I thought it was going to happen later than it's happening
But I would say overall, probably
One of the bigger comments we did receive is
about the proposed trail that is now shown on here This plan you
see on here, this is what is in black
and white was the final development plan for filing five
is part of that The trail was never contemplated and there.
It wasn't a required meant when that was done.
So what you're seeing here in red
is what we are proposing in here.
I know this is something that we didn't
have in our original plans.
Staff strongly suggested that we should
be adding this trail in here.
So I know again that was kind of one of the bigger comments we
did get from the neighbors and residents
that they didn't expect this to be here
We have tried to pull the trail as far away from the home
as we can.
I know when you look at this graphic,
it kind of looks like they're close
but there is that drainage, steep slopes,
existing vegetation in there.
So we're kind of getting it right to the edge of that.
Is close as we can without going in and starting to really impact
that drainage corridor I just wanted to quickly show
this exhibit that is demonstrating,
again, the amount of open space in the end
with, including tract k over there,
we're going to be close to almost 50% of open space
with these two future development tracts an end.
Finally here, just wanted to show You
a couple of 3D renderings that we've done
Just a disclaimer on it.
These are homes that are currently
models that brookfield does have that we're placing on here.
Doesn't mean, those are going to be the exact homes, obviously,
on each home site each homeowner be able to purchase their lot
and figure out which floor plan they wanted to have,
but we wanted to make sure that we were showing here homes
on here that are representative of what
they're currently building.
So this is again, a view looking south and seeing that open space
buffer on the right hand side, the large one on the left
a view looking straight north onto the site
I just wanted to bring up the approval criteria here.
Again we do meet these criteria We agree with staff at all
their findings and the report that you wrote in here, pages
three through five of the staff report,
go into detail of each One of these criteria
and how we meet it.
And we agree with all of those And then we have the One that's
the PowerPoint by chance.
I want to test something out for you guys.
So we have kind of a new technology that we're using that
actually it's going to be a visual where we actually
fly a 3D drone around the site.
And we will actually model it in that it's a video in there.
It was a little large, so I kind of put it.
Another part of the presentation because if it
crashed at the end, it's the very end of that one.
Yes I know.
Technology could be good Well, finicky.
So you're going to be kind of be my guinea pigs on this.
Doesn't have sound.
No, it doesn't have any sound I should have added sound to it
So since we're creating this, I figured
it'd be good Yeah, it is working and it's not too jumpy,
but Yeah, that's pretty cool Here you
could see how this you know, it looks very similar to that cul
de sac a homes.
That's off to the side of it I think really
fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood,
creating the open space between it.
And again, similar type homes One other item
I forgot to mention in here when we work through this, a comment,
you know, there's comments from in the neighborhood meeting
about views We did go back to our plans and looked at it
and lowered the site as much as we could So the road
coming off of sanctuary there on the left hand side what we did
is we try to some maximum grade peer criteria
that we could go down to just try to settle these homes down
into the site Again, as much as we could without raising it up.
I think there is going to be a little bit
of dirt that's going to be brought
off the site because of it.
But trying to do anything we could to help minimize that.
So with that, if you have any questions for us
we're more than happy to We do.
We'll get to them at the.
You got it.
Thank you.
Thank you All right.
Thank you to both staff and the applicant for your presentations
So now we were going to proceed with public comment
for item six.
Do we have anyone sent it for public comment
No no Public comments.
OK So because there is no one the Center for Public Comment,
is there anyone that did not sign up that wishes
to make public comment?
A few individuals.
OK.
What so during public comments, just
reminder three minutes and just to be
respectful of everyone's time, please state your name
and address for the record.
Sir.
Yeah.
I'm Steve trunk and I'm at one, 2, seven ten Bend
Court in the smaller little cul de sac
that is significantly impacted by this.
Obviously myself and some of the neighbors
would not be in support of this development
because one of the things that brought us to the area
that we loved about Firestone about this area,
was the fact that there was a lot of open space.
There was a lot of good views, great views Many of us,
myself included paid a additional price for the view
for the premium lot.
If you would And I realize sometimes
the realtors or builders may not be this fourth.
This closing as they might have been, but some of us
were unaware that this was going to be developed
and so, of course, I would support not supporting this
But you have other considerations and other things
that you take into consideration and some
of the economic benefit.
However, I think if the builder and developer could in fact,
not impact our views as much as current, Lee would be the case,
no they did talk about, which was not
at the other presentation They did talk about they
didn't talk at that time about maybe lowering or having some
of the view, not obstructed And so
and I know that sometimes they show here the building envelope
that shows the biggest you could build and i would, you know,
hope that at least as this develops
if it continues that that would be towards the front of the lot.
So that we would be less impacted from our backyard,
their backyard we'd have more of a buffer.
And if we could balance out that buffer because it seems right
now that there's a little more of a buffer
to the ones on the east than there are to the ones
that would be literally next to our backyard.
I would appreciate that thought on that.
And and certainly hope that we can balance out.
So that we're all good neighbors.
This is this comes thank you for your time.
I think they should Hello giving William your
so I live on cove 12657 cove.
Couple of issues we've had with this there's no question.
I think most of the homeowners will admit
that that future as you see a development was going to be
developed If you look when we purchased the lots,
if you look at what they told us, they showed us what it is
and what it is now, it's significantly bigger
They're cram in more homes into more space.
They're pushing it back.
And for some of us that paid that premium for the lot
when we bought that, these weren't a concern.
And now there are concern now But probably more significantly
for several of us homeowners is there putting in a sidewalk
walk where there was going to be no development.
It's some of the sidewalk goes well past track or J
and the lots were built They weren't built
to have that sidewalk there.
If you go back there and look, there's
about an eight foot portion down from the fence
line to those homes.
And it goes straight down and they're putting that sidewalk
right there that puts it about 26ft from my back
door So I paid for a lot premium to have backup to green space.
And now I'm going to back up to a public sidewalk and it's going
to be 26ft from my back door.
Any privacy I've had is going to be completely shot
because of this And I've asked that they look at other options
for the trails and we've got trails
all throughout the community But that's
a significant concern that I think needs to be looked at.
Thank you.
Thank you So anyone else that would like to speak
during public comment ?
OK So i see your hand there.
I'm Jean Brown Oh, we are in the process of purchasing 1 2
in your edges, please.
One, two, 7 to 6.
Ben Court We don't own it yet.
We haven't closed on it.
I i'm a little disappointed because in the process
of purchasing our signing the contract,
we were told that there would be no development back there,
that they were finished to developer was finished
and had moved on out of that area and across the road.
So obviously, that was an incorrect representation to us.
But it's very concerning when we look out our i mean,
we purchased the Eight foot tall, 15 foot wide,
expansive view sliding door.
And now it's going to be looking at someone's back side
of their house But more than that when I look,
I see a big stake right there.
And that was the well head.
So we are very close to it.
I'm we're from out of state I was
not aware of all of the drilling in particular in Weld County.
I find it very concerning that there are so
many thousands of wells here.
And when i read about it you know,
I read about how many are uncapped
the state of development of the fracking and drilling
that's been going on here.
It's kind of in the mature stage and we don't any of us
know what will ultimately happen.
And our homes are all being built on top of this.
So I find it very concerning that Firestone is allowing
such a minor setback from cap wells
I don't think it's adequate.
And for my own home, I feel concerned
But for someone who's going to be between that, well and me,
I think I. I mean, do they have to notify the buyers that they
are building on top of a well pad site Will they be made aware
of that I don't think there's anything that I've read
that says you require that be revealed to people People
are coming in with children.
My three little grandsons live next door.
I have a blood cancer I don't think it's in our best interest
to be allowing home homes to be built right on top of well,
Pat what's going to happen?
75 years from now?
Is this going to be one of the biggest cancer
clusters in the United States I think
you should think about these things It's not right.
Those are my main concerns Thank you.
Thank you Anyone else like to make public comment at this time
Okay So at this time, the public comment portion
of this public hearing is now closed And as a commission,
we will now deliberate on on this matter Before we start
with some questions and some deliberation,
I just want to state that the documents include
within the record for this public hearing,
including all materials in the planning and zoning commission
agenda packet, the presentation given tonight,
and I'll written referral and public comments regarding
the application will be included So
does anyone have any objection to the inclusion of
those documents records Okay.
So with that, does staff wish to address anything that
came up during public comment?
Perhaps maybe you could speak a little bit
about how the oil and gas functions when it comes
to the pay for that Also perhaps address some of the setback
concerns And I know there is part of the public testimony,
the emails that we received in our packet that looks like met
and argued spoken to mr. Arts in regards to his concerns
and mr. Maher about the sidewalk going.
And if you can maybe address some of those for us,
please comment I take that to mean take it to the cancer.
OK I'll take the oil and gas stuff since I have a little bit
more experience with that than on a cut So first of all,
we require our.
Thank you.
Thank you The fire storm development code requires a 50
foot setback from plugged in abandoned wells
They do have to be shown on the documents
and they'll have to be those 50 foot setbacks will have
to be shown on the final plat.
So and yes, in your documentation
with your title report, you know that information, you know,
will show up.
If it is on your property We also
require that the applicant to provide all the documentation
from ECM c, which is formally Colorado Oil and Gas Commission,
now rebrand it as CMC and they have
all the reports that show that the oil and gas equipment was
removed correctly.
And then it's been cleaned up correctly.
We also require the town fire still
requires third party information showing a report showing
that the equipment belowground that we can't see
was also removed And those reports
do come along with pictures showing
where they've dug it up to confirm
that it's not there anymore.
So we take it very seriously.
You know, obviously, we've had a had an accident in town already
in the past And so we take it very seriously.
The safety of our residents and making sure that the old oil
and gas pad was cleaned up correctly
I think the clarification I'll just make
is the third party verification is for pipeline
So if there are any pipelines leading to those wells that were
removed you need third party verification showing the removal
or if they can't be removed because they go into a road,
something like that, they're required to flow,
fill them with concrete to ensure the gas
can't build up again.
And i can speak a little bit more to the conversation
about the trail and kind of how we got to the conclusion
that a trail is necessary for this development.
So when we're looking when staff,
we're reviewing these submittals for these application,
we are review these submittals against the Firestone
development code.
And there are a couple of very specific sections of code
that mandate the construction of a trail.
So one of them is Section 1665, D, E,
and that is about cul de sacs and dead end streets And in that
section it reads, Should they be incorporated a view corridor
at the cul de sac head or dead end street, a minimum of 35ft,
which should be provided to maintain open
views and pedestrian access.
And then goes on to say how those view corridors,
if possible, must include a trail connection
And so that's one of the main reasons
that that trail was asked to be included with this submittal
and staff leave that the reason this wasn't done
with the broader filing five planning was because of the oil
and gas facilities proposing a trail at that time in this area.
With that within that proximity to the oil and gas operations
didn't seem as smart as doing it at a later date
when this new development comes in actually, what wouldn't it
wouldn't have been allowed or at least
with our current standards, we have a 150 foot setback from oil
and gas to a trail Can any other comments with regards
to public comment that staff would like to comment on
or the applicant don't believe so All right.
So at this time commissioners, do you have any questions
that we'll then go into any questions
about the public testimony that we just heard before we go
into deliberations It's been i'll go through my list Which
part of the trail is most contentious The entire trail
or from what staff has been hearing mostly from sorry,
from residents.
Yes.
So from the feedback that staff have been receiving
from residents that eastern portion closest
to the homes over there has been of most concern
And then I'm sure.
Any other place where the trail is close to other existing homes
is probably also very key, has used the pointer just to kind
of think So right along here.
And then potentially over there as well including the wavy part
or between the homes or just the part that loops
around the back of staff have not had any comments
on the wavy part yet.
There is an existing kind of wavy trail
connection through this tract.
At the end of it over here But yeah,
that no other concerns mentioned and why couldn't it go up?
I think that structure where there's nothing over here.
Yeah OK.
Is that okay that that connection.
So this along the high side of the drainage Yeah.
Goes through the whole neighborhood
So when you cross the street, it continues on.
Also when you get yourself from there up to you.
So yeah you get yourself here, pulls right here So
there's already a social trail here of people walking
along this And the neighbors told us that to
Yeah, you're right.
There has been people walking out here
the paved trail will allow folks of all abilities.
And if you're in a wheelchair or pushing a stroller or on
a bike or young or old or anything
in between the hard surface trail
allows all users to use it.
What do you mean by social trail?
If you can clarify if you go out there now,
you could see that there's a trail
and people have been walking through there essentially along.
Do you call all the walking trails,
social trails and barefoot like so as an informal trail, please?
Well, don't let the chair do this thing.
So if are there other opportunities,
if the public have more testimony to speak Keith, or is
that would be the proper procedure for that.
So you close public comment in my recommendation
is to continue what you're doing.
Let the questions to be asked.
Staff and then allow the applicant to have
an opportunity to rebut.
And then after that if the board.
So chooses someone can make a motion
to reopen public comment that would have to pass by a majority
So we'll do okay.
So let's continue.
Yeah.
So that's what we'll do going forward after if there's
any rebuttals then I'll ask for a motion to reopen
public comment If there's for the comments
that you all would like to make in response to whichever it
tonight OK So the other part of the issue with the trail
was that there's a drop off So will there be
any kind of guardrail or railing put in to prevent
falls as it's not that kind of I don't it's
not that steep of a drop off.
I think the point is it.
They're trying to keep the trail on the flat part of it
and not have to build retaining walls.
You know, when you get down into the drainage
then you would have to build retaining walls
and you potentially affecting the drainage.
So they're just trying to keep it up on the flat part.
It's not like a cliff though It's my backyard.
It's a cliff.
It goes down on So we need to keep
order You have to have a chance to make
some comments afterwards.
Staff have also heard from some residents that we discussed this
with that there have been folks seen walking
through the drainage way, the actual drainage way with pets
And so this trail would also potentially be an opportunity
to get folks out of walking in that open space,
that drainage way.
That's not intended for pedestrian activity
and up into higher ground, closer
to the the residential areas where
you can observe the drainage way from a distance.
So just for clarification on the trail,
is required or not required by the after See the FCC would
require construction of the trail of that trail
through that yes it requires it to be connected
Ed, let me read it.
So if you corridors shall contain
a pedestrian walkway or trail connection, wherever possible.
So that would mean the connection
to the the stub out trail coming from that other tract
over in this cul de sac next to that existing
trail There have to be a trail connection coming out here.
And then this stub out as well But
does it have to go all the way around as the trail
connection picks up on the other side of Barefoot Lakes Parkway?
And if you really take a larger aerial view of filing five,
you can see the natural connection
from the existing trail on the other side of Barefoot
Lakes Parkway All right.
We don't get to look at those things on our own right.
OK This trail connection here is required to be here.
So in the 30 foot tract that's required there,
it does have to have a trail in it.
The trail down here to will connect into the trail system
around and Barefoot lakes.
So really good connections.
You've got the pool basically, at one end
you got the connection to the Barefoot Lakes Trail system
around the lakes itself down at this end.
So really make some great connections
And you say that the drop off is not that severe,
but it sounds like you can't pull that out any
further from behind that home.
I anything is possible.
Typically, you're trying to avoid doing retaining walls.
We should let that into the crucial at the engineer
respond to that All right.
So really the slope along that edge i'll say
is that the maximum slope you could have?
So when they design this, that's what it is.
So once you start moving a trail, a flat surface
out into it, you're going to be into a retaining wall situation
along with.
And then you will be in a guardrail situation
because you are starting to install retaining walls
So really we're getting it to that furthest point.
We can get at the top of that edge
where if you just for every foot or every three feet,
you move it out, That's going to be a foot of retaining
wall and also bigger impacts.
And then you start to get that handrail.
So you start to situate it.
I mean, if you were to move it even ten feet out,
you're at a couple of, you know, you're over two
feet of retaining wall.
So that's that's where we're kind
of threading that needle on it right now, if that makes sense.
What's the issue with that?
Well, I think in a natural corridor like this,
I think the last thing you'd want is a bunch of railing
everywhere I think that's something that just
doesn't really fit into the character of it to get
a distance of, let's say 15ft away versus 20ft away,
that really the perceived distance is not that much
of a distance, but on a hillside like that, it does make a big
difference in the design of it.
Again retaining walls, railing walls that the district
is going to have to maintain.
Then that over time you know, will need to have work.
And so it's just additional cost all around on that to
But it's possible like again, I think anything's possible
so that that would potentially also
require changes to their stormwater master plan.
Yes there's stormwater issues starts
to play into impacts to, again, the existing
vegetation along there.
I mean, it's but to the point of well,
I think you can build a theory for folks
to understand exactly what this particular does,
why this particular the design of that trail
works So if there are stormwater issues
or is there anything else?
No I think that is it.
And again we've been working with staff on what they feel
the cold criteria is on the connection
points for this trail, which is where we have then added
the connection points that have been recommended to us
and while we have you at the microphone, how
much lower are you intending to build the home?
Somewhat.
Was originally presented to the neighborhood
I think we ended up the steepness of the road.
I think when we maxed it out, it ended up
being in the ballpark of maybe 3 to 4ft lower on the end of that.
And that is, again it was already
the road was already from the original presentation
was already going downhill And then as we looked at it,
we were like, well, we can't actually steepen up the road as
much as possible to meet your criteria,
which is what we did to try to get that cul
de sac as low as we could.
So overall 3 to 4ft lower than the original downhill lowering
that we kind of already had And how does
that impact the view for the people
that were complaining about it?
I'd say that's kind of hard to say,
given to each individual A home has a kind of a different view
or a potentially you know, you know as it gets further
towards the drainage again, each one of those
is going to be down a little bit lower.
And so you know, it's really what
we're trying to do is the best that we can
to try to help out on there.
And meet still your criteria OK.
All right.
Thank you.
You so i have another question for you.
You said everything has been removed from the site
with regard to oil and gas, correct Do you literally mean,
things were dug up and removed Yes,
things were dug up and removed.
We are still in the process of filing all of our final reports
Our staff mentioned, we have to go through and make sure
that every single line has been removed They're still out We're
still out here doing studies on it,
trenching different areas just trying
to make sure that everything has been removed.
I do commend firestone.
For what it's worth on your regulations
that you do have on it, because it is rare
and a lot of the areas that you do,
make sure that all of those lines have been removed
and we make sure that we honor that and take it seriously.
OK.
Thank you.
You Mean questions Hold on No, I think that's
it Thank you Thank you, Chair.
I do have a couple and they're mostly for staff.
About the 50.
So the 50 foot setback from where they were capped that.
So every new development home is going
to be at least that for away from each one of those
and these have been abandoned and capped
and it sounds like they're going through.
And verifying that they're all gone.
And did you say earlier, there would be a notice to the buyers
of those lots that they had been there
were no the no lot will be no lot.
We can't plot a lot over that 50 foot setback.
So no lot will be over the 50 foot setback.
OK That's our job to make sure that that doesn't happen Right.
50 foot setback, right And so is there a notice that that
was there before or is that just I know you said something
about it showing up in the I think
if if it's on your property would
show up in the title report.
But if it's not on your property, it would not
I don't know that it'll be on the final plat.
Our subdivision agreements do require
an oil and gas disclosure form.
That's in the title entirely.
It does in the subdivision when they're selling them.
So it's just if it's in the lot itself, if it crossed
or if it was in here about if it's in that filing OK, good.
OK.
All right.
I think that's all I have.
Thank you Yeah.
Thank you, Chair We talked a lot about the trail.
What's the width of that trail Ten feet
and foot concrete I believe so This concrete,
asphalt. Asphalt. Oh, it's asphalt. I still couldn't so.
I'm sorry You guys want to clarify that?
Don't have to be concrete to look.
So you're the plan Oh, no, it's five feet.
Propose five feet concrete trail.
And it does have to be concrete.
So i apologize for saying ten five.
So it's.
It's only five foot.
Five foot.
Yeah So it's not even like our.
But well, kind of like our bike paths out here.
Yeah It's this that you know, the other paths
like this that it matches up to in bare lakes
are also five in your open space area
I imagine that's going to be somewhat watered.
Is it native grasses or what are we looking at in there
I don't know anybody It's dirt.
It's there's some water down there during a very heavy
So once again once again, sir, this is not your time
to be speaking about anybody that is part of staff
or the applicant So Yeah, it is just
native seed that does have currently does
have some irrigation out on it.
Usually the intent of that is for establishment out there.
And then at that point usually try and minimize
the amount of water that is used to make sure
I'm not 100% sure if you guys know,
if you even run it normally out there
or if it's just for established right out of barefoot
Yeah, kind of depends on the area,
but typically, it's usually around for establishment
Know any trees or anything like that to help shade in the areas
or.
Yes So that's our thing.
There are some existing trees that were planted out there just
in the last couple of years We're hoping
to be able to relocate some of those We do have
in our landscape plans are the trees
that we are trying to preserve out in there.
Then the trees that we will be trying to relocate.
And also, in addition to that, adding additional trees
into the open space area And so it's just an establishment
in the system would be left.
Typically.
That's how it is.
I said, I'm not sure if you guys run it
when during extremely there's a drought out there
or if it's having an issue.
But most of the time, it's just toward till establishment.
OK.
And yeah because water usage is will
be a bigger bigger concern so Yeah so appreciate
your concerns for that.
And dealing with it appropriately So
there's like Pat brought up there are issues on that routing
and I know you already did all your studies
and you economics of development and what's the cost to you
and the impact and how you get your money
back out of this thing.
So retaining walls are expensive Yeah.
So I imagine you're going to try to avoid those.
Yes I would say conk concrete walks are expensive.
Also, just in general especially for over 11 months.
There's a lot of value on those two.
You know, as far as for the bikers and the casual walkers
and everything.
And that's One of the attractions of your Barefoot
Lake area you know the flexibility
of movement of the pedestrians.
Yeah, it's a shame there's that conflict for your users
that already invested in their property There's and you can't
resolve all conflicts, but you can try to make it the best you
can if you can move it at least a little bit,
doesn't hurt, you know, because you haven't constructed it.
Yeah.
No, not right.
OK.
Well, so consider and I appreciate it Okay.
That's all I have to I just have to.
Two quick questions One, in the testimony
with the email from mr. Mauer, he
mentions that there was he he liked the idea of paving
the social trail along the river as an alternative to the pathway
through the areas initially proposed.
So can you describe what that initial proposal was
and what was changed that he references in his email on that?
And I'm not sure I'm sorry.
I was to you.
It was to you met the emails to you.
I believe he was talking about this.
So this trail connection on this side
goes down to that barefoot lakes, the peninsula park
with the trails around the lakes that they have down there I
believe that he was mentioning that he would like
to see that that which is currently a gravel
or aggregate trail paved.
OK.
Which would kind of be out of the scope of this project.
I see that he would have preferred that instead
of the trail connection that's shown here
Okay, we got a ridge for it.
So, so with that, were there any other alternatives
proposed in terms of the trail connections
or any other like alternate one, two and three or anything
like that?
No, no, no.
OK.
This is the only one that fits within the criteria of the.
You have to see And then my other question obviously, I'm
not a builder or anything but the top home up there, it
seemed you know, very close to the existing
homes that are built. So i'll just call it the North.
You know, the north, the way west corner
up there is there from a developer effective as a reason
why it wasn't placed on the opposite side.
So there wouldn't be as much of a or as close of a being.
So it wouldn't be as close to that to the home that backs up
to So again, on this one, we are as I'm
kind of threading the needle, there is an easement.
The road actually has an easement just to the you can see
on the right hand side of it.
So that access point is really locked in by that easement
right there of where we need to be at in kind
of the tangent criteria along with also
the plugged in abandoned wells that are over in there.
So really, as we're going through it,
the easement the plugged in abandoned wells, everything kind
of out in the site and then the criteria of the engineering
standards kind of really have.
It's where there's a very specific location
that everything that's in there Okay.
Yeah.
I'm just curious about this is there is so much over there.
I didn't know if there was because of the oil and gas
or if there was just some of the thing that was behind that Okay.
Thank you.
Those are my questions.
Thank you.
So with that are there any type of rebuttals or anything else
that you want to comment on with regards
to the public comment that was received from the applicants ?
So do you want to.
Is there anything that you want to comment on?
What was it for the rebuttal?
Again, just the applicant gets to rebut.
Correct.
Now that those.
No, I was saying anything want to rebut from what
was heard during that.
OK.
Public comment.
And then once the applicant stand,
then you can potentially reopen.
But the motion Correct.
You okay.
That sounds good.
Now, am able to make that motion.
Keith was actually one of the commission members.
Anybody who made the motion.
OK before you do, can i ask one more?
Sure Was there in our packet we got
the email from Mr. Arts to Ms..
Riser, but I don't see her reply to Mr. Yards.
Yeah we so there was a reply and we also met with Mr. Yards
out Matt and I went out there to the site and walked around
and met him at his, at his fence and we had a conversation
about it as well.
Is there a reason that email reply was
not include it in our packet?
No it's not part of the public comment.
Yeah, that's it's only public comment.
We don't put in correspondence back and forth.
I got you.
OK.
Thank you Right at this time of commission I
would I make a motion to reopen public comment to allow
for the public to address some additional concerns I
second segment, Commissioner hoskins.
All those in favor say Hi.
OK We will reopen the public comment portion of item
number six, the time is now.
653.
Those wishing to make public comments
may come up one by one Apologize if I seem I get heated I've been
involved in this in a while, and it's
pretty you know, intrusive here One thing about when you look
at the developed meant take a look at the if you look
at the what they proposed was going to happen when people
bought the lots it looks just like Ben court
if you look at it, it's almost identical in scope to Ben Court
If you go to this photo here and you pull up,
you can see it's significantly bigger than Ben Court.
It comes out deeper and it's wider
And you're right to be concerned.
It's awful close to those houses over there.
I live over here on the other part of the sidewalk One
thing I want to point out, they already
covered the maximum cliff.
Appreciate it.
Is a cliff out there and they probably can't fit a ten foot
sidewalk because there's not enough room between my fence
line and the cliff It's not going to do a lot
to help the social traffic.
So what happens is in that green space,
there are about Four dog owners who are Bird Dogs owners.
About once a week, they take their dogs down
in that green space and they let them run and chase,
you know, coyotes and birds and whatever.
So that's really not going to help much as far as that goes,
which is why I thought maybe if you put a trail through there
in that connected you know, I know it's an expense
and maybe it has to be a raised wooden deck
or whatever that be concerned.
But the bigger concern is, is if you go around
and they talk retaining walls, if you keep walking
that all the way around there's houses as cove
goes through that exact retaining wall, was there.
They have that sidewalk They've taken it about 40ft away from
the fence line, down the slope And that
sidewalk goes in and there's a retaining
walls already built there.
Now, I understand that they want to avoid
the cost of a retaining wall, but they're
not considering the homeowners.
And it's not just meters About 4 or 5 of us right there.
None of them are here.
There are other things, but I know
they have the exact same concerns as we do.
But it can't be done.
It's just an expense.
But i mean, what's the value of my house
going to be when now there's a public sidewalk there?
If they would move that 20ft away,
it takes it down about six feet below grade where
they've got the retaining wall.
My privacy is not impacted at all.
I can sit on my back door, my back porch,
and if I see the top of somebody's head,
maybe I hear a dog bark.
Maybe But it's way down there and maybe a little more cost.
But I know me and the rest of the homeowners
will walk away happy and feel like we've not been
wronged So that's all I've got.
Thank you.
I'm thinking of album.
Hi.
My name's Linda Kane and I live in Been caught
one, 2, six, nine, eight.
And that squiggle path is on one side of my property
and then the other one is on the other side.
So I'm really going to be impacted by that trail now.
And as far as there being a social trail,
I've lived in the house a year and a half.
I've seen De'Aaron Fox's One teenage boy
and the gardeners, the landscape people,
there is no traffic behind my house.
I have a big dog He would let me know
if I'm missing something You know,
it's a deer trail It's not.
People don't use it.
We've been on, you know, I've been in the house a year
and a half.
And no one, I've been caught seems
to be hurting because we don't have access down that way.
We just walk.
Other directions I don't understand
why all of a sudden our cul de sac has to be impacted.
So much by this trail.
And people who go off trail are still going to do it You know,
the trail isn't there doing it for other reasons.
You know and we paid a lot premiums
for this view of nothing.
And now it'll be people Mine was $50,000.
That was my lot.
Premium And they said someday they might build there.
Maybe in 30 years.
This has been a year and a half.
So it really this is going to affect quite a few of us
Why does why so many houses in such a small area
The people on cove, if there were if they put in like five
houses, maybe people would still have
a section of view left instead of losing
completely their mountain view.
The Sunset View But to cram that many houses in there you know,
and who's to say how much view anyone would have left.
But these people love their homes.
We spend a lot of money landscaping.
We have these private backyards where we see deer.
I see deer.
And I don't know that I'll ever see them again.
Once this is done.
Thank you Thank you, Linda.
Just one point of clarification Haitian is meant Oh,
can you pull that back up or do we have to hold on, hold on
again for the record let's just get through the public comment
and then sorry, after the public comment staff and the applicant
have yet another opportunity to respond Thank you again,
Steve trunk.
One, 2, seven, ten.
Been caught What I for some reason
I didn't understand the little squiggly
you know the lombards street if you
would up there that comes down between my house and another
house here.
There's no there's no benefit to somebody that
would be in that cul de sac.
I don't know why anyone would come off that trail if they were
going to the pool or well, where else
they would go up that serpentine trail head there.
And I don't know if that was a requirement
It's not shown on the plan.
That's actually not part of the plan.
So this is not shown on their plan Okay.
What's that We need the right.
But that's it's not actually on the plan right now Right.
So now I'm a little more confused.
Is is it on the plan that's proposed?
I think yeah.
Once once we finish the public comment,
then we'll have staff address that and kind of clarify
because if that's not on the plan,
then that's not an issue that is currently nobody
uses that there except for to walk
a dog down from our neighborhood and you wouldn't go.
If you're going to the pool you use the lower one.
But again, most people when they go into the pool
have other means of transportation
or walk wagons with their stuff in.
Thank you.
Thanks to you Appreciate it.
Was there anyone else that had public
comment during this time ?
OK.
So I will now close this portion of the public comment.
And now move on again to deliberation and/or excuse me,
two questions.
Staff Would you like to address anything that came up
during the public comment, such as the the squiggly trails that
was brought up and any other concerns
Yeah, I have to correct myself.
Again, I apologize.
It is shown on the most recent submittal of the city's
This squiggly line as well as and those, as you mentioned,
were so are required to the FDC says when
you have a 30 foot track like this that it
should have the trail in it.
And the reason it wasn't done previously.
Again was because of the oil and gas at the time
it was currently there.
Yeah In the comments from staff with regards
to public testimony.
No.
Does the applicant have any responses to public testimony?
We just heard So for delivery, are there any other questions
that come up with this next?
Yes, Commissioner, you.
So the squiggly line obviously brings it closer
to the homes on either side.
Can it be a straight line that just goes up the middle
and maximizes the distance from the homes I can answer that one.
So yes, I prefer to be a straight line,
but what it is, is we're trying to meet ADA requirement
It's so what it is is that's the maximum grade that we can have.
That is a steep slope.
Those are walk out homes along there.
So the steep slope, we have to get enough run on it just
like a mountain pass or switchbacks
That's what we're doing on that.
So we try to make it the shortest
length we could possibly be.
And still meet ADA requirements on it.
Gotcha.
OK Thank you It's from the commissioners All right.
So there'd be no further testimony or questions.
The public hearing is now closed.
The time is 703.
And so at this time the commission
will deliberate what we've heard and for any comments or feedback
on this proposal So over here any comments and deliberations
So initially, Mr. Young any comments and deliberation of I
would have a question for the attorney
As far as the premium that is not the Commission's concern,
is that correct?
No nor are any statements or promises
that were made by Third parties to purchasers of lots outside.
And that's because it's outside our purview is it?
because it's irrelevant to the code criteria Right.
Okay.
I just want to make sure folks understand that Thank you for i
don't have any further comments, bye.
Do appreciate what the planners have done as far as I'm really
glad to see the extent we pursue the,
you know, the abandoned bit of oil pipelines
and buried, things like that, We had that bad accident down by us
And so I appreciate the new rules and the things that would
help us We're always going to be stuck
with developments that are tight because we're
running out of water.
You you know, sewer and everything else.
And water So keep doing the best job you can Guys appreciate it
It will say it's it's certainly kind of a balancing between you
know, being able to allow the developers to develop
and making some accommodations with lowering the site lowering
the grade, trying to get that down
a little bit to try to minimize the impact
although not fully right.
With regards to the views, especially
for others be for staff or maybe for you, Keith.
But if we were to as a commission
say we'd like to make a recommendation.
And that that trail is moved.
And then require whatever is needed for that,
is that something that we're able to do as part
of a recommendation to the board as far
as like amending everything?
OK.
Of course I mean, again, it's going to require consensus
So a majority vote.
But is that is that mean.
Like a motion to amend the proposal
or kind of what is that would that process is there.
I mean, we could Yeah I mean, what if it what it would look
like.
I think is you know it if I'm reading
the tea leaves correctly.
And I hope I am you know what I would
suggest is that there first be a main motion
to approve the resolution.
And then there's a secondary motion to amend.
So a motion to amend the resolution
to include the following condition of approval
And then you can vote on that And then
depending on how that goes, then you can vote
on the resolution as amended.
Does that make sense?
It does.
And upon the upon the motion, then we
could have a discussion about the motion
before we actually vote on the motion.
Correct?
OK Yeah Motion, I think.
How how I would word that I guess we could deliberate it.
Like as far as I don't know what the requirement would,
I was what I'm trying to require.
And that's or ask for it.
But well, what i would say is I mean,
I would recommend that you say, do you have a motion
to approve resolution 26?
Oh, Do seconded Okay.
Do I have do I have a motion to amend
or you know, but some would like to make a motion
to amend resolution PCO2.
And I can try to help with whatever
that amendment looks like.
OK.
So once we discuss the motion to discuss that Okay,
exactly right Sounds good.
All right.
Any other thumbs for deliberation
before I very close all right.
So at this time, I will enter into the record
the staff member on attachments in the agenda packet.
As we stated before.
Okay I have a motion on p c resolution 2602.
I request that we approve.
I move that we approve resolu ocean PC 20 6-02
and seconded by Commissioner Sutton Roll call,
please don't do it.
So don't do so.
If OK so if you want to if you want to potentially debate
the addition of any condition to the resolution,
then now's your time.
And then if that debate flows into someone making a motion
when she formulated with that additional language
is going to be that's when you would make the move Okay.
When you said approved, the first one, that's why I was I
thought we were going to have we got this.
OK.
We got to get that.
You're okay So I had.
So the first was from Commissioner lee and then second
from commissioners I'm correct at this time would like
to motion for is a an amendment to resolution pC
or an amendment to p C resolution 2602,
which would allow for the extension of the buffer
between sidewalk and residents homes
to have a a second for that motion.
Also seconded by Commissioner Young So for discussion
wise I mean, I think we've heard pretty clearly that there are
concerns with regards to the trail being put in itself
We've heard from the residents We've also
heard from the applicant that there
are going to be a potentially significant cost to do that.
And some concerns about existing existing look and style right.
With the surrounding community.
But we've also heard that there are other portions where that is
already in place So I think as a commission,
we could balance some of these concerns the best we can
We can't do much about the homes themselves,
but trying to create additional buffer to help maintain
and preserve the intent of when these individuals purchase
their homes.
So are there any questions or comments.
And commissioners has about that?
No, I'm well, I guess I'm wondering
do we have to be specific as to how much buffer in the amendment
I think that would help a lot.
I mean, I understand that.
I understand where you're going, but i mean,
I think to give not only staff, but also the applicant,
the right the ability to try and formulate what
that looks like as I just didn't know
what it would be ahead of time.
So if you're able to assist with what
that buffer could be because I'm not right.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I can.
So let's see how it goes.
And we'll get it.
And can move will develop it organically.
And then we'll, we'll sort out the current.
But for now is i don't recall if I made a note in the sidewalk
and the home I believe it was ten feet behind is that correct
All I remember is 20ft from my back door
and it's that's why I'm remembering
the 26ft from the back door.
That's correct Correct.
Where where you're looking at, there's
a 25 foot sanitary easement along the back of the houses
along Cove Street And the trail meanders It's mostly
within that 25 foot easement.
But right up against it.
So I would say that trail is is 15 to 20ft
from the rear lot line of those houses along not coastal Right.
I'm sorry.
Or is that cove in Pam?
Is there is there a different is there a different map
or maybe more like a top view that we
could see for that Yeah, sure.
We can pull up the you know, something?
Just a a page hope that one of the presentations.
What's this?
I guess it would be helpful to know what's
the smallest buffer in the can The narrowest
land in the narrowest part.
Yeah And maybe require that it be a minimum
throughout 60 meters Yeah.
Yeah So you know between pull that now so we
don't have the ability to get that on the screen
so we don't know what we're still deliberating right.
Yeah.
It looks like you without considering the squiggly trail
between the homes because that can't really be
moved the closest the edge of trail
is to a rear lot about 10.5ft.
Okay.
10.5ft.
OK.
And it ranges up to about 20ft to some of those houses
along Cove Street where it's right
up against the edge of that.
So So we could do in amendment of a minimum of 15 or 17.
Yeah And once we can we get the image back up,
please Because in that image there is the one,
there was like a home where it was basically like right
on the lot line look like.
I don't know if that's the ten feet that you're mentioning
that once it pulls back up on that
was different than the homes that we talked about tonight.
But i think we're going to think we're working on pulling up
a document to present to the commission that has
actually accurate measurements.
OK.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
While we wait for that does anyone else have
some any comments they want to make as we're deliberating
with the only other comment I'll make is, is this just a reminder
to everyone that it was mentioned that it was originally
platted for 58 units and that it is now currently 11
and that is somewhat some relief to the adjoining
to the existing homes.
Appreciate it.
Wasn't platted for 58 units that they have
58 units available in filing five
that they could have potential built.
But they never proposed 58 units on that property.
No.
Right.
But that's but they could have Yeah You know, 70
any comments on the the trails or what we're debating currently
Do you agree with the proposal or we or you think it's asking
too much more than ten on your turn on your mic
and you could speak into it.
Well, we got to get you recorded and I don't know if that's
above our pay grade, but I kind of feel for them
if I paid this lot premium.
I know that's kind of not part of it,
but now I've got this trail right up against my property
and I've got people walking by all the time.
I mean I feel a little cheated.
We well, premium or not, I think privacy that there can be I
think I think they've made it clear that it
can be that this was the plan without any additional
modification.
Yeah.
So this may conflict things.
But I think in the long run for residents.
I agree that it's the right thing.
And we're the code says wherever possible It
doesn't say in the easiest way possible or the least expensive
or.
That's a good point So I do think
that almost all of the new subdivisions have panels
and they are all I know you have a minimum.
I know ours has a setback of here.
Probably only about 15ft.
And so now everybody knew that that was going in there
and maybe that's the difference is you know, because that's
a really difficult thing to say when you
if somebody is telling you that it's not going in there, then.
But that is, again you know, it was on the final plat
and that's kind of we had that same problem where they were
like, some of that information's not really easy to find
when you're purchasing true.
Well, I find disclosures to be I come from North Carolina,
where disclosures have to be so thorough Yeah.
And they're better here than other places.
But not as good as they could be Yeah, I
think we're having some technical difficulties, bye.
Think Pam Howard can make is looking at plans
and has done measurements and can make and represent
tatian right now about Oak about that
to help you or at least inform your decision on what
an adequate buffer would be.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah.
So again, ignoring the squiggly trail between the lots because
of the aDA issue, the cul de sac homes at the end of
and I was that, can we see it on the map?
Yeah so Yeah so we have the point to the can
we see the other picture that we've been looking at them.
I mean, this is probably it's a more thorough guide
to better accurate.
So ignoring the squiggly right here.
These two kind of corner points of these two cul de sac lots.
This one here is right around 10.5ft.
This one is right around 11ft.
OK.
And then when you get over here this trail largely runs along
the inside side line of a sanitary sewer easement,
which is 25ft deep.
So where the trail directly abuts the edge of that easement,
it would be 20ft from these rear yards here where it curves.
It does get a little closer but probably about
I didn't take that measurement for probably
no closer than 15ft.
So those were your yards.
So where is that?
Can to make it more complicated?
Where is it less than 22?
Everywhere or possibly right here.
OK Not behind.
I mean, these are the new homes that
are being constructed Right.
And that would their buffer be like one in the top to left home
right there?
That kind of has the I forget my shapes but so we're kind
of curves looks like it comes probably within about
that 10 to 15ft or so as well.
You say Yeah.
The closest new home to the proposed
trail would be about 12ft to the lot, to the lot Yeah.
So again, all of these measurements are due to the lot
with a lot line up to the edge of someone's right
to the back, someone's back door.
I understand that.
Sure.
And on the plans But these homes take up a significant footprint
of their lots, is that correct?
We don't know Yeah.
I mean, we can look at an area map
to see no one's built all they all have rear setback line.
So right you know they all are at least 10 to 15ft away.
And then with that, Pam, I know that the concern
has been brought up with the homes down here.
On the bottom is, is what we've heard today and up at the top,
well, there's some of the top on there.
So with that, the sewer utility easement,
does that then impact being able to
would they have to go beyond four the beyond that
to be able to then build a trail?
Or are they able to build on top of that?
How how does that work?
So the sewer company St Brain is a referral agency, so they
would be commenting on that.
They can respond to any conversation you know,
the applicant has had with them potential Lee
But if the sewer entity says you can't build it in here,
then they won't be able to build it.
Usually they'll allow it as long as it's not
directly over the line itself.
And just with the knowledge that if the sewer district
has to come out and tear up the trail for whatever reason
that the Metro District's usually
going to be responsible for, for repairs, not the sewer district.
So if we were to say let's say minimum setback 20ft from
the lot line from the edge of the trail,
do you see that creating any is creating any issues
that you can foresee right now?
I mean, other than the drainage implications that were discussed
and potential retaining wall, I mean,
this would be as a discussion with the engineering department
as to whether they'd even permit it within that drainage area.
That's not up to us.
So it'd be if we in.
And of course, everyone else can chime in on that.
But if that's what we made the recommendation
for in our resolution then at that point
before it comes before the board, all that would be
discussed and and we would tell the board yeah,
this isn't going to work the way that it was proposed because
of engineering saying this, this or the other
or here's an alternative is that that's
what happened before the board meeting, Correct.
Okay.
Committee members, any thoughts as far as minimum setbacks
that you want to propose 20 less or what?
I would think you need to have a range because
of physical restraints and what kind of burden
are we putting on a developer besides the homeowner?
You know, so I think if we went to like a 15 to 20,
but rigid 20 might be more difficult. Okay
And I think 20 minimum, I agree 20 minimum
with the commission 15 to 20, you're like a 20
minimum number one number.
Okay Know, that's okay.
OK So I think so.
Sounds like we have our number of 20 and understanding.
Commissioner haney's proposal of the kind of in between numbers
there, which it may end up being changed anyways because maybe it
doesn't work after they've done their engineering to So
with that does that for staff purposes,
is it better to have one single number or range which,
which would be more?
I mean, I think a minimum is fine, right?
I mean, there's not going to necessarily
be a maximum proposed.
So Right.
You know, and as you said, either way, this
is to the extent that it will be permitted by engineering
it is it's feasible to do so In the end, the board of trustees
is the approving body.
They can approve it or deny it regardless of what the Planning
Commission's vote is and regardless
of any recommendations made That's not
to say they won't take it into consideration
and hopefully they will.
Typically they do But you know our engineer department
will look into that more.
Hopefully be able to have a response,
a formal response from them prior
to going to the board meeting Absolutely necessary Question
but this that discussion.
All falls into the wherever possible range
right So if this ends up not being possible,
then we lose the trail But the development continues.
Is that correct No, The trail would still be required.
You're asking that it be moved if it's possible, right.
If the engineering department says the trail can't be moved,
that doesn't remove the FTC.
Require it for them to have the trail The trail would still
be where it was proposed. without the minimum
without that setback because that's
your recommending approval to the board
and your can your recommendation and can
say that we only recommend approval if the trail is moved.
But that doesn't mean the board has to follow
that recommendation Right.
They say if we remove the trail entirely
it would not meet our criteria of our development code
and wouldn't be approvable at all
if if the criteria of your development code
is wherever possible then how does it not meet that?
If it can't, if it can't be done there is no there's no
development code criteria that says
it has to be 20ft from the home, right from the property line.
That's a criteria that you guys would like to set.
It is possible to put a trail there as it's shown now.
Okay All right.
I just want to set expectations as we move forward
with this Well, it sounds like we have our proposal then
to propose a minimum 20 foot setback from the lot lines
to the edge of the beginning of, I guess,
the beginning edge of the trail.
So with that I would entertain a motion to amend Right.
Keith, help me out.
So to amend PC resolution 2602 recommending approval
to the Board of Trustees with the condition
that a 20 foot minimum setback could be applied
between the property lines and the edge of the beginning
edge of the trail.
So jumping with the exception of struggling
with the exception of the squiggly I it
make it for for lots about.
And then cordon cove street or is that just i would say,
do you want to include that to be built lots or not.
I think that could be built lots should be included.
Correct.
That just makes it easy.
All the way across.
And because some might already be close to that anyway.
So that i do have a motion to approve that amendment.
So so first, by our second Commissioner Hoskins
and second by Commissioner.
OK.
So for this one, we need a roll call on the amendment
So we'll have a roll call on the amendment.
Please move Vice Chair Haney i'm sorry,
Commissioner Haney approved Yes, Commissioner lee approved.
Commissioner Sutton approved.
Commissioner Young approved Commissioner Hoskins Approve.
OK Motion carries Now, if I could have a motion on p c
motion to approve on PC resolution 20
6-02 as amended, I i so move for approval of the I'll second 26.
So to 20 602 So we have a first from Commissioner Haney
and a second from Commissioner Young real copies commission
early approve commissioner Sutton approved.
Commissioner Hoskins approve.
Vice Chair Haney approved.
Commissioner young approve Thank you.
The motion carries.
All right we are on to item.
That was it for the public hearing.
Gresham So I make sure I wasn't forgetting a step on there.
Staff reports.
Item on our agenda, any staff reports None at this time.
Thank you And thank you, staff, for all your attentiveness
this evening on the discussion there.
So appreciate Appreciate that.
Commissioner, your comments Next item,
start on the side commission.
Any comments?
No no I don't have any.
I, I just would like to have us meet more
often than every five months.
You guys.
So shape it up here again.
More people needing land development right here.
Something we're going to need again the make the adjustments.
Any comments on it Okay.
All right.
I just have one quick comment.
I know I have been out for a little bit
just with various trainings and other things that are going on.
But I think as we move forward.
And we've talked about that, there's currently
being some work done on the i guess, the purview
of the Commission gratefully, I'm
like looking at the ordinance of how the Pansy Commission works
and things that there's some that's still in the works
currently Not really.
I mean, not really Yeah.
We've talked about bringing amendments
to the development code in.
Once the comprehensive plan is completed probably
be late this year or early next year that we
may be bringing amendments.
The development code at this time,
we haven't been looking at changing
any of the like petition types that come to the board
for approval, if that's what you mean.
I know that was done with Newt with the development code
when it was written in 2020.
Well, that was changed.
So there hasn't really been any looking
at changing that further.
Okay.
Yeah.
And it was from what I was kind of looking at is just
the overall scope and responsibilities
of the planning, zoning Commission
And I know if we look at our current ordinance I mean,
some of it dates back to the 80, some,
you know, most recently on there,
which falls you know, well, in line with Sierra is 31, 23.
And that section that talks about planning
zoning commissions.
And so as commissioners, I think it would be important for all
of us to read through that.
As far as what yours talks about in terms of our response
abilities, what we do a big part of that
is the matters like procedure for like.
No, you're saying that or like what?
Like the actual ordinance that governs the composition Yeah.
So what I would what I would say is I think that's absolutely
an important topic of conversation
and that would probably be more appropriate when
you have a full board of trustees, correct?
Yeah I, we, we're, we're bringing now I just
want to bring it out into the open because i know basically
the way our current ordinance reads in terms of what
our responsibilities are, you know,
deal with making recommendation on the master
plan, which which we're doing and other such things.
So I think having very well defined like what our roles
and responsibilities are.
And in that process, maybe adjusting
what the current ordinances talk about as far as what we can
and should be doing as a commission
with following along with Chris as well, it would be important.
So I just want to bring that something that as future wise,
we can start talking about that maybe
Yeah i mean, that's certainly something that you as a body.
That's a topic that you can broach with the governing
body My recommendation is that that be done when
you have a full governing body.
And that's going to be in November.
So you know, sometime after that would
be the most appropriate time.
Yeah, absolutely.
And then any other meetings, if we have like on these,
if you want to bring anything to us
and we can talk about some things as a separate item.
So.
All right.
So with that so I have a motion to adjourn to session persons.
And second, by constraining in favor say I, I opposed.
All right.
We are adjourned for this meeting
Do we need like ten minute break before we go into the