[0:24] 
[1:50] I just.
[1:51] Yeah.
[1:52] Good evening, everyone.
[1:54] Today is Thursday
July 16th, 2026.
[1:56] And the time is 601.
[1:59] I will call to order
this regular planning
[2:01] and zoning commission meeting
of the town of Firestone Roll
[2:04] call, please.
[2:05] Missy Vice Chair Haney here.
[2:13] Commissioner Ray chairperson.
[2:16] When it commissioner Sutton
here Commissioner Hoskins here.
[2:23] Commissioner Young.
[2:24] Here you have a quorum Great.
[2:27] If you'd all please
stand and join me
[2:28] in the Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance
[2:34] to the flag of the
United States of America
[2:37] and to the Republic
for which it stands.
[2:39] One nation under God.
[2:41] Indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all Thank you.
[2:49] So next up we have the
approval of the agenda.
[2:53] Are there any before we
do that, any amendments
[2:55] and anyone needs to make to
the agenda this evening No OK.
[3:01] So I'd like to call for a motion
to approve the agenda I'll make
[3:05] a motion to approve the agenda.
[3:08] Second.
[3:09] First by Commissioner Young.
[3:10] Second by Commissioner Hoskins
All those in favor say aye.
[3:14] Aye Hi.
[3:15] Any opposed motion carries
Next item is the approval
[3:21] of the minutes for the meeting.
[3:24] Minutes from March 5th
2026, to have a motion
[3:27] to approve the minutes.
[3:28] I so moved to approve
those minutes of March 26.
[3:31] Second first by
Commissioner Haney,
[3:33] second by Commissioner Hoskins
All those in favor say aye.
[3:36] Aye.
[3:36] All right.
[3:37] I opposed motion
carries All right.
[3:41] Next up, we have
our public comment
[3:44] So the planning commission
welcomes public comment
[3:46] from anyone that is in
attendance This public comment
[3:50] is for items that are not part
of the public hearing tonight,
[3:54] but any other item
that's on the agenda
[3:56] Do we have anyone that has
signed up for public comment
[3:58] missing Okay.
[4:00] We don't have anyone that
signed it for public comment.
[4:02] Is anyone here wishing
to speak to any
[4:03] public comment that
did not stand up
[4:05] for this First public comment ?
[4:08] Okay. then I will close
that public comment portion.
[4:14] All right.
[4:14] Moving on to agenda,
item number six,
[4:17] public hearing So the purpose of
this hearing is for the Planning
[4:22] commission to
receive information,
[4:24] documents and testimony in
order to make findings and reach
[4:27] a decision regarding public
hearing resolution number 26,
[4:31] DoorDash zero two, a resolution
of the Planning and Zoning
[4:35] Commission of the town
of Firestone, Colorado,
[4:37] recommending approval of the
Barefoot Lakes filing five
[4:40] Second Amendment preliminary
plat At this time,
[4:44] I'll open the public
hearing for PC resolution
[4:46] 20 6-02 and the time is now.
[4:50] 604 Town staff will and they
will make a presentation
[4:55] and then the commission
will hear public comment.
[4:58] The town staff
turn to you Great.
[5:02] Thank you.
[5:02] Can you all hear me okay Yes.
[5:04] Perfect.
[5:05] So what ?
[5:07] Good evening, commissioners.
[5:09] For the record, I'm on
a for reserve planner,
[5:11] one representing staff tonight
The agenda item before you is
[5:15] a preliminary plat for Barefoot
Lakes filing Five Second
[5:18] Amendment terracing a
design as the applicant
[5:21] for the Barefoot Lakes.
[5:23] Finally, five Second
Amendment summary plat.
[5:25] And they're represented tonight
by Jeff Mark this on the screen
[5:32] as an aerial showing the
location of the Barefoot Lakes
[5:35] filing five Second Amendment
preliminary plat located just
[5:39] along the southern
edge of sanctuary
[5:41] Avenue between cove Street
and Bend Street or Bend Court
[5:49] This slide shows an
outline of the development
[5:51] procedures for the town there,
highlighted up there in green
[5:55] is the preliminary plat process
the applicant is currently going
[5:58] through with the
town and the planning
[6:00] and Zoning Commission
and Board of Trustees
[6:02] to approve these applications.
[6:04] Application It will then
move on to the final plat
[6:07] for the property So this is
the approved zoning map for
[6:14] the Barefoot Lakes filing five.
[6:16] The subject property
is zoned Puti and C
[6:19] for neighborhood center rC
for regional commercial.
[6:22] Are a residential a, r,
B residential, B and R
[6:26] residential The land is
generally vacant with oil
[6:30] and gas facilities Some activity
that had been there previously
[6:34] and is now wrapped
up the property
[6:37] to the northeast and west.
[6:39] Have the same underlying
zoning granted by the Puti
[6:42] and have experienced development
of mostly single family
[6:45] detached homes while the
property to the south
[6:48] is zoned open space to
protect that natural drainage
[6:51] way that it's kind of
along that southern border
[6:55] and across that drainage way.
[6:56] The land is zoned to be a
mixture of the residential uses
[6:59] from that.
[6:59] But All right, the site
area is 6.118 acres
[7:09] and is currently vacant land.
[7:11] As I said, the proposed
preliminary plat
[7:13] includes 11 single
family detached
[7:15] lots and a proposed
trail connection
[7:17] to the nearby trail system.
[7:19] The gross density of
the proposed subdivision
[7:21] is 5.12 dwelling units per acre.
[7:24] Accordance with
the brief at Lakes
[7:25] p p, d, and it also the Puti
allows for a total of 5131
[7:31] dwelling units, approximately
1170 have been built.
[7:36] So far So the 11
proposed with this plat
[7:39] are well within the allowed
number of dwelling units here.
[7:42] The lot sizes range
from 7618ft² to 8972ft².
[7:52] The firestone
Development Code requires
[7:54] Three forms of public
notice for public hearings.
[7:57] The property notice
was posted and letters
[8:00] were sent to adjacent property
owners on June 30th, 2026.
[8:03] While the notice was published
in the Longmont Times.
[8:06] Call on July 1 The town staff
has reviewed the preliminary
[8:14] plat application materials for
compliance with the preliminary
[8:17] plat approval criteria found in
section 16 76C of the Firestone
[8:23] Development Code With the
first five criteria shown here
[8:29] in the last five shown here
based on this review are staff
[8:36] recommends Staff also find that
all the approval criteria are
[8:40] met based on this review, staff
recommends that the planning
[8:43] and Zoning Commission approve
draft resolution 120 602,
[8:47] recommending approval of the
Barefoot Lakes filing five
[8:50] Second Amendment preliminary
plat with the three
[8:53] conditions listed on
the screen And this
[8:56] concludes My presentation.
[8:57] I will be available after
the applicant presentation
[9:00] and any public comment.
[9:02] Thank you Thank you. the
applicant for their presentation
[9:08] is.
[9:08] All right.
[9:09] It looks like this is on up.
[9:12] Thank you and see just push.
[9:16] She's on the right
here to go to the air
[9:19] The one without the arrow.
[9:20] OK great.
[9:22] Good evening, commissioners.
[9:24] My name is Jeff Mark.
[9:25] I'm a principal
Terracing, a design
[9:26] We are the planners and civil
engineers for this proposal
[9:29] in front of you tonight, we
also have Representative here
[9:32] from Brookfield that can answer
any questions that you may have
[9:36] that if I I'm not able
to answer those for you
[9:39] want to start off again by
thanking you for having us
[9:41] here tonight We're
excited to be here.
[9:43] Also want to thank
all your staff for all
[9:45] their help on everything.
[9:46] We always work on
and they're very
[9:49] helpful and great to work with.
[9:52] So with that need context map
here which Monica kind of showed
[9:58] again of where the site is.
[10:00] If we need to, we
can kind of come back
[10:01] to this as we move forward.
[10:05] So One of the questions
is, is why was the site
[10:09] not developed with filing five?
[10:11] The reason for that
was is that there
[10:12] were oil and gas facilities
on this piece of property.
[10:15] So as you can see here
on the left that's
[10:18] an aerial from May of 2023.
[10:19] You can see those oil and
gas facilities on the site
[10:22] And then an aerial
here from just May
[10:24] of this year where you see
everything has been removed
[10:27] from the site The This site
has always been planned to be
[10:40] future development
Just wanted to bring
[10:42] up the sales graphic here.
[10:44] What you can see down
there on the bottom
[10:46] or it says a future
development was the area that's
[10:50] been on this plan showing
that at one point in time,
[10:52] this was going to be future
development at the plant also.
[11:00] So this is a filing five plat.
[11:02] You could see here
where it's labeled
[11:04] track J and K on
the plan over here
[11:06] And we highlighted it in
the land use summary table
[11:09] over here.
[11:10] Maybe a little hard
to see, but it is
[11:11] labeled as future development.
[11:13] Also demonstrating the both that
all of the site that you see
[11:16] kind of in the brown and
yellow was always intended
[11:18] to be future development The
site is located in planning area
[11:24] nine, which is kind of filings
five and six of the Barefoot
[11:28] Lakes ODP within
that planning area,
[11:31] Nine there's 426 units
allowed based off
[11:35] of what has been platted There's
technically 58 units that are
[11:39] allowed on this
piece of property
[11:45] So with this information
when we first started to look
[11:49] at the site we
really felt that it
[11:53] was important that instead of
trying to cram 58 units in here,
[11:56] that we start to
place homes on here
[11:58] that are the same size and
nature of what surrounds it.
[12:01] So what you're seeing on here,
these are the same size, lots
[12:04] of the existing homes
that are around it
[12:06] and filing five We also
wanted to generally honor
[12:11] the schematic form you see in
that sales graphic if we want
[12:14] to go back to you could see
there was a smaller sliver
[12:16] of open space on the west side
and a larger on the east side,
[12:21] which this does.
[12:24] And as we develop these plans,
we're really trying to make sure
[12:28] that we're kind of
threading the needle here
[12:29] with all of the criteria
making sure we're meeting all
[12:32] of your town standard
when it comes to roads
[12:35] civil engineering,
the grading on it
[12:39] One of the items that
we've also added into here
[12:43] was a propose trail
that you could
[12:44] see going from the existing
walk along Barefoot Lakes
[12:47] parkway that's connecting
down to that existing trail
[12:51] that you could see kind
of the squiggly line there
[12:53] and the bottom right hand
corner Nothing is planned.
[12:58] Appreciate it.
[12:59] Is really with these 11 homes
that we're proposing in here,
[13:02] it's kind of creating this
nice little cluster of homes
[13:05] and within that, there's kind
of just three smaller clusters.
[13:07] You can see we just have a
six, a significant open space
[13:10] there with the connection.
[13:11] Another three open space and
another Two that you could see
[13:14] is ten and 11 With this, we did
have a neighborhood meeting,
[13:22] so we took this, showed
it to the neighbors
[13:25] Some of the primary concern is
where we did hear a little bit
[13:28] of mixed bag Some people
saying, yes, I knew development
[13:31] was going to happen here.
[13:32] No, I didn't know it was
going to happen here.
[13:35] I thought it was going to
happen later than it's happening
[13:38] But I would say
overall, probably
[13:40] One of the bigger
comments we did receive is
[13:43] about the proposed trail that is
now shown on here This plan you
[13:50] see on here, this
is what is in black
[13:53] and white was the final
development plan for filing five
[13:56] is part of that The trail was
never contemplated and there.
[14:00] It wasn't a required
meant when that was done.
[14:03] So what you're
seeing here in red
[14:04] is what we are
proposing in here.
[14:07] I know this is
something that we didn't
[14:09] have in our original plans.
[14:10] Staff strongly
suggested that we should
[14:13] be adding this trail in here.
[14:14] So I know again that was kind
of one of the bigger comments we
[14:17] did get from the
neighbors and residents
[14:19] that they didn't
expect this to be here
[14:23] We have tried to pull the
trail as far away from the home
[14:26] as we can.
[14:27] I know when you look
at this graphic,
[14:28] it kind of looks
like they're close
[14:29] but there is that
drainage, steep slopes,
[14:32] existing vegetation in there.
[14:34] So we're kind of getting it
right to the edge of that.
[14:36] Is close as we can without going
in and starting to really impact
[14:40] that drainage corridor I
just wanted to quickly show
[14:48] this exhibit that
is demonstrating,
[14:50] again, the amount of
open space in the end
[14:53] with, including
tract k over there,
[14:56] we're going to be close to
almost 50% of open space
[14:58] with these two future
development tracts an end.
[15:05] Finally here, just
wanted to show You
[15:06] a couple of 3D renderings
that we've done
[15:10] Just a disclaimer on it.
[15:11] These are homes
that are currently
[15:14] models that brookfield does
have that we're placing on here.
[15:17] Doesn't mean, those are going to
be the exact homes, obviously,
[15:20] on each home site each homeowner
be able to purchase their lot
[15:23] and figure out which floor
plan they wanted to have,
[15:26] but we wanted to make sure
that we were showing here homes
[15:28] on here that are
representative of what
[15:30] they're currently building.
[15:32] So this is again, a view looking
south and seeing that open space
[15:36] buffer on the right hand side,
the large one on the left
[15:40] a view looking straight
north onto the site
[15:47] I just wanted to bring up
the approval criteria here.
[15:50] Again we do meet these criteria
We agree with staff at all
[15:55] their findings and the report
that you wrote in here, pages
[15:58] three through five
of the staff report,
[16:00] go into detail of each
One of these criteria
[16:03] and how we meet it.
[16:04] And we agree with all of those
And then we have the One that's
[16:10] the PowerPoint by chance.
[16:13] I want to test something
out for you guys.
[16:15] So we have kind of a new
technology that we're using that
[16:20] actually it's going to be
a visual where we actually
[16:22] fly a 3D drone around the site.
[16:23] And we will actually model it
in that it's a video in there.
[16:27] It was a little large,
so I kind of put it.
[16:30] Another part of the
presentation because if it
[16:32] crashed at the end, it's
the very end of that one.
[16:40] Yes I know.
[16:42] Technology could be
good Well, finicky.
[16:44] So you're going to be kind
of be my guinea pigs on this.
[16:47] Doesn't have sound.
[16:48] No, it doesn't have any sound
I should have added sound to it
[16:56] So since we're creating
this, I figured
[16:57] it'd be good Yeah, it is
working and it's not too jumpy,
[17:00] but Yeah, that's
pretty cool Here you
[17:02] could see how this you know, it
looks very similar to that cul
[17:06] de sac a homes.
[17:07] That's off to the side
of it I think really
[17:10] fitting in with the
surrounding neighborhood,
[17:14] creating the open
space between it.
[17:16] And again, similar type
homes One other item
[17:21] I forgot to mention in here when
we work through this, a comment,
[17:25] you know, there's comments from
in the neighborhood meeting
[17:27] about views We did go back
to our plans and looked at it
[17:32] and lowered the site as
much as we could So the road
[17:36] coming off of sanctuary there on
the left hand side what we did
[17:38] is we try to some maximum
grade peer criteria
[17:41] that we could go down to just
try to settle these homes down
[17:44] into the site Again, as much as
we could without raising it up.
[17:49] I think there is going
to be a little bit
[17:50] of dirt that's
going to be brought
[17:51] off the site because of it.
[17:53] But trying to do anything we
could to help minimize that.
[17:57] So with that, if you
have any questions for us
[18:04] we're more than happy to We do.
[18:06] We'll get to them at the.
[18:07] You got it.
[18:09] Thank you.
[18:10] Thank you All right.
[18:15] Thank you to both staff and the
applicant for your presentations
[18:19] So now we were going to
proceed with public comment
[18:22] for item six.
[18:24] Do we have anyone sent
it for public comment
[18:34] No no Public comments.
[18:39] OK So because there is no one
the Center for Public Comment,
[18:46] is there anyone that did
not sign up that wishes
[18:48] to make public comment?
[18:50] A few individuals.
[18:51] OK.
[18:52] What so during
public comments, just
[18:56] reminder three
minutes and just to be
[19:00] respectful of everyone's
time, please state your name
[19:02] and address for the record.
[19:02] Sir.
[19:03] Yeah.
[19:03] I'm Steve trunk and I'm
at one, 2, seven ten Bend
[19:07] Court in the smaller
little cul de sac
[19:12] that is significantly
impacted by this.
[19:15] Obviously myself and
some of the neighbors
[19:18] would not be in support
of this development
[19:21] because one of the things
that brought us to the area
[19:24] that we loved about
Firestone about this area,
[19:27] was the fact that there
was a lot of open space.
[19:30] There was a lot of good
views, great views Many of us,
[19:34] myself included paid a
additional price for the view
[19:41] for the premium lot.
[19:42] If you would And I
realize sometimes
[19:45] the realtors or builders
may not be this fourth.
[19:49] This closing as they might
have been, but some of us
[19:53] were unaware that this
was going to be developed
[19:56] and so, of course, I would
support not supporting this
[20:00] But you have other
considerations and other things
[20:03] that you take into
consideration and some
[20:06] of the economic benefit.
[20:07] However, I think if the builder
and developer could in fact,
[20:12] not impact our views as much as
current, Lee would be the case,
[20:18] no they did talk
about, which was not
[20:20] at the other presentation
They did talk about they
[20:24] didn't talk at that time about
maybe lowering or having some
[20:27] of the view, not
obstructed And so
[20:31] and I know that sometimes they
show here the building envelope
[20:35] that shows the biggest you could
build and i would, you know,
[20:39] hope that at least
as this develops
[20:41] if it continues that that would
be towards the front of the lot.
[20:46] So that we would be less
impacted from our backyard,
[20:49] their backyard we'd
have more of a buffer.
[20:53] And if we could balance out that
buffer because it seems right
[20:57] now that there's a
little more of a buffer
[20:59] to the ones on the east
than there are to the ones
[21:02] that would be literally
next to our backyard.
[21:05] I would appreciate
that thought on that.
[21:10] And and certainly hope
that we can balance out.
[21:14] So that we're all
good neighbors.
[21:16] This is this comes
thank you for your time.
[21:20] I think they should
Hello giving William your
[21:33] so I live on cove 12657 cove.
[21:37] Couple of issues we've had
with this there's no question.
[21:41] I think most of the
homeowners will admit
[21:44] that that future as you see
a development was going to be
[21:47] developed If you look when
we purchased the lots,
[21:51] if you look at what they told
us, they showed us what it is
[21:54] and what it is now, it's
significantly bigger
[21:57] They're cram in more
homes into more space.
[21:59] They're pushing it back.
[22:01] And for some of us that paid
that premium for the lot
[22:04] when we bought that,
these weren't a concern.
[22:07] And now there are concern now
But probably more significantly
[22:12] for several of us homeowners
is there putting in a sidewalk
[22:15] walk where there was going
to be no development.
[22:17] It's some of the sidewalk
goes well past track or J
[22:23] and the lots were built
They weren't built
[22:26] to have that sidewalk there.
[22:27] If you go back there
and look, there's
[22:28] about an eight foot
portion down from the fence
[22:32] line to those homes.
[22:33] And it goes straight down and
they're putting that sidewalk
[22:36] right there that puts it
about 26ft from my back
[22:40] door So I paid for a lot premium
to have backup to green space.
[22:45] And now I'm going to back up to
a public sidewalk and it's going
[22:49] to be 26ft from my back door.
[22:51] Any privacy I've had is
going to be completely shot
[22:54] because of this And I've asked
that they look at other options
[22:58] for the trails and
we've got trails
[23:00] all throughout the
community But that's
[23:03] a significant concern that I
think needs to be looked at.
[23:06] Thank you.
[23:07] Thank you So anyone else
that would like to speak
[23:12] during public comment ?
[23:16] OK So i see your hand there.
[23:20] I'm Jean Brown Oh, we are in
the process of purchasing 1 2
[23:25] in your edges, please.
[23:26] One, two, 7 to 6.
[23:29] Ben Court We don't own it yet.
[23:31] We haven't closed on it.
[23:33] I i'm a little disappointed
because in the process
[23:37] of purchasing our
signing the contract,
[23:40] we were told that there would
be no development back there,
[23:46] that they were finished
to developer was finished
[23:49] and had moved on out of that
area and across the road.
[23:56] So obviously, that was an
incorrect representation to us.
[24:02] But it's very concerning
when we look out our i mean,
[24:06] we purchased the Eight
foot tall, 15 foot wide,
[24:12] expansive view sliding door.
[24:15] And now it's going to be
looking at someone's back side
[24:21] of their house But more
than that when I look,
[24:27] I see a big stake right there.
[24:29] And that was the well head.
[24:32] So we are very close to it.
[24:34] I'm we're from
out of state I was
[24:37] not aware of all of the drilling
in particular in Weld County.
[24:43] I find it very concerning
that there are so
[24:47] many thousands of wells here.
[24:49] And when i read
about it you know,
[24:53] I read about how
many are uncapped
[25:00] the state of development of
the fracking and drilling
[25:03] that's been going on here.
[25:05] It's kind of in the mature
stage and we don't any of us
[25:10] know what will
ultimately happen.
[25:13] And our homes are all
being built on top of this.
[25:16] So I find it very concerning
that Firestone is allowing
[25:22] such a minor setback
from cap wells
[25:27] I don't think it's adequate.
[25:30] And for my own home,
I feel concerned
[25:35] But for someone who's going to
be between that, well and me,
[25:40] I think I. I mean, do they have
to notify the buyers that they
[25:46] are building on top of a well
pad site Will they be made aware
[25:52] of that I don't think there's
anything that I've read
[25:56] that says you require that
be revealed to people People
[26:01] are coming in with children.
[26:03] My three little
grandsons live next door.
[26:06] I have a blood cancer I don't
think it's in our best interest
[26:12] to be allowing home homes to
be built right on top of well,
[26:18] Pat what's going to happen?
[26:20] 75 years from now?
[26:22] Is this going to be one
of the biggest cancer
[26:25] clusters in the
United States I think
[26:28] you should think about
these things It's not right.
[26:33] Those are my main
concerns Thank you.
[26:36] Thank you Anyone else like to
make public comment at this time
[26:44] Okay So at this time, the
public comment portion
[26:49] of this public hearing is now
closed And as a commission,
[26:53] we will now deliberate on on
this matter Before we start
[26:58] with some questions
and some deliberation,
[27:00] I just want to state that
the documents include
[27:02] within the record for
this public hearing,
[27:03] including all materials in the
planning and zoning commission
[27:06] agenda packet, the
presentation given tonight,
[27:09] and I'll written referral
and public comments regarding
[27:11] the application
will be included So
[27:14] does anyone have any
objection to the inclusion of
[27:17] those documents records Okay.
[27:21] So with that, does staff
wish to address anything that
[27:26] came up during public comment?
[27:28] Perhaps maybe you could
speak a little bit
[27:30] about how the oil and gas
functions when it comes
[27:34] to the pay for that Also perhaps
address some of the setback
[27:39] concerns And I know there is
part of the public testimony,
[27:42] the emails that we received in
our packet that looks like met
[27:47] and argued spoken to mr. Arts
in regards to his concerns
[27:56] and mr. Maher about
the sidewalk going.
[27:59] And if you can maybe address
some of those for us,
[28:02] please comment I take that to
mean take it to the cancer.
[28:06] OK I'll take the oil and gas
stuff since I have a little bit
[28:10] more experience with that
than on a cut So first of all,
[28:14] we require our.
[28:17] Thank you.
[28:18] Thank you The fire storm
development code requires a 50
[28:23] foot setback from plugged
in abandoned wells
[28:26] They do have to be
shown on the documents
[28:29] and they'll have to be those
50 foot setbacks will have
[28:33] to be shown on the final plat.
[28:35] So and yes, in
your documentation
[28:40] with your title report, you
know that information, you know,
[28:43] will show up.
[28:45] If it is on your
property We also
[28:48] require that the applicant to
provide all the documentation
[28:54] from ECM c, which is formally
Colorado Oil and Gas Commission,
[28:58] now rebrand it as
CMC and they have
[29:02] all the reports that show that
the oil and gas equipment was
[29:06] removed correctly.
[29:07] And then it's been
cleaned up correctly.
[29:10] We also require
the town fire still
[29:13] requires third party information
showing a report showing
[29:18] that the equipment
belowground that we can't see
[29:20] was also removed
And those reports
[29:23] do come along with
pictures showing
[29:26] where they've dug
it up to confirm
[29:28] that it's not there anymore.
[29:30] So we take it very seriously.
[29:33] You know, obviously, we've had a
had an accident in town already
[29:38] in the past And so we
take it very seriously.
[29:42] The safety of our residents and
making sure that the old oil
[29:46] and gas pad was
cleaned up correctly
[29:50] I think the clarification
I'll just make
[29:52] is the third party
verification is for pipeline
[29:55] So if there are any pipelines
leading to those wells that were
[29:57] removed you need third party
verification showing the removal
[30:01] or if they can't be removed
because they go into a road,
[30:04] something like that,
they're required to flow,
[30:06] fill them with concrete
to ensure the gas
[30:07] can't build up again.
[30:12] And i can speak a little
bit more to the conversation
[30:15] about the trail and kind of
how we got to the conclusion
[30:20] that a trail is necessary
for this development.
[30:24] So when we're
looking when staff,
[30:26] we're reviewing these submittals
for these application,
[30:29] we are review these submittals
against the Firestone
[30:32] development code.
[30:33] And there are a couple of
very specific sections of code
[30:37] that mandate the
construction of a trail.
[30:41] So one of them is
Section 1665, D, E,
[30:48] and that is about cul de sacs
and dead end streets And in that
[30:53] section it reads, Should they
be incorporated a view corridor
[30:58] at the cul de sac head or dead
end street, a minimum of 35ft,
[31:02] which should be provided
to maintain open
[31:04] views and pedestrian access.
[31:06] And then goes on to say
how those view corridors,
[31:11] if possible, must include
a trail connection
[31:15] And so that's one
of the main reasons
[31:17] that that trail was asked to
be included with this submittal
[31:23] and staff leave that the
reason this wasn't done
[31:25] with the broader filing five
planning was because of the oil
[31:29] and gas facilities proposing a
trail at that time in this area.
[31:33] With that within that proximity
to the oil and gas operations
[31:38] didn't seem as smart as
doing it at a later date
[31:42] when this new development comes
in actually, what wouldn't it
[31:49] wouldn't have been
allowed or at least
[31:52] with our current standards, we
have a 150 foot setback from oil
[31:55] and gas to a trail Can any
other comments with regards
[32:04] to public comment that staff
would like to comment on
[32:07] or the applicant don't
believe so All right.
[32:14] So at this time commissioners,
do you have any questions
[32:19] that we'll then go
into any questions
[32:22] about the public testimony
that we just heard before we go
[32:26] into deliberations It's been
i'll go through my list Which
[32:34] part of the trail is most
contentious The entire trail
[32:39] or from what staff has been
hearing mostly from sorry,
[32:45] from residents.
[32:47] Yes.
[32:48] So from the feedback that
staff have been receiving
[32:50] from residents that
eastern portion closest
[32:54] to the homes over there
has been of most concern
[32:59] And then I'm sure.
[33:00] Any other place where the trail
is close to other existing homes
[33:04] is probably also very key, has
used the pointer just to kind
[33:09] of think So right along here.
[33:21] And then potentially over there
as well including the wavy part
[33:26] or between the homes or
just the part that loops
[33:30] around the back of staff
have not had any comments
[33:35] on the wavy part yet.
[33:36] There is an existing
kind of wavy trail
[33:39] connection through this tract.
[33:41] At the end of it
over here But yeah,
[33:45] that no other concerns mentioned
and why couldn't it go up?
[33:49] I think that structure where
there's nothing over here.
[33:53] Yeah OK.
[33:55] Is that okay that
that connection.
[33:58] So this along the high
side of the drainage Yeah.
[34:02] Goes through the
whole neighborhood
[34:04] So when you cross the
street, it continues on.
[34:07] Also when you get yourself
from there up to you.
[34:11] So yeah you get yourself
here, pulls right here So
[34:17] there's already a social
trail here of people walking
[34:20] along this And the
neighbors told us that to
[34:23] Yeah, you're right.
[34:24] There has been people
walking out here
[34:26] the paved trail will allow
folks of all abilities.
[34:31] And if you're in a wheelchair
or pushing a stroller or on
[34:35] a bike or young
or old or anything
[34:38] in between the
hard surface trail
[34:41] allows all users to use it.
[34:45] What do you mean
by social trail?
[34:46] If you can clarify if
you go out there now,
[34:49] you could see that
there's a trail
[34:51] and people have been walking
through there essentially along.
[34:54] Do you call all
the walking trails,
[34:56] social trails and barefoot like
so as an informal trail, please?
[35:00] Well, don't let the
chair do this thing.
[35:04] So if are there
other opportunities,
[35:06] if the public have more
testimony to speak Keith, or is
[35:10] that would be the proper
procedure for that.
[35:15] So you close public comment
in my recommendation
[35:20] is to continue
what you're doing.
[35:22] Let the questions to be asked.
[35:23] Staff and then allow
the applicant to have
[35:27] an opportunity to rebut.
[35:29] And then after
that if the board.
[35:32] So chooses someone
can make a motion
[35:33] to reopen public comment that
would have to pass by a majority
[35:40] So we'll do okay.
[35:42] So let's continue.
[35:44] Yeah.
[35:44] So that's what we'll do going
forward after if there's
[35:47] any rebuttals then I'll
ask for a motion to reopen
[35:49] public comment If
there's for the comments
[35:50] that you all would like to make
in response to whichever it
[35:53] tonight OK So the other part
of the issue with the trail
[36:00] was that there's a drop
off So will there be
[36:03] any kind of guardrail or
railing put in to prevent
[36:08] falls as it's not that
kind of I don't it's
[36:12] not that steep of a drop off.
[36:14] I think the point is it.
[36:16] They're trying to keep the
trail on the flat part of it
[36:18] and not have to build
retaining walls.
[36:20] You know, when you get
down into the drainage
[36:22] then you would have to
build retaining walls
[36:24] and you potentially
affecting the drainage.
[36:26] So they're just trying to
keep it up on the flat part.
[36:29] It's not like a cliff
though It's my backyard.
[36:33] It's a cliff.
[36:35] It goes down on
So we need to keep
[36:37] order You have to
have a chance to make
[36:40] some comments afterwards.
[36:43] Staff have also heard from some
residents that we discussed this
[36:47] with that there have
been folks seen walking
[36:51] through the drainage way, the
actual drainage way with pets
[36:56] And so this trail would also
potentially be an opportunity
[36:59] to get folks out of
walking in that open space,
[37:02] that drainage way.
[37:02] That's not intended
for pedestrian activity
[37:06] and up into higher
ground, closer
[37:08] to the the residential
areas where
[37:11] you can observe the drainage
way from a distance.
[37:15] So just for clarification
on the trail,
[37:18] is required or not required
by the after See the FCC would
[37:25] require construction of
the trail of that trail
[37:28] through that yes it
requires it to be connected
[37:31] Ed, let me read it.
[37:32] So if you corridors
shall contain
[37:34] a pedestrian walkway or trail
connection, wherever possible.
[37:37] So that would mean
the connection
[37:39] to the the stub out trail
coming from that other tract
[37:45] over in this cul de sac
next to that existing
[37:49] trail There have to be a trail
connection coming out here.
[37:52] And then this stub
out as well But
[37:55] does it have to go all the
way around as the trail
[38:00] connection picks up on the other
side of Barefoot Lakes Parkway?
[38:04] And if you really take a larger
aerial view of filing five,
[38:08] you can see the
natural connection
[38:10] from the existing trail on
the other side of Barefoot
[38:12] Lakes Parkway All right.
[38:13] We don't get to look at those
things on our own right.
[38:17] OK This trail connection
here is required to be here.
[38:23] So in the 30 foot tract
that's required there,
[38:26] it does have to
have a trail in it.
[38:29] The trail down here to will
connect into the trail system
[38:34] around and Barefoot lakes.
[38:36] So really good connections.
[38:38] You've got the pool
basically, at one end
[38:40] you got the connection to the
Barefoot Lakes Trail system
[38:43] around the lakes itself
down at this end.
[38:46] So really make some
great connections
[38:49] And you say that the drop
off is not that severe,
[38:52] but it sounds like you
can't pull that out any
[38:54] further from behind that home.
[38:57] I anything is possible.
[39:00] Typically, you're trying to
avoid doing retaining walls.
[39:03] We should let that into
the crucial at the engineer
[39:05] respond to that All right.
[39:12] So really the slope
along that edge i'll say
[39:14] is that the maximum
slope you could have?
[39:16] So when they design
this, that's what it is.
[39:17] So once you start moving
a trail, a flat surface
[39:21] out into it, you're going to be
into a retaining wall situation
[39:25] along with.
[39:26] And then you will be in
a guardrail situation
[39:28] because you are starting
to install retaining walls
[39:31] So really we're getting
it to that furthest point.
[39:34] We can get at the
top of that edge
[39:36] where if you just for every
foot or every three feet,
[39:40] you move it out, That's going
to be a foot of retaining
[39:42] wall and also bigger impacts.
[39:44] And then you start
to get that handrail.
[39:45] So you start to situate it.
[39:48] I mean, if you were to
move it even ten feet out,
[39:50] you're at a couple of,
you know, you're over two
[39:52] feet of retaining wall.
[39:53] So that's that's
where we're kind
[39:55] of threading that needle on it
right now, if that makes sense.
[39:57] What's the issue with that?
[39:59] Well, I think in a natural
corridor like this,
[40:02] I think the last thing you'd
want is a bunch of railing
[40:05] everywhere I think that's
something that just
[40:07] doesn't really fit into
the character of it to get
[40:11] a distance of, let's say
15ft away versus 20ft away,
[40:17] that really the perceived
distance is not that much
[40:20] of a distance, but on a hillside
like that, it does make a big
[40:25] difference in the design of it.
[40:27] Again retaining walls, railing
walls that the district
[40:31] is going to have to maintain.
[40:33] Then that over time you
know, will need to have work.
[40:35] And so it's just additional
cost all around on that to
[40:38] But it's possible like again,
I think anything's possible
[40:41] so that that would
potentially also
[40:44] require changes to their
stormwater master plan.
[40:47] Yes there's stormwater
issues starts
[40:49] to play into impacts
to, again, the existing
[40:52] vegetation along there.
[40:53] I mean, it's but to
the point of well,
[40:56] I think you can build
a theory for folks
[40:58] to understand exactly
what this particular does,
[41:03] why this particular the
design of that trail
[41:05] works So if there
are stormwater issues
[41:09] or is there anything else?
[41:11] No I think that is it.
[41:13] And again we've been working
with staff on what they feel
[41:15] the cold criteria
is on the connection
[41:18] points for this trail, which
is where we have then added
[41:21] the connection points that
have been recommended to us
[41:26] and while we have you
at the microphone, how
[41:29] much lower are you
intending to build the home?
[41:32] Somewhat.
[41:33] Was originally presented
to the neighborhood
[41:36] I think we ended up the
steepness of the road.
[41:40] I think when we maxed
it out, it ended up
[41:42] being in the ballpark of maybe 3
to 4ft lower on the end of that.
[41:46] And that is, again
it was already
[41:49] the road was already from
the original presentation
[41:51] was already going downhill
And then as we looked at it,
[41:55] we were like, well, we can't
actually steepen up the road as
[41:57] much as possible to
meet your criteria,
[41:59] which is what we did
to try to get that cul
[42:01] de sac as low as we could.
[42:02] So overall 3 to 4ft lower than
the original downhill lowering
[42:07] that we kind of already
had And how does
[42:10] that impact the
view for the people
[42:12] that were complaining about it?
[42:15] I'd say that's kind
of hard to say,
[42:18] given to each individual A home
has a kind of a different view
[42:22] or a potentially you know,
you know as it gets further
[42:25] towards the drainage
again, each one of those
[42:28] is going to be down
a little bit lower.
[42:30] And so you know,
it's really what
[42:32] we're trying to do is
the best that we can
[42:34] to try to help out on there.
[42:36] And meet still your criteria OK.
[42:39] All right.
[42:39] Thank you.
[42:40] You so i have another
question for you.
[42:45] You said everything has
been removed from the site
[42:49] with regard to oil and gas,
correct Do you literally mean,
[42:53] things were dug up
and removed Yes,
[42:55] things were dug up and removed.
[42:56] We are still in the process of
filing all of our final reports
[43:01] Our staff mentioned, we have
to go through and make sure
[43:04] that every single line has been
removed They're still out We're
[43:08] still out here
doing studies on it,
[43:10] trenching different
areas just trying
[43:12] to make sure that
everything has been removed.
[43:14] I do commend firestone.
[43:16] For what it's worth
on your regulations
[43:19] that you do have on
it, because it is rare
[43:20] and a lot of the
areas that you do,
[43:22] make sure that all of those
lines have been removed
[43:24] and we make sure that we honor
that and take it seriously.
[43:27] OK.
[43:28] Thank you.
[43:28] You Mean questions Hold
on No, I think that's
[43:45] it Thank you Thank you, Chair.
[43:51] I do have a couple and
they're mostly for staff.
[43:55] About the 50.
[43:57] So the 50 foot setback from
where they were capped that.
[44:01] So every new development
home is going
[44:04] to be at least that for
away from each one of those
[44:10] and these have been
abandoned and capped
[44:14] and it sounds like
they're going through.
[44:16] And verifying that
they're all gone.
[44:18] And did you say earlier, there
would be a notice to the buyers
[44:24] of those lots that
they had been there
[44:26] were no the no lot
will be no lot.
[44:30] We can't plot a lot over
that 50 foot setback.
[44:34] So no lot will be over
the 50 foot setback.
[44:37] OK That's our job to make sure
that that doesn't happen Right.
[44:42] 50 foot setback, right And so
is there a notice that that
[44:47] was there before or is that
just I know you said something
[44:50] about it showing
up in the I think
[44:52] if if it's on your
property would
[44:54] show up in the title report.
[44:55] But if it's not on your
property, it would not
[44:58] I don't know that it'll
be on the final plat.
[45:00] Our subdivision
agreements do require
[45:02] an oil and gas disclosure form.
[45:05] That's in the title entirely.
[45:07] It does in the subdivision
when they're selling them.
[45:09] So it's just if it's in the
lot itself, if it crossed
[45:12] or if it was in here about if
it's in that filing OK, good.
[45:16] OK.
[45:17] All right.
[45:18] I think that's all I have.
[45:19] Thank you Yeah.
[45:23] Thank you, Chair We talked
a lot about the trail.
[45:26] What's the width of
that trail Ten feet
[45:32] and foot concrete I
believe so This concrete,
[45:37] asphalt. Asphalt. Oh, it's
asphalt. I still couldn't so.
[45:46] I'm sorry You guys
want to clarify that?
[45:50] Don't have to be
concrete to look.
[45:51] So you're the plan Oh,
no, it's five feet.
[45:54] Propose five feet
concrete trail.
[45:56] And it does have to be concrete.
[45:58] So i apologize for
saying ten five.
[46:01] So it's.
[46:02] It's only five foot.
[46:03] Five foot.
[46:03] Yeah So it's not even like our.
[46:05] But well, kind of like
our bike paths out here.
[46:08] Yeah It's this that you
know, the other paths
[46:12] like this that it matches
up to in bare lakes
[46:15] are also five in
your open space area
[46:21] I imagine that's going
to be somewhat watered.
[46:23] Is it native grasses or what
are we looking at in there
[46:29] I don't know anybody It's dirt.
[46:32] It's there's some water down
there during a very heavy
[46:36] So once again once again,
sir, this is not your time
[46:39] to be speaking about anybody
that is part of staff
[46:43] or the applicant
So Yeah, it is just
[46:47] native seed that does
have currently does
[46:49] have some irrigation out on it.
[46:52] Usually the intent of that is
for establishment out there.
[46:54] And then at that point
usually try and minimize
[46:57] the amount of water that
is used to make sure
[47:00] I'm not 100% sure
if you guys know,
[47:03] if you even run it
normally out there
[47:05] or if it's just for established
right out of barefoot
[47:10] Yeah, kind of
depends on the area,
[47:11] but typically, it's usually
around for establishment
[47:14] Know any trees or anything like
that to help shade in the areas
[47:18] or.
[47:18] Yes So that's our thing.
[47:20] There are some existing trees
that were planted out there just
[47:23] in the last couple
of years We're hoping
[47:25] to be able to relocate
some of those We do have
[47:27] in our landscape
plans are the trees
[47:29] that we are trying to
preserve out in there.
[47:32] Then the trees that we
will be trying to relocate.
[47:35] And also, in addition to
that, adding additional trees
[47:38] into the open space area And
so it's just an establishment
[47:44] in the system would be left.
[47:47] Typically.
[47:48] That's how it is.
[47:49] I said, I'm not sure
if you guys run it
[47:51] when during extremely
there's a drought out there
[47:54] or if it's having an issue.
[47:55] But most of the time, it's
just toward till establishment.
[47:58] OK.
[47:59] And yeah because
water usage is will
[48:03] be a bigger bigger concern
so Yeah so appreciate
[48:07] your concerns for that.
[48:08] And dealing with
it appropriately So
[48:14] there's like Pat brought up
there are issues on that routing
[48:22] and I know you already
did all your studies
[48:24] and you economics of development
and what's the cost to you
[48:29] and the impact and
how you get your money
[48:31] back out of this thing.
[48:32] So retaining walls
are expensive Yeah.
[48:37] So I imagine you're going
to try to avoid those.
[48:41] Yes I would say conk
concrete walks are expensive.
[48:44] Also, just in general
especially for over 11 months.
[48:49] There's a lot of
value on those two.
[48:52] You know, as far as for the
bikers and the casual walkers
[48:56] and everything.
[48:56] And that's One of the
attractions of your Barefoot
[49:00] Lake area you know
the flexibility
[49:04] of movement of the pedestrians.
[49:07] Yeah, it's a shame there's
that conflict for your users
[49:11] that already invested in their
property There's and you can't
[49:17] resolve all conflicts, but you
can try to make it the best you
[49:21] can if you can move it
at least a little bit,
[49:25] doesn't hurt, you know, because
you haven't constructed it.
[49:27] Yeah.
[49:28] No, not right.
[49:29] OK.
[49:30] Well, so consider and
I appreciate it Okay.
[49:35] That's all I have
to I just have to.
[49:44] Two quick questions
One, in the testimony
[49:51] with the email
from mr. Mauer, he
[49:55] mentions that there was he
he liked the idea of paving
[49:59] the social trail along the river
as an alternative to the pathway
[50:02] through the areas
initially proposed.
[50:04] So can you describe what
that initial proposal was
[50:06] and what was changed that he
references in his email on that?
[50:10] And I'm not sure I'm sorry.
[50:12] I was to you.
[50:13] It was to you met
the emails to you.
[50:16] I believe he was
talking about this.
[50:20] So this trail
connection on this side
[50:23] goes down to that barefoot
lakes, the peninsula park
[50:27] with the trails around the lakes
that they have down there I
[50:31] believe that he was
mentioning that he would like
[50:33] to see that that which
is currently a gravel
[50:37] or aggregate trail paved.
[50:39] OK.
[50:40] Which would kind of be out
of the scope of this project.
[50:45] I see that he would have
preferred that instead
[50:48] of the trail connection
that's shown here
[50:50] Okay, we got a ridge for it.
[50:53] So, so with that, were
there any other alternatives
[50:56] proposed in terms of
the trail connections
[50:58] or any other like alternate
one, two and three or anything
[51:01] like that?
[51:02] No, no, no.
[51:03] OK.
[51:03] This is the only one that fits
within the criteria of the.
[51:06] You have to see And then my
other question obviously, I'm
[51:11] not a builder or anything
but the top home up there, it
[51:15] seemed you know, very
close to the existing
[51:18] homes that are built. So
i'll just call it the North.
[51:22] You know, the north,
the way west corner
[51:25] up there is there from a
developer effective as a reason
[51:29] why it wasn't placed
on the opposite side.
[51:31] So there wouldn't be as much
of a or as close of a being.
[51:36] So it wouldn't be as close to
that to the home that backs up
[51:39] to So again, on this
one, we are as I'm
[51:43] kind of threading the
needle, there is an easement.
[51:46] The road actually has an
easement just to the you can see
[51:48] on the right hand side of it.
[51:50] So that access point is really
locked in by that easement
[51:53] right there of where we
need to be at in kind
[51:56] of the tangent criteria
along with also
[51:58] the plugged in abandoned
wells that are over in there.
[52:01] So really, as we're
going through it,
[52:03] the easement the plugged in
abandoned wells, everything kind
[52:06] of out in the site and then
the criteria of the engineering
[52:09] standards kind of really have.
[52:11] It's where there's a
very specific location
[52:14] that everything
that's in there Okay.
[52:16] Yeah.
[52:17] I'm just curious about this is
there is so much over there.
[52:19] I didn't know if there was
because of the oil and gas
[52:21] or if there was just some of the
thing that was behind that Okay.
[52:25] Thank you.
[52:26] Those are my questions.
[52:28] Thank you.
[52:29] So with that are there any type
of rebuttals or anything else
[52:33] that you want to
comment on with regards
[52:35] to the public comment that was
received from the applicants ?
[52:39] So do you want to.
[52:40] Is there anything that
you want to comment on?
[52:41] What was it for the rebuttal?
[52:44] Again, just the
applicant gets to rebut.
[52:46] Correct.
[52:46] Now that those.
[52:47] No, I was saying anything
want to rebut from what
[52:49] was heard during that.
[52:51] OK.
[52:52] Public comment.
[52:53] And then once the
applicant stand,
[52:55] then you can potentially reopen.
[52:57] But the motion Correct.
[52:58] You okay.
[53:01] That sounds good.
[53:03] Now, am able to
make that motion.
[53:04] Keith was actually one of
the commission members.
[53:06] Anybody who made the motion.
[53:07] OK before you do,
can i ask one more?
[53:10] Sure Was there in
our packet we got
[53:16] the email from Mr. Arts to Ms..
[53:18] Riser, but I don't see
her reply to Mr. Yards.
[53:22] Yeah we so there was a reply
and we also met with Mr. Yards
[53:27] out Matt and I went out there
to the site and walked around
[53:31] and met him at his, at his
fence and we had a conversation
[53:35] about it as well.
[53:37] Is there a reason
that email reply was
[53:39] not include it in our packet?
[53:41] No it's not part of
the public comment.
[53:44] Yeah, that's it's
only public comment.
[53:46] We don't put in
correspondence back and forth.
[53:49] I got you.
[53:50] OK.
[53:51] Thank you Right at this
time of commission I
[53:58] would I make a motion to
reopen public comment to allow
[54:02] for the public to address
some additional concerns I
[54:08] second segment,
Commissioner hoskins.
[54:09] All those in favor say Hi.
[54:12] OK We will reopen the public
comment portion of item
[54:15] number six, the time is now.
[54:17] 653.
[54:19] Those wishing to
make public comments
[54:21] may come up one by one Apologize
if I seem I get heated I've been
[54:30] involved in this in
a while, and it's
[54:32] pretty you know, intrusive here
One thing about when you look
[54:37] at the developed meant take
a look at the if you look
[54:41] at the what they proposed was
going to happen when people
[54:45] bought the lots it looks
just like Ben court
[54:49] if you look at it, it's almost
identical in scope to Ben Court
[54:53] If you go to this photo
here and you pull up,
[54:56] you can see it's significantly
bigger than Ben Court.
[55:00] It comes out deeper
and it's wider
[55:04] And you're right
to be concerned.
[55:05] It's awful close to
those houses over there.
[55:07] I live over here on the other
part of the sidewalk One
[55:12] thing I want to point
out, they already
[55:14] covered the maximum cliff.
[55:17] Appreciate it.
[55:17] Is a cliff out there and they
probably can't fit a ten foot
[55:20] sidewalk because there's not
enough room between my fence
[55:23] line and the cliff It's
not going to do a lot
[55:28] to help the social traffic.
[55:30] So what happens is
in that green space,
[55:33] there are about Four dog owners
who are Bird Dogs owners.
[55:37] About once a week, they
take their dogs down
[55:40] in that green space and
they let them run and chase,
[55:43] you know, coyotes and
birds and whatever.
[55:48] So that's really not going to
help much as far as that goes,
[55:51] which is why I thought maybe if
you put a trail through there
[55:55] in that connected you know,
I know it's an expense
[55:58] and maybe it has to be
a raised wooden deck
[55:59] or whatever that be concerned.
[56:02] But the bigger concern
is, is if you go around
[56:05] and they talk retaining
walls, if you keep walking
[56:07] that all the way around
there's houses as cove
[56:11] goes through that exact
retaining wall, was there.
[56:15] They have that sidewalk They've
taken it about 40ft away from
[56:19] the fence line, down
the slope And that
[56:23] sidewalk goes in and
there's a retaining
[56:25] walls already built there.
[56:27] Now, I understand that
they want to avoid
[56:29] the cost of a retaining
wall, but they're
[56:32] not considering the homeowners.
[56:33] And it's not just meters About
4 or 5 of us right there.
[56:36] None of them are here.
[56:37] There are other
things, but I know
[56:39] they have the exact
same concerns as we do.
[56:43] But it can't be done.
[56:44] It's just an expense.
[56:45] But i mean, what's
the value of my house
[56:47] going to be when now there's
a public sidewalk there?
[56:50] If they would move
that 20ft away,
[56:55] it takes it down about
six feet below grade where
[56:59] they've got the retaining wall.
[57:01] My privacy is not
impacted at all.
[57:04] I can sit on my back
door, my back porch,
[57:06] and if I see the top
of somebody's head,
[57:08] maybe I hear a dog bark.
[57:10] Maybe But it's way down there
and maybe a little more cost.
[57:15] But I know me and the
rest of the homeowners
[57:17] will walk away happy and
feel like we've not been
[57:20] wronged So that's all I've got.
[57:23] Thank you.
[57:24] I'm thinking of album.
[57:33] Hi.
[57:33] My name's Linda Kane and
I live in Been caught
[57:36] one, 2, six, nine, eight.
[57:39] And that squiggle path is
on one side of my property
[57:42] and then the other one
is on the other side.
[57:45] So I'm really going to be
impacted by that trail now.
[57:49] And as far as there
being a social trail,
[57:51] I've lived in the house
a year and a half.
[57:53] I've seen De'Aaron
Fox's One teenage boy
[57:58] and the gardeners,
the landscape people,
[58:00] there is no traffic
behind my house.
[58:03] I have a big dog He
would let me know
[58:05] if I'm missing
something You know,
[58:07] it's a deer trail It's not.
[58:09] People don't use it.
[58:12] We've been on, you know,
I've been in the house a year
[58:14] and a half.
[58:15] And no one, I've
been caught seems
[58:16] to be hurting because we don't
have access down that way.
[58:19] We just walk.
[58:20] Other directions
I don't understand
[58:23] why all of a sudden our cul
de sac has to be impacted.
[58:27] So much by this trail.
[58:31] And people who go off trail are
still going to do it You know,
[58:35] the trail isn't there
doing it for other reasons.
[58:38] You know and we
paid a lot premiums
[58:43] for this view of nothing.
[58:45] And now it'll be people
Mine was $50,000.
[58:50] That was my lot.
[58:51] Premium And they said someday
they might build there.
[58:56] Maybe in 30 years.
[58:59] This has been a year and a half.
[59:01] So it really this is going
to affect quite a few of us
[59:08] Why does why so many
houses in such a small area
[59:14] The people on cove, if there
were if they put in like five
[59:20] houses, maybe people
would still have
[59:22] a section of view
left instead of losing
[59:25] completely their mountain view.
[59:27] The Sunset View But to cram that
many houses in there you know,
[59:32] and who's to say how much
view anyone would have left.
[59:35] But these people
love their homes.
[59:37] We spend a lot of
money landscaping.
[59:39] We have these private
backyards where we see deer.
[59:42] I see deer.
[59:43] And I don't know that
I'll ever see them again.
[59:46] Once this is done.
[59:48] Thank you Thank you, Linda.
[59:51] Just one point of clarification
Haitian is meant Oh,
[59:55] can you pull that back up or
do we have to hold on, hold on
[1:00:00] again for the record let's just
get through the public comment
[1:00:05] and then sorry, after the public
comment staff and the applicant
[1:00:09] have yet another opportunity
to respond Thank you again,
[1:00:19] Steve trunk.
[1:00:20] One, 2, seven, ten.
[1:00:21] Been caught What
I for some reason
[1:00:24] I didn't understand
the little squiggly
[1:00:29] you know the lombards
street if you
[1:00:30] would up there that comes down
between my house and another
[1:00:36] house here.
[1:00:37] There's no there's no
benefit to somebody that
[1:00:40] would be in that cul de sac.
[1:00:42] I don't know why anyone would
come off that trail if they were
[1:00:45] going to the pool
or well, where else
[1:00:48] they would go up that
serpentine trail head there.
[1:00:53] And I don't know if
that was a requirement
[1:00:57] It's not shown on the plan.
[1:00:59] That's actually not
part of the plan.
[1:01:01] So this is not shown
on their plan Okay.
[1:01:07] What's that We need the right.
[1:01:09] But that's it's not actually
on the plan right now Right.
[1:01:12] So now I'm a little
more confused.
[1:01:15] Is is it on the plan
that's proposed?
[1:01:18] I think yeah.
[1:01:19] Once once we finish
the public comment,
[1:01:21] then we'll have staff address
that and kind of clarify
[1:01:23] because if that's
not on the plan,
[1:01:25] then that's not an issue
that is currently nobody
[1:01:30] uses that there
except for to walk
[1:01:32] a dog down from our neighborhood
and you wouldn't go.
[1:01:36] If you're going to the
pool you use the lower one.
[1:01:38] But again, most people
when they go into the pool
[1:01:42] have other means
of transportation
[1:01:44] or walk wagons with
their stuff in.
[1:01:47] Thank you.
[1:01:47] Thanks to you Appreciate it.
[1:01:50] Was there anyone
else that had public
[1:01:52] comment during this time ?
[1:01:56] OK.
[1:01:56] So I will now close this
portion of the public comment.
[1:02:03] And now move on again to
deliberation and/or excuse me,
[1:02:08] two questions.
[1:02:10] Staff Would you like to
address anything that came up
[1:02:13] during the public comment, such
as the the squiggly trails that
[1:02:17] was brought up and
any other concerns
[1:02:21] Yeah, I have to correct myself.
[1:02:23] Again, I apologize.
[1:02:24] It is shown on the most
recent submittal of the city's
[1:02:28] This squiggly line as well as
and those, as you mentioned,
[1:02:34] were so are required
to the FDC says when
[1:02:38] you have a 30 foot
track like this that it
[1:02:42] should have the trail in it.
[1:02:44] And the reason it
wasn't done previously.
[1:02:47] Again was because of the
oil and gas at the time
[1:02:51] it was currently there.
[1:02:53] Yeah In the comments
from staff with regards
[1:02:57] to public testimony.
[1:02:58] No.
[1:02:59] Does the applicant have any
responses to public testimony?
[1:03:02] We just heard So for delivery,
are there any other questions
[1:03:11] that come up with this next?
[1:03:14] Yes, Commissioner, you.
[1:03:16] So the squiggly line
obviously brings it closer
[1:03:21] to the homes on either side.
[1:03:22] Can it be a straight line
that just goes up the middle
[1:03:25] and maximizes the distance from
the homes I can answer that one.
[1:03:31] So yes, I prefer to
be a straight line,
[1:03:33] but what it is, is we're
trying to meet ADA requirement
[1:03:36] It's so what it is is that's the
maximum grade that we can have.
[1:03:39] That is a steep slope.
[1:03:40] Those are walk out
homes along there.
[1:03:42] So the steep slope, we have
to get enough run on it just
[1:03:45] like a mountain
pass or switchbacks
[1:03:47] That's what we're doing on that.
[1:03:48] So we try to make
it the shortest
[1:03:51] length we could possibly be.
[1:03:52] And still meet ADA
requirements on it.
[1:03:55] Gotcha.
[1:03:55] OK Thank you It's from the
commissioners All right.
[1:04:06] So there'd be no further
testimony or questions.
[1:04:09] The public hearing
is now closed.
[1:04:11] The time is 703.
[1:04:15] And so at this
time the commission
[1:04:16] will deliberate what we've heard
and for any comments or feedback
[1:04:22] on this proposal So over here
any comments and deliberations
[1:04:27] So initially, Mr. Young any
comments and deliberation of I
[1:04:38] would have a question
for the attorney
[1:04:42] As far as the premium that is
not the Commission's concern,
[1:04:47] is that correct?
[1:04:49] No nor are any
statements or promises
[1:04:52] that were made by Third parties
to purchasers of lots outside.
[1:04:57] And that's because it's
outside our purview is it?
[1:05:03] because it's irrelevant to
the code criteria Right.
[1:05:06] Okay.
[1:05:06] I just want to make sure folks
understand that Thank you for i
[1:05:23] don't have any
further comments, bye.
[1:05:25] Do appreciate what the planners
have done as far as I'm really
[1:05:29] glad to see the
extent we pursue the,
[1:05:33] you know, the abandoned
bit of oil pipelines
[1:05:36] and buried, things like that, We
had that bad accident down by us
[1:05:40] And so I appreciate the new
rules and the things that would
[1:05:44] help us We're always
going to be stuck
[1:05:48] with developments that
are tight because we're
[1:05:51] running out of water.
[1:05:52] You you know, sewer
and everything else.
[1:05:54] And water So keep doing the best
job you can Guys appreciate it
[1:06:04] It will say it's it's certainly
kind of a balancing between you
[1:06:09] know, being able to allow
the developers to develop
[1:06:12] and making some accommodations
with lowering the site lowering
[1:06:16] the grade, trying
to get that down
[1:06:17] a little bit to try
to minimize the impact
[1:06:23] although not fully right.
[1:06:25] With regards to the
views, especially
[1:06:29] for others be for staff
or maybe for you, Keith.
[1:06:32] But if we were to
as a commission
[1:06:36] say we'd like to make
a recommendation.
[1:06:39] And that that trail is moved.
[1:06:40] And then require whatever
is needed for that,
[1:06:42] is that something that
we're able to do as part
[1:06:44] of a recommendation
to the board as far
[1:06:47] as like amending everything?
[1:06:48] OK.
[1:06:49] Of course I mean, again, it's
going to require consensus
[1:06:54] So a majority vote.
[1:06:56] But is that is that mean.
[1:06:58] Like a motion to
amend the proposal
[1:07:01] or kind of what is that
would that process is there.
[1:07:03] I mean, we could Yeah I mean,
what if it what it would look
[1:07:06] like.
[1:07:06] I think is you know
it if I'm reading
[1:07:10] the tea leaves correctly.
[1:07:11] And I hope I am you
know what I would
[1:07:13] suggest is that there
first be a main motion
[1:07:17] to approve the resolution.
[1:07:19] And then there's a
secondary motion to amend.
[1:07:23] So a motion to
amend the resolution
[1:07:25] to include the following
condition of approval
[1:07:30] And then you can
vote on that And then
[1:07:34] depending on how that
goes, then you can vote
[1:07:36] on the resolution as amended.
[1:07:40] Does that make sense?
[1:07:40] It does.
[1:07:41] And upon the upon
the motion, then we
[1:07:44] could have a discussion
about the motion
[1:07:46] before we actually
vote on the motion.
[1:07:47] Correct?
[1:07:48] OK Yeah Motion, I think.
[1:07:53] How how I would word that I
guess we could deliberate it.
[1:07:56] Like as far as I don't know
what the requirement would,
[1:07:59] I was what I'm
trying to require.
[1:08:00] And that's or ask for it.
[1:08:02] But well, what i
would say is I mean,
[1:08:04] I would recommend that you
say, do you have a motion
[1:08:07] to approve resolution 26?
[1:08:10] Oh, Do seconded Okay.
[1:08:13] Do I have do I have
a motion to amend
[1:08:16] or you know, but some
would like to make a motion
[1:08:18] to amend resolution PCO2.
[1:08:22] And I can try to
help with whatever
[1:08:25] that amendment looks like.
[1:08:26] OK.
[1:08:27] So once we discuss the
motion to discuss that Okay,
[1:08:29] exactly right Sounds good.
[1:08:33] All right.
[1:08:34] Any other thumbs
for deliberation
[1:08:35] before I very close all right.
[1:08:38] So at this time, I will
enter into the record
[1:08:40] the staff member on attachments
in the agenda packet.
[1:08:43] As we stated before.
[1:08:45] Okay I have a motion
on p c resolution 2602.
[1:08:53] I request that we approve.
[1:08:55] I move that we approve
resolu ocean PC 20 6-02
[1:08:59] and seconded by Commissioner
Sutton Roll call,
[1:09:04] please don't do it.
[1:09:07] So don't do so.
[1:09:08] If OK so if you want to if
you want to potentially debate
[1:09:12] the addition of any
condition to the resolution,
[1:09:15] then now's your time.
[1:09:17] And then if that debate flows
into someone making a motion
[1:09:22] when she formulated with
that additional language
[1:09:24] is going to be that's when
you would make the move Okay.
[1:09:25] When you said approved, the
first one, that's why I was I
[1:09:28] thought we were going
to have we got this.
[1:09:29] OK.
[1:09:30] We got to get that.
[1:09:31] You're okay So I had.
[1:09:34] So the first was from
Commissioner lee and then second
[1:09:37] from commissioners I'm correct
at this time would like
[1:09:42] to motion for is a an
amendment to resolution pC
[1:09:48] or an amendment to
p C resolution 2602,
[1:09:53] which would allow for the
extension of the buffer
[1:09:58] between sidewalk
and residents homes
[1:10:04] to have a a second
for that motion.
[1:10:07] Also seconded by Commissioner
Young So for discussion
[1:10:13] wise I mean, I think we've heard
pretty clearly that there are
[1:10:16] concerns with regards to the
trail being put in itself
[1:10:19] We've heard from the
residents We've also
[1:10:23] heard from the
applicant that there
[1:10:25] are going to be a potentially
significant cost to do that.
[1:10:30] And some concerns about existing
existing look and style right.
[1:10:35] With the surrounding community.
[1:10:37] But we've also heard that there
are other portions where that is
[1:10:40] already in place So I
think as a commission,
[1:10:43] we could balance some of
these concerns the best we can
[1:10:46] We can't do much about
the homes themselves,
[1:10:48] but trying to create additional
buffer to help maintain
[1:10:53] and preserve the intent of
when these individuals purchase
[1:10:56] their homes.
[1:10:57] So are there any
questions or comments.
[1:11:00] And commissioners
has about that?
[1:11:02] No, I'm well, I
guess I'm wondering
[1:11:05] do we have to be specific as to
how much buffer in the amendment
[1:11:12] I think that would help a lot.
[1:11:14] I mean, I understand that.
[1:11:16] I understand where
you're going, but i mean,
[1:11:20] I think to give not only
staff, but also the applicant,
[1:11:23] the right the ability to
try and formulate what
[1:11:26] that looks like as
I just didn't know
[1:11:27] what it would be ahead of time.
[1:11:29] So if you're able
to assist with what
[1:11:32] that buffer could be
because I'm not right.
[1:11:34] Yeah.
[1:11:35] Thank you.
[1:11:35] I can.
[1:11:36] So let's see how it goes.
[1:11:37] And we'll get it.
[1:11:38] And can move will
develop it organically.
[1:11:40] And then we'll, we'll
sort out the current.
[1:11:43] But for now is i don't recall
if I made a note in the sidewalk
[1:11:50] and the home I believe it was
ten feet behind is that correct
[1:12:01] All I remember is
20ft from my back door
[1:12:03] and it's that's
why I'm remembering
[1:12:06] the 26ft from the back door.
[1:12:08] That's correct Correct.
[1:12:09] Where where you're
looking at, there's
[1:12:11] a 25 foot sanitary easement
along the back of the houses
[1:12:14] along Cove Street And the
trail meanders It's mostly
[1:12:18] within that 25 foot easement.
[1:12:20] But right up against it.
[1:12:21] So I would say that
trail is is 15 to 20ft
[1:12:26] from the rear lot line of those
houses along not coastal Right.
[1:12:30] I'm sorry.
[1:12:31] Or is that cove in Pam?
[1:12:32] Is there is there a different
is there a different map
[1:12:35] or maybe more like
a top view that we
[1:12:36] could see for that Yeah, sure.
[1:12:38] We can pull up the
you know, something?
[1:12:40] Just a a page hope that
one of the presentations.
[1:12:43] What's this?
[1:12:44] I guess it would be
helpful to know what's
[1:12:46] the smallest buffer in
the can The narrowest
[1:12:52] land in the narrowest part.
[1:12:53] Yeah And maybe require
that it be a minimum
[1:12:58] throughout 60 meters Yeah.
[1:13:26] Yeah So you know between
pull that now so we
[1:13:47] don't have the ability
to get that on the screen
[1:13:53] so we don't know what we're
still deliberating right.
[1:14:06] Yeah.
[1:14:07] It looks like you without
considering the squiggly trail
[1:14:10] between the homes because
that can't really be
[1:14:12] moved the closest
the edge of trail
[1:14:15] is to a rear lot about 10.5ft.
[1:14:18] Okay.
[1:14:18] 10.5ft.
[1:14:19] OK.
[1:14:20] And it ranges up to about
20ft to some of those houses
[1:14:24] along Cove Street
where it's right
[1:14:25] up against the edge of that.
[1:14:26] So So we could do in amendment
of a minimum of 15 or 17.
[1:14:32] Yeah And once we can we
get the image back up,
[1:14:35] please Because in that
image there is the one,
[1:14:43] there was like a home where
it was basically like right
[1:14:45] on the lot line look like.
[1:14:47] I don't know if that's the ten
feet that you're mentioning
[1:14:50] that once it pulls
back up on that
[1:14:53] was different than the homes
that we talked about tonight.
[1:14:55] But i think we're going to think
we're working on pulling up
[1:15:00] a document to present to
the commission that has
[1:15:02] actually accurate measurements.
[1:15:03] OK.
[1:15:04] Thank you.
[1:15:05] You're welcome.
[1:15:05] While we wait for that
does anyone else have
[1:15:07] some any comments they want
to make as we're deliberating
[1:15:10] with the only other comment I'll
make is, is this just a reminder
[1:15:14] to everyone that it was
mentioned that it was originally
[1:15:17] platted for 58 units and
that it is now currently 11
[1:15:22] and that is somewhat some
relief to the adjoining
[1:15:28] to the existing homes.
[1:15:30] Appreciate it.
[1:15:31] Wasn't platted for 58
units that they have
[1:15:34] 58 units available
in filing five
[1:15:37] that they could have
potential built.
[1:15:39] But they never proposed
58 units on that property.
[1:15:42] No.
[1:15:43] Right.
[1:15:43] But that's but they could
have Yeah You know, 70
[1:15:51] any comments on the the trails
or what we're debating currently
[1:15:57] Do you agree with the proposal
or we or you think it's asking
[1:16:00] too much more than ten
on your turn on your mic
[1:16:04] and you could speak into it.
[1:16:05] Well, we got to get you recorded
and I don't know if that's
[1:16:12] above our pay grade, but
I kind of feel for them
[1:16:14] if I paid this lot premium.
[1:16:16] I know that's kind
of not part of it,
[1:16:17] but now I've got this trail
right up against my property
[1:16:21] and I've got people
walking by all the time.
[1:16:23] I mean I feel a little cheated.
[1:16:28] We well, premium or not, I think
privacy that there can be I
[1:16:37] think I think they've
made it clear that it
[1:16:39] can be that this was the
plan without any additional
[1:16:44] modification.
[1:16:45] Yeah.
[1:16:46] So this may conflict things.
[1:16:48] But I think in the
long run for residents.
[1:16:51] I agree that it's
the right thing.
[1:16:56] And we're the code says
wherever possible It
[1:17:00] doesn't say in the easiest way
possible or the least expensive
[1:17:05] or.
[1:17:05] That's a good
point So I do think
[1:17:08] that almost all of the new
subdivisions have panels
[1:17:14] and they are all I know
you have a minimum.
[1:17:17] I know ours has a
setback of here.
[1:17:21] Probably only about 15ft.
[1:17:24] And so now everybody knew
that that was going in there
[1:17:28] and maybe that's the difference
is you know, because that's
[1:17:33] a really difficult
thing to say when you
[1:17:39] if somebody is telling you that
it's not going in there, then.
[1:17:43] But that is, again you know,
it was on the final plat
[1:17:46] and that's kind of we had that
same problem where they were
[1:17:51] like, some of that information's
not really easy to find
[1:17:54] when you're purchasing true.
[1:17:58] Well, I find disclosures to
be I come from North Carolina,
[1:18:03] where disclosures have
to be so thorough Yeah.
[1:18:05] And they're better
here than other places.
[1:18:08] But not as good as
they could be Yeah, I
[1:18:12] think we're having some
technical difficulties, bye.
[1:18:14] Think Pam Howard can
make is looking at plans
[1:18:18] and has done measurements
and can make and represent
[1:18:20] tatian right now
about Oak about that
[1:18:24] to help you or at least
inform your decision on what
[1:18:29] an adequate buffer would be.
[1:18:30] Okay.
[1:18:31] Thank you.
[1:18:31] Yeah.
[1:18:32] So again, ignoring the squiggly
trail between the lots because
[1:18:35] of the aDA issue, the cul
de sac homes at the end of
[1:18:39] and I was that, can
we see it on the map?
[1:18:43] Yeah so Yeah so we have
the point to the can
[1:18:50] we see the other picture that
we've been looking at them.
[1:18:53] I mean, this is probably
it's a more thorough guide
[1:18:58] to better accurate.
[1:18:59] So ignoring the
squiggly right here.
[1:19:01] These two kind of corner points
of these two cul de sac lots.
[1:19:06] This one here is
right around 10.5ft.
[1:19:09] This one is right around 11ft.
[1:19:11] OK.
[1:19:11] And then when you get over here
this trail largely runs along
[1:19:17] the inside side line of a
sanitary sewer easement,
[1:19:20] which is 25ft deep.
[1:19:22] So where the trail directly
abuts the edge of that easement,
[1:19:25] it would be 20ft from these
rear yards here where it curves.
[1:19:28] It does get a little
closer but probably about
[1:19:30] I didn't take that
measurement for probably
[1:19:32] no closer than 15ft.
[1:19:34] So those were your yards.
[1:19:36] So where is that?
[1:19:37] Can to make it more complicated?
[1:19:40] Where is it less than 22?
[1:19:45] Everywhere or
possibly right here.
[1:19:47] OK Not behind.
[1:19:49] I mean, these are
the new homes that
[1:19:51] are being constructed Right.
[1:19:53] And that would their buffer be
like one in the top to left home
[1:20:01] right there?
[1:20:01] That kind of has the I forget
my shapes but so we're kind
[1:20:06] of curves looks like it
comes probably within about
[1:20:08] that 10 to 15ft or so as well.
[1:20:12] You say Yeah.
[1:20:16] The closest new
home to the proposed
[1:20:18] trail would be about 12ft
to the lot, to the lot Yeah.
[1:20:23] So again, all of these
measurements are due to the lot
[1:20:25] with a lot line up to the
edge of someone's right
[1:20:27] to the back,
someone's back door.
[1:20:29] I understand that.
[1:20:30] Sure.
[1:20:30] And on the plans But these homes
take up a significant footprint
[1:20:36] of their lots, is that correct?
[1:20:38] We don't know Yeah.
[1:20:40] I mean, we can
look at an area map
[1:20:43] to see no one's built all they
all have rear setback line.
[1:20:47] So right you know they all
are at least 10 to 15ft away.
[1:20:52] And then with that, Pam,
I know that the concern
[1:20:55] has been brought up with
the homes down here.
[1:20:57] On the bottom is, is what we've
heard today and up at the top,
[1:21:01] well, there's some
of the top on there.
[1:21:03] So with that, the
sewer utility easement,
[1:21:07] does that then
impact being able to
[1:21:10] would they have to go
beyond four the beyond that
[1:21:12] to be able to then
build a trail?
[1:21:13] Or are they able to
build on top of that?
[1:21:15] How how does that work?
[1:21:16] So the sewer company St Brain
is a referral agency, so they
[1:21:21] would be commenting on that.
[1:21:24] They can respond to any
conversation you know,
[1:21:27] the applicant has had
with them potential Lee
[1:21:29] But if the sewer entity says
you can't build it in here,
[1:21:32] then they won't be
able to build it.
[1:21:33] Usually they'll allow
it as long as it's not
[1:21:36] directly over the line itself.
[1:21:38] And just with the knowledge
that if the sewer district
[1:21:41] has to come out and tear up
the trail for whatever reason
[1:21:44] that the Metro
District's usually
[1:21:45] going to be responsible for, for
repairs, not the sewer district.
[1:21:48] So if we were to say let's
say minimum setback 20ft from
[1:21:52] the lot line from the
edge of the trail,
[1:21:57] do you see that creating
any is creating any issues
[1:22:01] that you can foresee right now?
[1:22:03] I mean, other than the drainage
implications that were discussed
[1:22:06] and potential
retaining wall, I mean,
[1:22:08] this would be as a discussion
with the engineering department
[1:22:11] as to whether they'd even permit
it within that drainage area.
[1:22:15] That's not up to us.
[1:22:17] So it'd be if we in.
[1:22:18] And of course, everyone
else can chime in on that.
[1:22:21] But if that's what we
made the recommendation
[1:22:24] for in our resolution
then at that point
[1:22:28] before it comes before the
board, all that would be
[1:22:31] discussed and and we
would tell the board yeah,
[1:22:35] this isn't going to work the
way that it was proposed because
[1:22:37] of engineering saying
this, this or the other
[1:22:39] or here's an alternative
is that that's
[1:22:42] what happened before the
board meeting, Correct.
[1:22:43] Okay.
[1:22:45] Committee members, any thoughts
as far as minimum setbacks
[1:22:48] that you want to
propose 20 less or what?
[1:22:53] I would think you need
to have a range because
[1:22:56] of physical restraints
and what kind of burden
[1:23:00] are we putting on a developer
besides the homeowner?
[1:23:04] You know, so I think if we
went to like a 15 to 20,
[1:23:07] but rigid 20 might be
more difficult. Okay
[1:23:13] And I think 20 minimum,
I agree 20 minimum
[1:23:20] with the commission 15
to 20, you're like a 20
[1:23:22] minimum number one number.
[1:23:26] Okay Know, that's okay.
[1:23:31] OK So I think so.
[1:23:34] Sounds like we have our number
of 20 and understanding.
[1:23:39] Commissioner haney's proposal of
the kind of in between numbers
[1:23:42] there, which it may end up being
changed anyways because maybe it
[1:23:45] doesn't work after they've
done their engineering to So
[1:23:50] with that does that
for staff purposes,
[1:23:52] is it better to have one
single number or range which,
[1:23:55] which would be more?
[1:23:56] I mean, I think a
minimum is fine, right?
[1:23:59] I mean, there's not
going to necessarily
[1:24:00] be a maximum proposed.
[1:24:01] So Right.
[1:24:03] You know, and as you
said, either way, this
[1:24:05] is to the extent that it will
be permitted by engineering
[1:24:10] it is it's feasible to do so In
the end, the board of trustees
[1:24:14] is the approving body.
[1:24:15] They can approve it or deny it
regardless of what the Planning
[1:24:19] Commission's vote
is and regardless
[1:24:22] of any recommendations
made That's not
[1:24:24] to say they won't take
it into consideration
[1:24:26] and hopefully they will.
[1:24:28] Typically they do But you
know our engineer department
[1:24:32] will look into that more.
[1:24:33] Hopefully be able
to have a response,
[1:24:34] a formal response
from them prior
[1:24:36] to going to the board meeting
Absolutely necessary Question
[1:24:40] but this that discussion.
[1:24:41] All falls into the
wherever possible range
[1:24:45] right So if this ends
up not being possible,
[1:24:48] then we lose the trail But
the development continues.
[1:24:51] Is that correct No, The trail
would still be required.
[1:24:57] You're asking that it be
moved if it's possible, right.
[1:25:00] If the engineering department
says the trail can't be moved,
[1:25:02] that doesn't remove the FTC.
[1:25:04] Require it for them to have
the trail The trail would still
[1:25:08] be where it was proposed.
without the minimum
[1:25:13] without that setback
because that's
[1:25:16] your recommending
approval to the board
[1:25:19] and your can your
recommendation and can
[1:25:21] say that we only recommend
approval if the trail is moved.
[1:25:26] But that doesn't mean
the board has to follow
[1:25:29] that recommendation Right.
[1:25:31] They say if we remove
the trail entirely
[1:25:34] it would not meet our criteria
of our development code
[1:25:37] and wouldn't be
approvable at all
[1:25:41] if if the criteria of
your development code
[1:25:45] is wherever possible then
how does it not meet that?
[1:25:49] If it can't, if it can't be
done there is no there's no
[1:25:53] development code
criteria that says
[1:25:54] it has to be 20ft from the home,
right from the property line.
[1:25:58] That's a criteria that you
guys would like to set.
[1:26:02] It is possible to put a trail
there as it's shown now.
[1:26:06] Okay All right.
[1:26:08] I just want to set
expectations as we move forward
[1:26:12] with this Well, it sounds
like we have our proposal then
[1:26:16] to propose a minimum 20 foot
setback from the lot lines
[1:26:22] to the edge of the
beginning of, I guess,
[1:26:26] the beginning edge of the trail.
[1:26:29] So with that I would entertain
a motion to amend Right.
[1:26:38] Keith, help me out.
[1:26:38] So to amend PC resolution
2602 recommending approval
[1:26:44] to the Board of Trustees
with the condition
[1:26:46] that a 20 foot minimum
setback could be applied
[1:26:50] between the property lines
and the edge of the beginning
[1:26:57] edge of the trail.
[1:26:58] So jumping with the
exception of struggling
[1:27:02] with the exception
of the squiggly I it
[1:27:03] make it for for lots about.
[1:27:06] And then cordon cove street
or is that just i would say,
[1:27:12] do you want to include that
to be built lots or not.
[1:27:15] I think that could be built
lots should be included.
[1:27:17] Correct.
[1:27:17] That just makes it easy.
[1:27:19] All the way across.
[1:27:20] And because some might already
be close to that anyway.
[1:27:22] So that i do have a motion
to approve that amendment.
[1:27:28] So so first, by our second
Commissioner Hoskins
[1:27:34] and second by Commissioner.
[1:27:35] OK.
[1:27:36] So for this one, we need a
roll call on the amendment
[1:27:40] So we'll have a roll
call on the amendment.
[1:27:42] Please move Vice
Chair Haney i'm sorry,
[1:27:55] Commissioner Haney approved
Yes, Commissioner lee approved.
[1:28:03] Commissioner Sutton approved.
[1:28:06] Commissioner Young approved
Commissioner Hoskins Approve.
[1:28:12] OK Motion carries Now, if I
could have a motion on p c
[1:28:19] motion to approve
on PC resolution 20
[1:28:20] 6-02 as amended, I i so move for
approval of the I'll second 26.
[1:28:29] So to 20 602 So we have a
first from Commissioner Haney
[1:28:34] and a second from Commissioner
Young real copies commission
[1:28:43] early approve commissioner
Sutton approved.
[1:28:48] Commissioner Hoskins approve.
[1:28:50] Vice Chair Haney approved.
[1:28:53] Commissioner young
approve Thank you.
[1:28:57] The motion carries.
[1:29:00] All right we are on to item.
[1:29:05] That was it for
the public hearing.
[1:29:06] Gresham So I make sure I wasn't
forgetting a step on there.
[1:29:10] Staff reports.
[1:29:12] Item on our agenda, any staff
reports None at this time.
[1:29:17] Thank you And thank you, staff,
for all your attentiveness
[1:29:20] this evening on the
discussion there.
[1:29:22] So appreciate Appreciate that.
[1:29:24] Commissioner, your
comments Next item,
[1:29:26] start on the side commission.
[1:29:27] Any comments?
[1:29:28] No no I don't have any.
[1:29:34] I, I just would like
to have us meet more
[1:29:37] often than every five months.
[1:29:40] You guys.
[1:29:41] So shape it up here again.
[1:29:45] More people needing land
development right here.
[1:29:48] Something we're going to need
again the make the adjustments.
[1:29:52] Any comments on it Okay.
[1:29:55] All right.
[1:29:57] I just have one quick comment.
[1:29:59] I know I have been
out for a little bit
[1:30:01] just with various trainings and
other things that are going on.
[1:30:04] But I think as we move forward.
[1:30:07] And we've talked about
that, there's currently
[1:30:09] being some work done on
the i guess, the purview
[1:30:12] of the Commission
gratefully, I'm
[1:30:14] like looking at the ordinance of
how the Pansy Commission works
[1:30:17] and things that there's some
that's still in the works
[1:30:19] currently Not really.
[1:30:24] I mean, not really Yeah.
[1:30:27] We've talked about
bringing amendments
[1:30:28] to the development code in.
[1:30:30] Once the comprehensive
plan is completed probably
[1:30:33] be late this year or
early next year that we
[1:30:35] may be bringing amendments.
[1:30:36] The development
code at this time,
[1:30:38] we haven't been
looking at changing
[1:30:40] any of the like petition
types that come to the board
[1:30:44] for approval, if
that's what you mean.
[1:30:47] I know that was done with
Newt with the development code
[1:30:50] when it was written in 2020.
[1:30:51] Well, that was changed.
[1:30:53] So there hasn't really
been any looking
[1:30:54] at changing that further.
[1:30:56] Okay.
[1:30:57] Yeah.
[1:30:57] And it was from what I was
kind of looking at is just
[1:31:01] the overall scope
and responsibilities
[1:31:03] of the planning,
zoning Commission
[1:31:05] And I know if we look at our
current ordinance I mean,
[1:31:09] some of it dates
back to the 80, some,
[1:31:11] you know, most
recently on there,
[1:31:12] which falls you know, well,
in line with Sierra is 31, 23.
[1:31:18] And that section that
talks about planning
[1:31:22] zoning commissions.
[1:31:23] And so as commissioners, I think
it would be important for all
[1:31:26] of us to read through that.
[1:31:27] As far as what yours talks
about in terms of our response
[1:31:30] abilities, what we
do a big part of that
[1:31:32] is the matters like
procedure for like.
[1:31:34] No, you're saying
that or like what?
[1:31:37] Like the actual ordinance that
governs the composition Yeah.
[1:31:40] So what I would what I would
say is I think that's absolutely
[1:31:46] an important topic
of conversation
[1:31:49] and that would probably
be more appropriate when
[1:31:51] you have a full board
of trustees, correct?
[1:31:55] Yeah I, we, we're, we're
bringing now I just
[1:31:57] want to bring it out into the
open because i know basically
[1:32:03] the way our current ordinance
reads in terms of what
[1:32:04] our responsibilities
are, you know,
[1:32:06] deal with making
recommendation on the master
[1:32:09] plan, which which we're
doing and other such things.
[1:32:12] So I think having very well
defined like what our roles
[1:32:16] and responsibilities are.
[1:32:17] And in that process,
maybe adjusting
[1:32:19] what the current ordinances
talk about as far as what we can
[1:32:23] and should be doing
as a commission
[1:32:25] with following along with Chris
as well, it would be important.
[1:32:28] So I just want to bring that
something that as future wise,
[1:32:30] we can start talking
about that maybe
[1:32:32] Yeah i mean, that's certainly
something that you as a body.
[1:32:36] That's a topic that you can
broach with the governing
[1:32:39] body My recommendation
is that that be done when
[1:32:44] you have a full governing body.
[1:32:47] And that's going
to be in November.
[1:32:49] So you know, sometime
after that would
[1:32:53] be the most appropriate time.
[1:32:54] Yeah, absolutely.
[1:32:55] And then any other meetings,
if we have like on these,
[1:32:58] if you want to
bring anything to us
[1:32:59] and we can talk about some
things as a separate item.
[1:33:02] So.
[1:33:02] All right.
[1:33:04] So with that so I have a motion
to adjourn to session persons.
[1:33:10] And second, by constraining
in favor say I, I opposed.
[1:33:15] All right.
[1:33:15] We are adjourned
for this meeting
[1:33:18] Do we need like ten minute
break before we go into the