[0:00] recording in prog.

[0:04] » Welcome to planning commission um March

[0:07] 25th here in PAC. We appreciate uh

[0:10] having actually some people in the

[0:12] audience. Usually we don't have that.

[0:13] So, thank you for being here. Um I've

[0:16] asked Commissioner Adams to give us an

[0:18] opening prayer.

[0:26] » Help us the right choices for the city

[0:28] and

[0:30] be the best benefit to the people of the

[0:32] city. Help us throughout our days and

[0:35] help us.

[0:39] » Amen. And then I forgot to mention who's

[0:42] here. We have Commissioner Himley,

[0:44] Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

[0:45] Beecher, and Commissioner Frisbee.

[0:48] himself.

[0:50] And

[0:53] here comes

[0:56] We have one more commissioner. So, we'll

[0:58] wait for her to get here, too. So,

[1:02] you get to walk up here and be in front

[1:04] of everybody. And

[1:13] so, we do have Cororum can't do

[1:15] business. So, that's good. Appreciate

[1:17] it.

[1:18] All right. Um, did everybody have a

[1:19] chance to review the consent agenda

[1:22] items? Uh, 31, which is the approval of

[1:25] minutes from our March 11th meeting?

[1:28] >> Yes.

[1:28] >> Any comments or questions?

[1:31] >> I need a motion to approve.

[1:33] >> I make a motion to approve the minutes

[1:34] from the March 11th planning commission

[1:36] meeting.

[1:37] >> I second.

[1:38] >> We have a motion and a second. All in

[1:39] favor by Yes.

[1:41] >> Yes.

[1:42] >> Any opposed? Okay. Public forum. This is

[1:46] a chance for the public to tell us

[1:47] something that isn't on the agenda. If

[1:49] it's on the agenda, we'll get to it in a

[1:51] minute. If you don't know what's on the

[1:53] agenda, the agendas are in the back

[1:55] pocket back there. Um,

[2:02] okay. Doesn't look like there's any

[2:04] public forum issues, so we'll go to um

[2:07] item 5.1, which is public hearing. Uh,

[2:11] zoning map amendment. Um, Guy Williams

[2:14] on behalf of several land owners is

[2:16] requesting his own change from MH1 to

[2:19] MH2.

[2:21] Um, and uh,

[2:25] I'm pretty sure Michael's going to give

[2:26] us some information on that. So, we're

[2:29] going to let him do that. I'm not going

[2:30] to read off the name, the numbers that

[2:32] it constitutes because Michael will

[2:35] cover that in a minute. So,

[2:39] >> okay.

[2:41] All right,

[2:43] let me get this started.

[2:48] So, as was stated, uh the request is for

[2:51] a zone change. Um and this body won't

[2:55] see it, but there would be a development

[2:57] agreement with this zone change.

[2:59] >> If if we if we elect to recommend

[3:03] approval, we need to recommend approval

[3:06] to include the the proposed

[3:10] I think that's fine. I don't know that

[3:12] it matters, but

[3:13] >> but it but it wouldn't be a bad idea to

[3:14] include that.

[3:15] >> Correct.

[3:16] >> I think so. If we do recommend that's

[3:18] what we need to do that it includes the

[3:20] development agreement.

[3:21] >> That would be fine. You just include

[3:22] that in your motion. That would be fine

[3:24] if that's what you decided.

[3:25] >> If if we like to do that

[3:26] >> to include what? The

[3:28] >> development agreement.

[3:29] Thanks.

[3:30] >> Okay. So to give you some perspective

[3:33] here tonight, we're only making a

[3:35] recommendation. So planning commission's

[3:37] role is a recommendation to city council

[3:39] whether it's approve deny that would be

[3:42] your what you would be doing tonight.

[3:44] City council makes an actual decision on

[3:47] this change. So any kind of motions that

[3:49] you make or anything like that please

[3:51] make sure that your motions is a

[3:54] recommendation to do this or

[3:56] recommendation to do that.

[4:00] Um let you kind of get oriented to the

[4:03] area here.

[4:06] Zooming in. Keep an eye on the little

[4:08] hashed box.

[4:11] I think most people know this area.

[4:14] So there in that uh red rectangular box

[4:19] is the vicinity of this property just

[4:22] south of Gladston Golf Course.

[4:29] Um the current zoning there is the MH1

[4:33] which stands for mountain and hillside

[4:35] zone one and the request is for mountain

[4:40] and hillside zone two. The primary

[4:43] difference between those is density. Um,

[4:46] in the mountain and hillside one, you

[4:49] can have one housing unit per 10 acres.

[4:53] And in the mountain and hillside 2, you

[4:55] can have one per acre. And it even has

[4:58] some flexibility that you can have

[5:00] smaller lots than that, provided that

[5:02] the overall density of your development

[5:04] is one per acre.

[5:07] Um, so continuing on, this is a concept

[5:11] layout at the very bottom of the screen

[5:13] there. That is the Gladston Drive that

[5:15] approaches into the golf course. And

[5:18] that cultasac is the proposed concept

[5:22] road for um some potential lots there.

[5:26] And that those are the uh concept layout

[5:28] of what those lots would look like. So a

[5:31] total of 14 of them there. Uh, one thing

[5:34] to also point out is that um I don't

[5:37] know why it keeps advancing on me uh to

[5:40] point out is each of these will be each

[5:42] of these lots will be in excess of a

[5:44] half acre. Some of them even uh up to an

[5:47] acre or more. So large lots here um

[5:51] they'll be custom executive homes. Uh

[5:56] that would be no um track type housing,

[6:01] no housing that's going to be looking

[6:04] the same as the one next to it or

[6:05] anything like that. Each one of them

[6:07] would be customly designed and built and

[6:10] that's going to be um something that the

[6:12] property owners desire but also

[6:14] something that we would have identified

[6:16] in detailed in the development

[6:18] agreement.

[6:21] talking about development agreement.

[6:22] These are several things that city staff

[6:24] have come up with that need to be

[6:26] addressed and and ensure are part of

[6:28] that agreement. Um the city would

[6:32] require an easement going through the

[6:34] golf course. The reason being is the

[6:38] easiest and most beneficial way for the

[6:42] applicant would be to run the sewer line

[6:47] down one of the fairways and then into

[6:50] the parking lot near the RV park in the

[6:54] golf course. And so staff feels as if

[6:57] it's appropriate to have that easement.

[7:00] Yes, it's all city property. That

[7:02] doesn't mean it'll always be city

[7:03] property. there might be some reason

[7:04] that uh the golf course gets sold or

[7:07] whatever, but that that's why an

[7:09] easement is important to have that the

[7:10] city can maintain and utilize and take

[7:13] care of that even if for some reason the

[7:15] property wasn't in their ownership in

[7:17] the future. Um, another concern is

[7:20] timing of when those sewer improvements

[7:22] would be installed. Um, as you know,

[7:25] there's people that like to golf and

[7:27] they don't want to have trenches to fall

[7:29] into. And so, um, our golf pros also

[7:34] talked about wanting to reduce that

[7:37] impact by doing any kind of improvements

[7:40] for that line, uh, during off season.

[7:44] And that way, it can also help to, um,

[7:49] revitalize um, grass and things like

[7:52] that um, for a little bit of time before

[7:56] people actually are start starting to

[7:57] golf again on that. Um,

[8:01] another item that the golf pro wanted to

[8:03] us to mention is an understanding to the

[8:06] current property owners and future

[8:08] property owners if this is reszoned and

[8:12] subdivided that that there is a golf

[8:14] course there and there is impacts on

[8:16] residents. Um, namely there's there's

[8:20] golf balls and they might come into your

[8:21] yard. But another thing that the golf

[8:23] pro mentioned is they have loudspeakers

[8:27] and they'll they'll

[8:29] yell out, "It's tea time at 5:30 in the

[8:32] morning."

[8:33] >> And so that's that's something that that

[8:36] needs to be known and understood.

[8:39] Um

[8:40] again coming back with the golf course

[8:42] and the vicinity to this area and

[8:45] wanting to maintain

[8:47] um an attractive look and feel. Um it's

[8:51] being requested that uh a sight

[8:53] obscuring fence that's attractive and

[8:57] blends in with the environment would be

[9:00] a separator between the golf course and

[9:02] any of the homes. Um and then also slope

[9:05] retention. This this image here is an

[9:07] example that the applicant shared as a

[9:10] possible uh fencing product for slope

[9:13] retention. Uh that way it looks natural

[9:15] and not just any kind of concrete

[9:18] retaining wall, but it actually looks

[9:20] like stone natural belongs there. Um,

[9:24] and then finally, I already mentioned it

[9:26] to some degree, but um, in the

[9:29] development agreement, we would request

[9:30] for executive style homes that blend

[9:33] with the environment and are attractive

[9:35] from all sides. Uh, so adding to that,

[9:38] there's a little bit that um, the

[9:41] applicants provided that they want to

[9:43] see in the agreement. Some of it's

[9:44] duplicative, but so I'm going to just

[9:47] show that here. Um it would be all

[9:50] single family homes, detached and

[9:53] customdesigned,

[9:55] high quality architecture, uh balancing

[9:58] the massing and scale of the homes,

[10:01] articulated elevations that are visible

[10:03] on all sides. The minimum home sites

[10:05] excluding garages, porches, and

[10:07] basements would be 3,000 square feet. So

[10:09] these these are large homes. Um

[10:13] I'm not going to read all of those on

[10:15] the record. You can see that they're up there. Um but they would uh

[10:20] blend in with uh the environment as much

[10:22] as possible. Their exterior materials

[10:25] would be a variety of materials that

[10:28] will complement the area.

[10:31] Um garages would be integrated into the

[10:34] home design and not not um

[10:38] not incredibly um visually prominent.

[10:43] Um, driveways. There's things on there

[10:46] to help uh talk about how driveways

[10:49] would be enhanced ex exterior lighting,

[10:52] low-level downcast and dark sky

[10:54] compliant. And then the applicant puts a

[10:57] few things here that they would want to

[10:59] explicitly prohibit. And so you can see

[11:02] those items listed on there.

[11:07] Here are a few sample home products that

[11:10] the applicant provided. These are just

[11:12] stock photos, so it's not like any one

[11:15] of these homes is particularly going to

[11:17] be built, but this is the intent of the

[11:20] style and look of some of the homes that

[11:23] they would want to consider for for this

[11:25] area.

[11:29] So, tonight, um staff would recommend

[11:33] approval of this zone change. Uh, one

[11:36] thing that I do need to mention and and

[11:39] we just found out very recently was in

[11:43] the public hearing notice, there was a

[11:46] small parcel that this zone change

[11:49] affects that wasn't noted on that

[11:51] hearing notice.

[11:52] >> That was one of my notes.

[11:54] >> And so, uh, talking to our city

[11:56] attorney, he recommends that we do this

[12:00] public hearing again.

[12:02] And so we'll do it as soon as possible,

[12:04] which will be April 8th. Um, and we'll

[12:08] send out the courtesy notices and

[12:10] whatnot just so that everybody knows and

[12:12] it's all parcels involved. Uh, but it

[12:15] but it's really going to be duplicative

[12:16] of what is um talked about here tonight.

[12:21] And with that being said, I would just

[12:22] ask if you have any questions before you

[12:25] open a public hearing.

[12:28] >> So you mentioned the one parcel. Why

[12:31] isn't Go back to your

[12:34] map.

[12:38] So, the one partial you mentioned, No,

[12:40] go back to the one that with the concept

[12:42] on it, the the one partial you mentioned

[12:45] is over on that east side over on the

[12:46] right hand side is what you're talking

[12:48] about, right?

[12:49] >> If I can get my cursor up there,

[12:51] >> there's like a little triangular shaped

[12:53] piece right there

[12:54] >> and it's owned by Ryrie. I don't know if

[12:58] it's Ryrie LLC or or what what

[13:00] >> it's owned by some of the same people

[13:01] that own some of these other parcels.

[13:03] >> Ryrie also owns the top northeastern

[13:07] portion. Um so they're aware of it and

[13:09] they're in favor of the zone change. Uh

[13:13] but we just want to make sure that all

[13:15] those eyes.

[13:16] >> Okay. So the other question I had about

[13:18] property on this is why isn't the parcel

[13:21] south of the two small lots to the west

[13:25] of Gladstone, why isn't that parcel

[13:27] included when it's the same ownership?

[13:30] >> This one here.

[13:30] >> Yeah.

[13:32] >> Um we talked about that and um I know

[13:36] that the property owner there actually

[13:38] reached out to us about that. Well,

[13:40] they're they're the owners. It appears

[13:42] to me the same owners as

[13:44] >> they are the owners of some property

[13:47] right here. I think it would be part of

[13:49] these two lots. Um, so yes, they they

[13:53] talked to us about that. Um,

[13:56] >> at the time the applicant didn't put

[14:00] that together in their proposal, so it's

[14:02] not in this request.

[14:05] Um, and the applicant was wanting to

[14:08] move this along as as quickly as

[14:10] possible if if they could. And so, um,

[14:13] that's really the nature of it. I don't

[14:15] know that they wouldn't be

[14:18] uninterested in participating since they

[14:21] do have their other parcel. Um,

[14:25] and perhaps that can be something that

[14:27] could be considered in the future, but

[14:29] we wanted to process the applicant's

[14:30] request as they presented it to us.

[14:33] Couple other land issues I had questions

[14:35] on the I believe it's lot

[14:39] whatever the first one is just northeast

[14:43] of the intersection of Gladstone and and

[14:45] the culac

[14:46] >> one.

[14:46] >> No northeast

[14:48] >> of the intersection. That one up.

[14:50] >> Not that one. That one

[14:52] >> to the left there. That one. Okay.

[14:54] >> What o lot number is that?

[14:56] >> That's too small for me to see. But I

[14:57] think

[14:58] >> I think it's oriented that that one is

[15:00] number one and it goes around. I'm not certain, but

[15:03] >> well, whatever lot number is on that

[15:05] concept on the county mapping,

[15:09] the parking lot for the golf courses in

[15:11] that property.

[15:13] >> Yes, I noticed that. And

[15:16] obviously, um, with a subdivision,

[15:20] you're going to need to identify all of

[15:23] your property boundaries.

[15:25] >> Um, we also have, you can see that

[15:28] little triangle in the top.

[15:29] >> The other one was a triangle piece. What

[15:31] was going to happen with that? It's got

[15:33] greens on it

[15:34] >> or something on it

[15:36] >> there. There's actually a the city golf

[15:38] course sign right there. You can see a

[15:40] little diagonal uh rectangle in that top

[15:43] corner. Um so yes, there's there's

[15:46] question about that. Um I think that's

[15:48] something we would just handle in the

[15:50] subdivision process if the zone change

[15:52] is approved. And then the only other

[15:54] question I had was

[15:56] um the alignment of of Gladstone Drive

[16:00] does not match the rideway.

[16:03] It goes in and out of the rideway.

[16:06] >> Are we going to straighten out the

[16:08] Gladstone Drive

[16:10] >> or are we going to have

[16:11] >> I'm going to leave that to our engineers

[16:13] to to discuss. I don't know. But

[16:16] >> those are the kind of things I look at.

[16:17] Sorry.

[16:18] >> Yeah, that that will be reviewed at at

[16:20] the subdivision level. Some of it has to

[16:23] do with access and entering that new

[16:26] intersection,

[16:27] >> right?

[16:28] >> But I don't know those answers.

[16:29] >> Okay.

[16:32] >> Oh, and then the other question I have

[16:34] um is

[16:37] our ordinance is a little bit vague on

[16:39] in at least in my opinion on

[16:43] units per acre as to what that

[16:45] constitutes. Is it units per acre of

[16:48] buildable land? Is it units per acre of

[16:51] total land? Is it units per acre of, you

[16:53] know, do the roads are the roads

[16:56] excluded? All those kind of things. And

[16:57] so I just so yes, our ordinance is a

[17:01] little bit sketchy on that. Currently, I

[17:05] think the design and the layout provided

[17:07] it works with utilities and with a road

[17:11] and those sort of things. I think we

[17:13] were fine with this potential

[17:15] development. But yes, we are aware of

[17:17] that for density and things moving

[17:20] forward that we're trying to come up

[17:22] with that. Part of that was with that um

[17:26] public hearing we had last meeting with

[17:28] the different plans and the ordinances

[17:31] that we brought to you. So we we're are

[17:33] working on that

[17:34] >> because there's about 14.3 acres

[17:37] of all the land that they have

[17:39] consolidated there, but some of that's

[17:41] taken up with roads, right? So,

[17:46] >> okay.

[17:47] >> Something we still need to work on, I

[17:48] take it.

[17:49] >> So, those are my questions. Anybody else

[17:51] have any questions?

[17:54] >> I just curious utilities is right there

[17:58] where the dotted lines are about middle.

[18:01] >> So, this

[18:03] current in the concept provided for this

[18:06] zone change application. Yes, you can

[18:08] see those dotted lines going north.

[18:11] That's where it's showing the utility

[18:12] easement for the sewer. In the

[18:15] subdivision application that was just

[18:17] submitted to us yesterday, they're

[18:18] proposing it uh between we'll call that one lot on the top left number one

[18:25] and the lot next to it number two. So

[18:27] between lots two and three is where

[18:29] they're proposing it.

[18:30] >> They're changing move it over just one

[18:31] more lot then.

[18:33] >> Well, that's what they're proposing. Now

[18:35] whether or not it works, that's going to

[18:36] be something that public works and

[18:38] engineering would have to determine. So,

[18:40] >> I just got to get try to get an eyeball

[18:41] where it's

[18:43] >> where where it's proposed on here would

[18:44] be a straight shot going just through

[18:47] the middle of of the fairway and then it

[18:50] could actually end up right in the

[18:52] parking lot of the uh

[18:53] >> go through six and nine.

[18:55] >> Yeah, it would just go it' just be a

[18:57] straight shot.

[18:57] >> I'm glad you know what the golf course

[18:59] looks like. So,

[19:01] >> number nine is my one of my favorite.

[19:03] >> It's number nine's your go your hole.

[19:05] >> Okay.

[19:08] that's all I got.

[19:09] >> Okay. Anybody else have any questions

[19:12] before we open it up for a public

[19:13] hearing?

[19:15] Okay. Okay. I need a motion to open a

[19:18] public hearing.

[19:19] >> Make a motion to open a public hearing

[19:21] on this uh proposal from going from

[19:24] Mountain Hillside one to Mount Hillside

[19:26] 2.

[19:28] >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[19:30] >> Second it.

[19:31] >> I have a motion and a second. All in

[19:33] favor with yes.

[19:34] >> Yes.

[19:35] >> Any opposed? Okay. This is an

[19:37] opportunity for the public to come and

[19:39] tell us what your feelings and thoughts

[19:41] are on this. Um, please come to the

[19:43] microphone, state your name, and uh try

[19:46] to keep your comments to uh about 3

[19:48] minutes or so.

[19:52] Yeah. Come on up to the microphone and tell us your name.

[20:03] » Anyway, my first question was that Uh,

[20:06] I'm sorry,

[20:07] >> Breast Williams. I'm sorry,

[20:09] >> Brett Williams.

[20:11] >> Thank you.

[20:11] >> And I live at Gladston Manor, which is

[20:14] the last house on Elkridge, right on the

[20:17] border of Pac. So, I live Kitty corner

[20:19] to this property.

[20:21] >> So, so yeah.

[20:23] >> So, I live up here. So, yeah, that would

[20:25] be north facing. So, I'd be living down.

[20:29] Um, so my first question because I'm

[20:32] just looking at the map provided by the

[20:35] developer. that's up there. Um, that top

[20:38] line right there isn't the golf course.

[20:41] That top line, I think, is another strip

[20:44] of property between the golf course and

[20:47] this proposed development. So, I think

[20:49] there's one more property that needs to

[20:52] be evaluated or looked at in between

[20:54] those two.

[20:55] >> I think you're referring there's

[20:59] properties there and the

[21:04] properties. Um those two property owners

[21:07] are

[21:08] >> part of this

[21:09] >> are aware of this.

[21:10] >> Okay.

[21:11] >> What I understand the intent is to go

[21:13] all the way to the property

[21:16] >> those those two properties were included

[21:18] in the

[21:20] >> Okay.

[21:22] Anyway,

[21:23] um so anyway, I yeah, I live uh

[21:26] Gladston. I hike this hillside every

[21:29] single day, sometimes twice a day with

[21:31] my dogs. Beautiful hillside. Wonderful.

[21:34] Um, but if you haven't physically gone

[21:37] there, you need to go there before you

[21:40] make this vote because the slopes on

[21:42] these hillsides are incredible. From the

[21:47] top of 12, which is this one here, to

[21:50] the bottom of 12, it's probably 90 to

[21:53] 100 feet drop. It's just incredible

[21:57] slope straight down. Those beautiful

[21:59] houses that we saw pictures of, you'd

[22:01] never be able to build them. the slopes

[22:03] are just way too sle steep to put any of

[22:07] that kind of development. A good 80% of

[22:10] the property I think is unbuildable

[22:12] because the slopes are so high. So, um

[22:15] my what I wanted to come up and say and

[22:17] ask is for you guys to go walk it. Go

[22:20] walk it and take, you know, take a look

[22:22] around. Two things will probably happen.

[22:24] First thing is you're going to fall on

[22:25] your butt as you walk down the slope

[22:28] because I often do. It's just so steep.

[22:30] And the second thing that's going to

[22:32] happen is you try to walk back up,

[22:34] you're going to be out of breath because

[22:36] it is a hike. I I don't know if you guys

[22:38] have numbers, but it must be

[22:43] two 300 feet from the bottom to the top.

[22:47] It's It's huge. It is quite a a a change

[22:51] in elevation. So, that's my biggest

[22:54] concern um is just how steep everything

[22:57] is going to be. And even the road that

[22:59] we're proposing here, that's going to

[23:01] drop down and just become a bobsled ride

[23:04] that they're just going to go right

[23:05] into. I'm glad that's a green spot right

[23:07] there because the cars are just going to

[23:09] slide right into that green spot. Um it

[23:12] it's way too steep for any kind of safe

[23:15] road to be built. And so that would be

[23:18] my concern.

[23:19] So, as I look at this, um,

[23:23] my my takeaway is this feels like a high

[23:26] risk project for this city in terms of

[23:29] future lawsuits when the hill starts

[23:32] sliding or, you know, the development

[23:34] doesn't work. Um, and I just don't see

[23:36] much of an upside. This these

[23:39] properties, you're not going to be able

[23:40] to build very big houses on them.

[23:42] They're just too steep. It's just not

[23:44] workable. So I I worry there's high

[23:47] liability with low return in terms of

[23:51] building a 3,000 square foot house on

[23:53] that. Good luck. Good luck. So that

[23:56] would be my concern.

[23:56] >> All right. Thank you for your input.

[23:59] >> Go walk.

[24:03] Just come on up.

[24:05] You can you can fight over who comes up

[24:07] first. So

[24:10] my name is Gary Winterton. I'm uh

[24:13] president of Suburban Land Corporation.

[24:15] First of all, yes, we would love to get

[24:18] that zone change. We just thought we'd

[24:20] focus on this little bit right now.

[24:22] >> I just wondered why why it wasn't

[24:24] included. So,

[24:25] >> but uh because they're working on phase

[24:28] one,

[24:28] >> okay,

[24:29] >> and they've talked with me about phase

[24:30] two. The re there is

[24:34] he's right, it does slope down, but we

[24:37] worked with PACE. We gave so much ground

[24:40] for the golf course so that they could

[24:42] build it and the roads going to the

[24:44] clubhouse. And we worked with patient

[24:46] city to develop a plat which what's your

[24:50] name? Brett the Brent actually bought a

[24:54] piece of ground through meets and bounds

[24:56] of our original plat.

[24:59] And so that was ours and we had I think

[25:01] it was 11 lots that the PAC city council

[25:05] was really interested in doing at the

[25:07] time but they were concerned about the

[25:09] sewer situation and they hated to give

[25:12] us septic tank approval based on because

[25:16] there was a bunch of other people that

[25:17] would love to have developed at that

[25:19] time and so we worked very closely with

[25:23] Pacin City who was the manager at that

[25:24] time in 1988 Mikls

[25:28] >> no I don't remember.

[25:29] >> But anyway, I'd look up and see. I'd

[25:31] have to look at the thing. But he was a

[25:33] city manager and he helped us form this.

[25:36] >> And so, um, the reason the road is not

[25:40] quite on is because Pac was in such a

[25:42] hurry to get that they had to have that

[25:44] ground done quickly so that they could

[25:47] make the the deal.

[25:49] >> Yeah.

[25:49] >> And so they put the road Maybe it

[25:51] doesn't quite match up. But I also

[25:54] believe that there is enough room. you

[25:56] I've seen houses that start out level

[25:58] and then they drop down and he's right

[26:01] it does drop down but I do believe and I

[26:03] think at the time Pacin City also

[26:05] believed that there was um ample room we

[26:10] had like I said we were basically ready

[26:12] to go with 11 lots now this zone change

[26:16] we're grateful for and we want the zone

[26:19] we want to be changed and I think that

[26:21] the development that they're proposing

[26:23] is really the type of development that

[26:26] should be there. It's a It's beautiful

[26:28] ground. The views, like Brett said, are

[26:32] spectacular

[26:33] and that's why we kept it and that's why

[26:35] we're still holding it until we could

[26:37] find the right developer and the right

[26:40] development to put that in.

[26:41] >> Are you one of the applicants? Did I

[26:43] >> I am I I'm not an applicant.

[26:46] >> Okay.

[26:47] >> But what I am I'm a I'm a property owner

[26:50] on that.

[26:50] >> Okay. Okay.

[26:51] >> What happened was my mother has just

[26:53] passed away two months ago and we're

[26:55] dealing with um estate issues right now

[26:58] and trying to figure get make sure that

[27:00] we do that properly.

[27:02] >> Okay.

[27:02] >> And it's a couple months, but I do feel

[27:05] very comfortable that we are going to be

[27:06] able to work something out. I've talked

[27:09] with John and I I I feel comfortable

[27:12] with the things that they're proposing

[27:14] and I look forward to working with them.

[27:17] So, um, I'm in support of this

[27:21] zone change and, um,

[27:25] I appreciate the time. Thanks.

[27:27] >> If you have any questions for me,

[27:29] >> I I was there at the meetings in 1988,

[27:32] so I know I remember. Thank you.

[27:36] >> Thank you. Anyone else?

[27:46] Uh my name is John Wright. I reside in

[27:49] Arizona. Uh I've enjoyed my trips out

[27:52] here to Utah and it would definitely be

[27:55] a place to live. It's beautiful. I first

[27:57] want to compliment the staff that we've

[27:59] been working with for the last eight

[28:00] months. They've been wonderful. I work

[28:02] in California. I work in Arizona and now

[28:05] in Utah. And this is probably the best

[28:07] staff that I've ever sat in front of

[28:10] that were optimistic and they fed me the

[28:13] information I needed to present this uh development. Um I've been doing

[28:19] this for 40 years. I've done it I've

[28:22] even done it in Cabo where you'd swear

[28:25] it was a wall you were building on. And

[28:27] what I found out is engineers earned

[28:29] their money and our and I have an

[28:32] excellent engineer that has designed

[28:33] this road and kept the slope because my

[28:36] first my first question to him is I

[28:38] don't want people sliding down that when

[28:40] it's icy. We got to make sure that we

[28:42] have retaining walls and the things to

[28:44] make sure that that street coming in is

[28:47] going to be very pleasant to drive on.

[28:49] Uh and I think he's come up with a

[28:51] remarkable design. Uh I think staff has

[28:54] liked it. Uh, and we've gone through a

[28:56] few things and changes and red lines,

[28:58] but I think we've got it. Uh, but again,

[29:00] I I leave it to the engineers. Uh, I'm not an engineer, so I hold a lot of

[29:08] uh confidence in the one that I have

[29:10] here with with Guy Williams, uh, who

[29:13] does specialize in hillside lots. Uh,

[29:16] when I first got this property, it had a

[29:20] van on it, a limo, and some things that

[29:22] weren't very attractive. And that's what

[29:24] you get with vacant land if it if it

[29:26] sits around long enough. But so I got

[29:28] rid of that and uh and I got a few

[29:30] compliments for getting rid of it, which

[29:32] uh was no problem. But but the uh

[29:38] when I first stepped on that property, I

[29:40] was overwhelmed

[29:42] how beautiful it was, the view. I was

[29:44] impressed with the golf course. Back in

[29:46] Arizona, we build a golf course first

[29:48] and then we build development around it.

[29:51] In this case, the golf course is there

[29:52] and it's done right. It's beautiful. And

[29:55] this hill sitting there in a perfect

[29:56] spot with these incredible views. Now, I

[29:59] understand Brett's concerned. He's got a

[30:02] house that's going to be up above it. I

[30:04] don't I mean, I would, you know, he's

[30:07] there first, but just because you get

[30:11] there first doesn't mean you get you're

[30:12] the only one that gets it. You know, you

[30:14] got you got to share a little bit. So,

[30:17] but anyway, I have I have a lot of

[30:19] confidence. I put a lot of money in this

[30:20] and I continue to put a lot of money in

[30:22] this because it's a it's a very valuable

[30:25] piece of property with some great uh uh

[30:29] amenities and and it it should just be a

[30:32] fabulous project when we're done. You

[30:34] saw the type of homes that we expect. Uh

[30:36] we we've built some of those homes on

[30:38] more steep hills than that and you just

[30:40] have to design. When I did created the guidelines for the builder, he's got

[30:44] an envelope that he has to stay within

[30:46] and he can't go outside of that

[30:47] envelope. And each lot will when you're

[30:49] done grading it will have an envelope

[30:51] that will be buildable on that that will

[30:54] definitely prove to last for years. But

[30:57] um so I you know I've just got nothing

[31:00] but compliments on on the land on the

[31:02] staff and impressed with Pace in Utah. I

[31:06] just told my my realtor today we were

[31:08] out walking. I said, you know, I could

[31:10] live here very easily. This is this is the same weather I got in

[31:13] Arizona today. So, but anyway, so I've

[31:17] enjoyed coming out here. Uh enjoyed

[31:20] meeting a lot of a lot of good people

[31:22] and uh and I think we got a viable

[31:24] project here and I think this I think

[31:25] it's going to be a real uh a real bonus

[31:29] for the city of PAC to have a

[31:31] development that's going to look like

[31:32] this. This is this is a this is

[31:34] definitely a high-end uh they're not

[31:37] they're they're not cheap. the lots and

[31:39] it's gonna it's and I've already I

[31:40] already have four reservations and

[31:42] that's we put the sign on the property

[31:44] just people going to the golf course.

[31:46] I've got just riddled with phone calls.

[31:48] I've got all kinds of builders

[31:50] approaching me. So, it's it's it's a

[31:52] pretty hot property and uh and I've

[31:55] gotten to know uh Gary well and we work

[31:58] we've been working uh close to make sure

[32:00] that his his main concern was the

[32:02] integrity of the property and what was

[32:04] going to be built on it. That was his

[32:05] first my first meeting with him. That's

[32:07] his first uh discussion with me and and

[32:10] I have the same same desire and so and Riri uh good people Kevin and Kent

[32:16] they were all for this and John Hatfield

[32:19] loves what we're doing. So we have

[32:20] really good support by our adjacent land

[32:22] owners and this uh and just just how I

[32:26] ended up going this direction was I came

[32:29] in with my piece which was nine acres in

[32:31] the middle. Well, that produced 10 homes

[32:33] and it produc produced uh 10 homes like

[32:36] track home and we've been you drive in

[32:38] be all lined up and this and the city I

[32:41] think maybe it was Michael he said how

[32:44] what's the chance of going and getting

[32:45] that other land next door and let's make

[32:48] a really something special. So I and I

[32:50] had not thought of that. So I went I

[32:52] started meeting the guys and we put it

[32:54] together and here we are. And I think

[32:56] it's too bad we couldn't get Mickelson.

[32:58] Uh that's the five acres on the uh

[33:01] >> on that southwest side

[33:02] >> on that south side and I thought it was

[33:04] a better project with him in there. Uh

[33:06] it would have been to do the whole

[33:08] hillside but he's going to come around.

[33:09] I mean I'm talking to him and we we kind

[33:13] of designed it so if he does come along

[33:14] we won't we won't ruin the integrity of

[33:17] what we have designed. So but anyway I I

[33:20] appreciate the time and all your efforts

[33:23] and and I appreciate the staff you have.

[33:25] So thank you.

[33:27] >> Thank you. Anybody

[33:29] else?

[33:39] Um Rob Haddock. I'm the mayor of

[33:41] Elkidge. Um love the golf course. I live

[33:44] on the south or the Yeah. back up to the

[33:47] bottom of it. Um so yeah, it it is

[33:52] beautiful. Um, the one concern I have is

[33:55] I think there are state regulations that

[33:57] say you can only go so far on a dead-end

[34:00] street and only have so many residences

[34:03] with just one in and out. Um, I know you

[34:07] guys are familiar with the fire and

[34:10] trying to evacuate wasn't fun and we've grown since then. Um, so that's one concern I have. I think

[34:16] you're going to need another ingress or

[34:19] egress um rather than uh just glad stand

[34:23] because there's there's probably a dozen

[34:26] homes on that already and so yeah

[34:29] encourage you to look at at those

[34:30] regulations

[34:32] and um yeah I think it'd be great to

[34:36] include a trail plan to get to connect

[34:40] um these people to four bay trails.

[34:44] something we've been trying to figure

[34:45] out for a long time. Um but yeah, during

[34:47] development be a great time to do it.

[34:51] Um other than that, just yeah, sewer and

[34:54] water questions. Um you know, we're be

[34:57] connecting what you what you anticipate

[34:59] and the needs and things. So um yeah,

[35:02] happy to work with you through those

[35:04] things, but those are just couple

[35:06] thoughts I had.

[35:08] >> Okay, thank Um and then the uh trailer

[35:11] park connection would love to get that

[35:14] paved. Um gravel and dust gets tracked

[35:17] onto our roads,

[35:20] you know, nine months out of the year.

[35:21] And we've we've talked it and retalked

[35:23] it, but yeah, would love to work through

[35:26] that also. But thank you for time.

[35:29] >> Thank you.

[35:32] Anybody else?

[35:40] My name is Brett Campbell. I live on the

[35:42] ninth pole. So, I'm the furthest house

[35:44] down.

[35:45] >> Okay.

[35:45] >> And I just wanted to talk about I know

[35:49] some people in my city don't care about

[35:51] the deer, but I do. And there's I've

[35:53] watched them for five years and there's

[35:55] groups of 40 deer that have their babies

[35:58] in there that are in there every day

[36:01] going to water. So, I'm afraid it's

[36:03] going to break them up and probably make

[36:07] more

[36:09] people coming at them or whatever

[36:10] they're doing to kill them to get them

[36:12] out of there. But I think it's their

[36:13] natural environment and I don't think

[36:16] that we should I'm opposed to this.

[36:19] >> Okay. Thank you.

[36:20] >> Can't break up my view and and it is

[36:23] steep. So, that's my take.

[36:26] >> Thank you for your input.

[36:36] Hey, I'm Charles Nun. I live at 2092

[36:38] East Gladstand. So, I'm the house on

[36:40] that ridge closest to the golf course.

[36:43] Um, I

[36:46] I'm a little disappointed. I thought

[36:47] there'd be some fist fights, contention.

[36:50] I really thought I was coming to a be

[36:52] entertaining, but I'm also a little

[36:54] disappointed. It feels like this thing

[36:55] is very fluid and and I've not been to a

[36:58] meeting for something like this before,

[36:59] but I thought we would see like a final

[37:01] presentation to be approved. So, I'm

[37:03] surprised we're coming to

[37:04] >> at this stage where it's just a zone

[37:06] change that concept only.

[37:08] >> All right, then. I won't complain about

[37:10] that. I have a couple concerns. I tried

[37:12] to think about the the benefits of this.

[37:14] Um really, I came up with a little bit

[37:16] of tax revenue for the city. Maybe a

[37:18] little increase in population base.

[37:20] Obviously, if you start with the pros,

[37:22] you're leaning con. So, I'll go to that.

[37:24] Um, I am concerned about the steepness

[37:26] of that lot. When you walk down beside

[37:29] it, uh, it's much steeper than it looks.

[37:31] The plat map, I think it's called a plat

[37:34] map. Anyway, the picture on the

[37:35] advertisement is pretty deceptive. I

[37:37] don't think it's intentional, but it but

[37:39] it looks much flatter than it actually

[37:41] is. Um, and I do think that's going to

[37:43] be an issue. There are pedestrians on

[37:46] that roadway. It's not designed for

[37:48] people to walk on it. You're going to

[37:50] add 14 houses more of people that are

[37:52] trying to walk on that pavement in the

[37:54] evening. Um, you got golfers coming in

[37:57] and out. They're late to tea times and

[37:59] they're lit on the way home. I get to

[38:01] watch the 14th hole from the back from

[38:04] my back porch. We have a lot of fun

[38:06] watching golf courts go off the sides,

[38:08] watching people um, tripping, falling,

[38:10] stumbling, and and I know and I see them

[38:13] when they come out. There is no speed

[38:15] enforcement on that street.

[38:17] you haven't had to deal with that as a

[38:19] city yet because it's just a deadend

[38:21] street. We're the only house that's in the city on that street. Um I

[38:26] don't think anybody's ever raised a

[38:27] ruckus over it, but it is not uncommon

[38:30] to have trucks going through there at

[38:31] 50, 60, 65 miles an hour. It's a fun

[38:34] hill to go up. I understand. But um it is dangerous. So I'm concerned. I got

[38:40] a little pup. He doesn't always do what

[38:41] I tell him. He's going to get run over.

[38:43] We got pedestrians on the side of the

[38:45] road that that it is dangerous for when

[38:47] I'm out walking in. There's a lot of

[38:48] neighbors that come up that hill in the

[38:50] evening. Um I don't know if you're going

[38:52] to try and add something to the side of

[38:54] the road to make it safe. But as soon as

[38:56] you add 14 more houses to that and

[38:59] you've got 14 more families coming in

[39:01] and out and it is a beautiful area,

[39:03] you're going to have families bringing

[39:04] friends and other people up to it. It's

[39:07] definitely going to increase the traffic

[39:08] on a road that I don't think's designed

[39:09] for it. It's not plowed in the winter.

[39:13] Um, if the Elkridge snowplow driver is

[39:16] in a good mood and happens to come down

[39:18] the hill, we get that benefit.

[39:20] Otherwise, we had to snowb blow that

[39:21] road twice this winter. Um, so you're

[39:24] going to have to take on snow removal

[39:26] all the way down during the winter, I

[39:27] would assume. Um, and and I think

[39:31] there's some expenses that that haven't

[39:33] been thought about. My my biggest

[39:35] concern that I have personally is is the

[39:38] traffic on the road, the speeding, the

[39:40] DUIs that right now don't get dealt

[39:43] with. Um, and it's fine. We're the only

[39:45] house. I mean, the Elkridge people deal

[39:47] with it, right? As as people are coming

[39:49] out, but we're the only house that you

[39:51] guys would have to deal with. If you add

[39:53] another subdivision in there, it what

[39:57] you're doing is inviting more people to

[39:59] get hurt, I think, on that road. And so

[40:01] at least take that into mind as you

[40:02] consider this with the zoning. Um that

[40:05] may not be your issue, but I would hope

[40:07] you would consider that seriously. So I

[40:10] think that's all I have. Thanks. Thanks

[40:12] for listening.

[40:12] >> Thank you.

[40:12] >> Yeah.

[40:17] » Anybody else?

[40:31] Uh Marlon Wilcox. I live in Elkridge,

[40:34] but I own property in PAC.

[40:37] I've done development in Elkridge some

[40:39] 20 years ago. Um

[40:42] everything I hear from the people that

[40:44] are opposed, we heard it then. I walk my

[40:46] dog on the property.

[40:49] Um you know, and it it just

[40:54] kind of amazes me because I do own

[40:57] property in both cities. I would never

[40:59] presume to come up and say, "I have my

[41:02] property,

[41:04] but I don't want anybody else to be able

[41:06] to use their property in a way that's

[41:09] beneficial to them." And so when I hear

[41:12] that,

[41:14] it's it I feel like that should not be

[41:19] something that is used to determine

[41:23] yes or no in in regards to development.

[41:27] um

[41:28] if the development doesn't work, but if

[41:31] you're able to engineer it in a way that

[41:33] the engineers and uh the state and based on ordinances

[41:39] and your ordinances and your um and

[41:43] state, you know, laws, then that's what

[41:48] a development should be based on. And if

[41:53] the zoning doesn't conform to what's

[41:55] already there in existing homes around

[41:58] it, that's also

[42:01] this I I understand this is a zoning

[42:03] change. And I think that's a a big um

[42:06] issue is that if you've got a small

[42:10] portions of land that are right next to

[42:13] existing lots that are in a zone and the the homes and the property and

[42:21] the landscape is similar. You should not

[42:24] be having a separate zone in areas that

[42:28] are existing homes that have allowed

[42:31] others to benefit from their property.

[42:34] And that's just my thoughts. Thank you.

[42:37] >> Thank you for your comments.

[42:40] Anybody else?

[42:46] No other comments from the public. I

[42:48] need a motion to close the public

[42:49] hearing. Make a motion to close the

[42:51] public hearing on the proposal from MH1

[42:54] to MH2.

[42:56] >> I need a second.

[42:57] >> Second.

[42:59] >> I have a motion and a second. All in

[43:01] favor by Yes.

[43:03] >> Yes.

[43:04] Any opposed?

[43:05] >> Okay. discussion commissioners.

[43:10] » I'm just clarifying then that based on

[43:12] what staff

[43:14] uh presented that based on the piece of

[43:17] the parcel that was not indicated in the

[43:20] announcement or it was sent out to the

[43:23] public that we would need to hold and table this until the meeting on the

[43:28] 8th before making

[43:30] >> what you were saying Michael is that we

[43:31] need to table it or do we act on this

[43:34] and then do it again. So, our legal

[43:36] counsel has said since that that parcel

[43:39] was excluded from the notice that he

[43:42] would recommend we have a second public

[43:44] hearing just to be perfectly transparent

[43:47] that

[43:48] >> all parcels involved. Um, that doesn't

[43:51] change staff's recommendation, but it it

[43:54] may be advisable to

[43:56] >> remember commissioners, this is a

[43:57] concept. So, if that's not included in

[44:00] the original, it doesn't change really

[44:02] the concept.

[44:03] >> Yeah. I just I was reading lower on in

[44:06] there just as far as what because that

[44:08] was omitted that we wouldn't we wouldn't

[44:13] in order to be fair in order to have it

[44:16] properly have a proper public hearing

[44:18] that we would have to redo this on the

[44:22] 8th.

[44:26] Is that correct, Michael?

[44:28] >> Well, legal counsel has said that we

[44:31] should have another public hearing that

[44:33] notifies about every possible

[44:35] >> and I I respect legal

[44:37] >> the age is the recommended date but it

[44:39] would so

[44:40] >> okay I just want that clarification then

[44:43] thank you it's the only question I had

[44:46] >> so my only thought would be is is there

[44:48] a way in the development agreement to

[44:50] protect a rideway so that at some point

[44:52] when that five acres there on the south

[44:53] side gets included they could bring a

[44:55] road back out to where it wasn't just to

[44:57] a a culde-sac but

[45:00] >> well this this five acres that he's

[45:02] talking about this right here. It's it

[45:04] fronts Gladstone,

[45:05] >> right? And so once that gets somehow

[45:07] developed, whether it's 10 years down

[45:08] the road or whatever, we could bring a

[45:09] road

[45:11] >> out and make a loop instead of a

[45:13] >> culde-sac. But that would be my only

[45:15] thought is to protect a rideway through

[45:16] there that

[45:18] >> says, "Hey, at future development, then

[45:20] this would get tied in." So that

[45:22] >> I think I mean that's obviously depends

[45:24] on how lot layout and things would work,

[45:27] slopes. Um but the applicant did share

[45:30] with us a concept that actually looped

[45:33] that as a road when they were

[45:34] considering trying to acquire the

[45:37] Mickelson property. So, I think

[45:39] conceptually that may work. Now, whether

[45:41] or not it can work to actually

[45:46] be put into an agreement and and then

[45:48] done, I don't I don't know, but that could definitely be something that

[45:51] could be considered.

[45:53] >> That's really my one kind of thought is

[45:55] that we we keep that open so that at

[45:57] some point that can be tied in. I'm not

[45:59] a huge fan of culde-sacs, but I also

[46:01] realize there's constraints.

[46:03] >> What's our standard on culde-sac length?

[46:05] Just out of curiosity.

[46:06] >> It's 10 units, I think, per Well,

[46:08] >> culde-sac, isn't it?

[46:09] >> Well, it's a distance and 10 units.

[46:11] >> Yeah.

[46:13] >> Is it?

[46:15] >> I'm going to defer that to the fire

[46:16] department that's not here.

[46:18] >> But I believe

[46:20] >> I want to say it's 500 ft.

[46:22] >> Yeah. I was thinking 450 500 feetish was

[46:26] our was our

[46:31] uh was our uh code.

[46:34] >> So our our code is yeah it's it's going

[46:36] to be base it bases it on the dead end

[46:40] of of that street. So it would be it

[46:43] would base it from

[46:45] >> uh Gladston to the end of this

[46:47] development. That's that's how fire code

[46:49] is written. So

[46:52] >> Commissioner Adams any comments?

[46:56] Commissioner Brinkov?

[46:58] No.

[46:59] >> Are we ready to make a motion?

[47:02] Remember, this is a recommend

[47:04] recommendation to city council.

[47:10] So, I would make a motion that we make a

[47:12] favorable recommendation to city council

[47:14] for the zone change pending a additional

[47:18] public hearing at a future date as well

[47:21] as that there would be a development

[47:22] agreement in place. And as part of that

[47:24] development agreement, we do address

[47:26] possible access later from at the

[47:28] culde-sac as additional development

[47:29] occurs.

[47:30] >> I'll second that.

[47:31] >> I have a motion in a second. Um, let's

[47:34] do

[47:37] » Yes.

[47:39] you may.

[47:42] » But just with one

[47:45] change tonight and then making a

[47:47] recommendation at the next. No,

[47:48] >> we're making a recommendation for the

[47:50] zone change tonight and then

[47:52] >> after another public hearing on the at

[47:54] the future date

[47:56] >> or do we want to recommend tableabling

[47:58] it?

[47:59] >> I I would recommend that you table it

[48:02] >> and just

[48:03] >> and have the second public hearing.

[48:05] >> Okay.

[48:06] >> And then make your recommendation to the

[48:07] city council after it was properly

[48:10] noticed and everyone's had an

[48:12] opportunity to respond to the request,

[48:15] including the additional parcel. Okay.

[48:18] So, and then the only other thing I was

[48:20] going to mention too is there was a lot

[48:22] of conversation tonight about

[48:24] subdivision related improvements.

[48:27] >> Um, which is common,

[48:29] >> right?

[48:29] >> That happens all the time with zone

[48:31] change. It does.

[48:32] >> Just want to provide clarification that

[48:35] yes, there is a concept layout with the

[48:39] >> That's all it is.

[48:40] >> Um, the subdivision has been approved.

[48:43] Staff has is doing a review now.

[48:46] subdivision will be done at a staff

[48:48] level. So if there are any development

[48:50] related concerns

[48:52] um you would need to address those um at

[48:55] the zone change level. Um otherwise I

[48:59] mean it's a separation of a legislative

[49:01] decision and an administrative decision.

[49:04] Right.

[49:04] >> So just wanted to clarify that. Um I

[49:07] think there's a lot of great um comments

[49:09] that were made from the public and from

[49:11] the applicant tonight. Um all those

[49:13] things will be discussed with the

[49:15] subdivision or be uh reviewed with the

[49:18] subdivision. Uh but one that was

[49:20] mentioned a couple of things that were

[49:22] mentioned that could change

[49:24] um not necessarily the zone but could

[49:26] change the number of units. Um there was

[49:28] slope um slope analysis which I believe

[49:32] that the applicant has done a lot of

[49:33] review into the slope but whether or not

[49:35] that's included as part of the

[49:37] subdivision application I'm not sure. Um

[49:40] the gross versus net um just

[49:42] clarification on the zone um it is based

[49:46] on gross density in the MH1 zone and

[49:49] that was by design. Okay.

[49:51] >> Um recommending noticing that there's a

[49:54] lot of slope that is in um or on the

[49:57] hillsides. We want um development to

[50:00] occur on the most appropriate portions

[50:03] of the property.

[50:05] And so rather than say we just want

[50:08] somebody to come in and do mass grading

[50:10] on a piece of property and completely

[50:12] change the dynamics of the property like

[50:13] everyone's mentioned tonight, we want to

[50:15] protect the slopes, the vegetation, we

[50:18] want to keep as much of that hillside um

[50:22] environment there,

[50:23] >> right?

[50:24] >> So to avoid mass grading um and somebody

[50:28] completely changing, we do gross

[50:30] density. It's gross density one unit per

[50:32] acre density. So, if you have 14 acres

[50:35] like the applicant, right,

[50:36] >> you can have 14 lots. Doesn't mean that

[50:38] you have to have one acre lots. It just

[50:40] means we're going to put 14 homes in the

[50:43] most appropriate location on the

[50:45] property.

[50:46] >> Okay?

[50:46] >> Which the applicant has been working

[50:48] towards. So, just anyway, where we're

[50:50] talking about zone change, we have the

[50:52] public here, we have other communities

[50:53] here. I just wanted to um mention that is very important to Pacin City is

[50:58] making sure that we place the homes. Um,

[51:00] I did appreciate the applicant's um

[51:03] response to um that building envelopes.

[51:07] That's one thing that we will look at

[51:09] with subdivision is you've got these

[51:11] lots, but we're going to have a building

[51:13] envelope of where the home can actually

[51:15] be built on that lot. Anyway, so just

[51:18] couple of things on that, but it did

[51:19] want to make sure that the planning

[51:20] commission knew that when you're making

[51:22] that recommendation to the city council,

[51:24] um the the subdivision, the review of

[51:27] the subdivision and the implementation

[51:29] of those subdivision requirements would

[51:30] be done at a staff level.

[51:33] >> Thank you.

[51:35] >> Ryan, would you like to

[51:36] >> Yes, I will.

[51:38] >> So Jill Jill misspoke. The city has

[51:41] >> additional moment.

[51:41] >> The city has accepted the subdivision

[51:44] application. It has it has not been

[51:46] approved. Sorry. Yes, I did misspeak

[51:49] there. Yes. Sorry. So, thank you for

[51:50] that clarification. Yes, we've accepted

[51:52] >> the application

[51:54] >> and it's under review, but

[51:57] >> subdivision

[51:59] changes before the subdivision.

[52:02] >> We typically like them to be run

[52:04] concurrently.

[52:05] Um the subdivision is just lagging a

[52:08] little bit behind the zone change

[52:10] because I I think if they were being run

[52:11] concurrently, I think it would address a

[52:13] lot of the questions that were actually

[52:14] raised tonight. Um you know, we would

[52:17] have more response to the neighbors in

[52:20] the area of how those things would be

[52:22] addressed. So anyway, yes, thank you,

[52:24] Michael, for correcting me on that.

[52:25] >> I believe Ryan would like to withdraw

[52:27] his motion.

[52:28] >> Make a new motion then.

[52:29] >> So So formally withdraw your motion.

[52:32] >> Yes, withdraw the previous motion.

[52:35] So

[52:35] >> happy, you're good with that? Did you

[52:37] withdraw?

[52:37] >> Okay, good.

[52:39] >> So then we'd like to make a motion that

[52:40] we table this item until we can have an

[52:42] additional public hearing to address or

[52:44] make sure that the proper notices are

[52:46] all in place.

[52:47] >> Okay,

[52:48] >> I'll second that then.

[52:49] >> I have a motion in a second. I'll Let's

[52:51] uh go roll call. Commissioner Frisbee,

[52:53] >> yes.

[52:54] >> Commissioner Beecher, yes. Commissioner

[52:57] Adams,

[52:57] >> yes.

[52:58] >> Commissioner Brinkerhoff,

[52:59] >> yes.

[53:00] >> And Commissioner Hey,

[53:01] >> yes. Okay. So, we'll table this till

[53:04] probably April 8th. It sounds like

[53:06] >> that's what we're planning for.

[53:07] >> Okay. And then we'll discuss it again

[53:10] and you're all welcome again. We'd love

[53:12] to have you here. So,

[53:15] and you can bring up the same points.

[53:20] Not necessarily.

[53:22] So,

[53:25] um,

[53:27] all right, let's go to, uh, staff

[53:31] reports. Anything from staff

[53:34] before that you're here?

[53:37] There are some changes after the

[53:39] legislaturator's happened that we would

[53:40] be lovely, lovely time to share with you

[53:43] those. We will bring that to you

[53:45] sometime in the near future. So, stay

[53:48] tuned.

[53:48] >> Some of them are just quite

[53:49] entertaining, too. uh some of them uh

[53:51] have to do specifically with planning

[53:53] commission and composition and and uh

[53:56] appointment and all that sort of stuff.

[53:58] So, we will make sure to bring that to

[53:59] you in the future. Um my guess is

[54:02] probably in May after they they do a

[54:04] legislative review um for all of the

[54:08] cities and towns and so we'll we'll

[54:10] bring that to you then.

[54:11] >> That's all I have at this time.

[54:14] >> Any other staff?

[54:17] Commissioners, do you have anything

[54:19] you'd like to bring up?

[54:24] Okay.

[54:26] Um, did you have something?

[54:28] >> Nope.

[54:29] >> All right. I need uh one more last

[54:31] motion.

[54:33] >> Move we adjourn.

[54:35] >> Second.

[54:35] >> I have a motion and a second. All in

[54:37] favor with Yes. Yes.

[54:40] >> Thank you all for coming. We appreciate

[54:42] it.

[54:44] >> It's really good to have somebody here.

3 25 2026 PC Video

Transcript