[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.