[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] All
[0:10] right,
[0:15] I will call the special meeting in the Board of County Commissioners to order. It's November 18, 2024, at 9 a.m.
[0:24] Second.
[0:27] Second over here.
[0:31] I just pointed a point out on the agenda that we have added items from
[0:41] our meeting on Wednesday last week.
[0:45] the CAC Foundation Grand Agreement,
[0:49] and the reading, I know how local groups agree that the, and then we also
[0:57] had an executive session. Those were all things we did on Wednesday last week, the agenda,
[1:08] on the
[1:08] format only the PDFs was not and was essentially blank so we're just going to redo
[1:16] those things.
[1:19] The other thing is the publishing, when we continue this, we continue
[1:25] both hearings till 9 a.m. and one of them says 9.20. It looks like a title change.
[1:33] And I, you know,
[1:42] probably a men that to say 9 a.m.
[1:47] Can we do that?
[1:50] Yes.
[1:51] We can move that, but can we move it forward?
[1:55] Well, it's just, okay, I think that's probably fine.
[1:58] We just want to talk about it till 9.20.
[1:59] When we continued it, we said 9 a.m. for both.
[2:03] And there are two, these two items are tied together.
[2:07] The victory of impact update goes with the AOS engine.
[2:12] So, I guess we'll just start with the
[2:20] area of impact update, so that's the actual code presented by the speaker.
[2:26] Before we talk about the sounds.
[2:28] I think it would be prudent.
[2:32] We'll read the agenda.
[2:34] There's been a motion in a second on paper.
[2:41] Let's do the CHC.
[2:45] Where do you want to just wait till the end?
[2:48] Does it matter?
[2:49] Do you want to just wait till the end?
[2:53] Let's do it later.
[2:55] Okay.
[2:56] This is a continued public hearing on the Victor area of impact land development code update.
[3:07] And we talked about doing this as a work session, so I'd prefer to see that a table there are city of Victor folks.
[3:23] So it's good to be.
[8:46] The paragraph says the areas impact from Victor constitute unique zoning districts.
[8:53] Although located within the jurisdiction of Teton County, the unique zoning, subdivision and land use,
[9:00] regulations, where these districts must be negotiated with the cities in accordance with
[9:06] adequate codes.
[9:11] Which document are you in?
[9:15] I'm in that, is that the land development code?
[9:18] I'm in the prepared webline document.
[9:26] I'm sorry, I think in this section one one be.
[9:31] Okay.
[9:31] It may be that the page of your PDF versus the page of the document.
[9:34] Okay.
[9:35] That's kind of things.
[9:36] So where are we?
[9:37] The second paragraph under be.
[9:40] It's all in red line. It was all added by the city, John B. S. The Code. The state code is changed, but it doesn't.
[9:47] The circuit paragraph under B under what?
[9:51] Chapter one administration, one dash one legal provision,
[10:06] purpose and intent, and paragraph two, talks about negotiation,
[10:14] is no longer
[10:19] suggest to be changing to this, so that we're not reworking at all.
[10:25] I mean, we probably should put in the actual new statute that governs aeronautics
[10:40] state law
[10:41] tells us to do it now.
[10:43] So
[10:47] districts should be negotiated with the cities, maybe a way to fix it.
[11:00] Second paragraph, establishment of the boundaries and areas of impact in unincorporated
[11:10] It requires negotiation of an area impact agreement with UC
[11:21] and adoption of separate ordinances
[11:24] to determine both the boundaries and the specific
[11:33] thing in the comments on that, Jade.
[11:38] Thank you, Chair.
[11:40] I'm, I'm, so you're under seven, three, one, one, be, purpose and intent.
[11:45] Yeah.
[11:46] I see what you're talking about.
[11:49] I think that just needs to be eliminated.
[11:58] It's a whole thing confusing, because
[12:09] members can turn
[12:15] in terms of the final decisions that are made.
[12:20] And we're not, we're not negotiating, we're looking at the city for recommendations,
[12:26] and we have to determine if that's what makes sense for the county,
[12:34] And in terms of the zone, you must look at the
[12:43] other comments on that.
[12:55] Under public ability, number one,
[13:04] I crossed off the second sentence.
[13:16] In this necessary, the sentence is when land is added within the jurisdiction of the county.
[13:23] Through the deannexation or sale of public lands, the county will follow all of these procedures to apply to any designation.
[13:31] But the victim, the victim error of impact coach, is not telling the county what to do once it becomes county jurisdiction.
[13:46] Well, I guess the scenario that the city of victory was maybe trying to get out of here is that it's someone within city limits applies to DNX.
[13:56] Does that the intent can?
[13:58] Yeah, I need to, I'm sure, through State statute and the county's regular code standards.
[14:05] This would be implied and the regular proceedings would be followed.
[14:08] So I don't know if it needs to be explicitly outlined.
[14:11] I see that sentence is informational and nature.
[14:15] It says well instead of shelves, so they're not telling us what to do.
[14:18] There are just nothing people know what's going to happen.
[14:21] I think it should remain.
[14:23] It's referring back to the fact that the county has the jurisdiction.
[14:28] There are
[14:45] comments on the page, this one below here.
[14:55] Okay.
[14:55] On this next page.
[14:58] Under.
[15:13] It's actually not under zone districts. It's under applicability, number six, references to other loans,
[15:29] whenever provision of the LDC refers to any other part of the T-time County code, or city of Victor Code, or to any other law, the reference applies to any subsequent amendments of that law.
[15:45] Is there anywhere in here now, there used to be, but is there anywhere in here now, that refers to city of Victor Cohen?
[16:01] Because why would it, to return this whole separate code for the area in a kind?
[16:07] Why would we regret this city or even county code?
[16:11] This is how it moved this forward.
[16:25] And then, under E, effective date, it provides this chapter of the land development code,
[16:34] effective on blind by two-time counting ordinance number, and I would cross off and city
[16:41] evict your ordinance.
[16:51] Maybe it was as straight through, but yeah, hopefully we have the same margin.
[16:59] Ladies and gentlemen,
[17:18] next page, 1-2-3 official zoning amount.
[17:28] Jay, I think this is how our code reads, but number three says we have copies of
[17:34] the Zoning District boundaries on the website,
[17:41] but the originals are kept in the office.
[17:48] Really, is that?
[17:51] Did that check our code really quick? That seems slightly unnecessary.
[17:56] very, you know,
[18:03] in sperm with R-Co.
[18:14] R-Co does state that the official
[18:16] flooding map originals are kept on file with the planning department,
[18:21] which is indicates effective date in most recent amendments
[18:24] to those district boundaries.
[18:32] I think the way this reads is fine,
[18:34] it matches the way that R-Co leads as well.
[18:59] Is that how we do it?
[19:01] Yeah, we would keep the original on file that way and keep the word dispute about the zoning of a property.
[19:11] We have an original copy and we keep all the amendments on file as well.
[19:16] That discrepancy would only be between the original and the updated GIS or something like that.
[19:24] Keep that aligned.
[19:43] On a 1-3, A1 and A3, it refers to areas of city impact of the city of Victor, or is there more than one area of city impact?
[19:59] For other cities?
[20:00] Right, but it is areas of city impact of the city of Victor.
[20:06] to be the area of city impact of the city of Victor Shuttertown in A1 and A3 and why the
[20:15] prepositional phrase is why not just zoning districts of the city of Victor,
[20:25] that's fine.
[20:31] This is the implication is there's more than one area of impact for the city of the area.
[21:03] I
[21:09] just want to be clear that these are the county's overlay maps, and I'm not sure that's totally clear from this paragraph.
[21:25] Yeah, maybe we could just press this section in A of this.
[21:29] The following T-time county overlay maps shall be used in conjunction with the regulations.
[21:48] Any other comments there?
[21:51] No.
[21:59] Okay, this is next page, we are under
[22:08] general authority provisions 1, 6,
[22:15] B, planning,
[22:17] review and approval authority.
[22:27] Number two is joint planning and zoning commission.
[22:33] The joint planning and zoning commission convenes, this is just a type of case.
[22:39] Two here, applications within the city of Victor,
[22:43] and ties
[22:47] and consists of two members of the county planning and zoning commission and three members of the Victor planning and zoning question.
[23:00] Is that how it should be for county jurisdiction?
[23:06] I follow the same structure of the joint meetings for the state of Drix.
[23:11] So, will we agree to in the city of Drix?
[23:16] It doesn't make sense if it's county jurisdiction to be healing that authority to the
[23:28] city.
[23:31] What is the burden to having some other input from the actual stateholder in the region?
[23:36] No, no, the version.
[23:37] No, version.
[23:38] It's just we've given the city the majority in county jurisdiction.
[23:43] There's not even access to these in here.
[23:45] It's what it says in here.
[23:47] I can't even tell you that's what it says in a great example.
[23:49] to take it a word for. I thought we were proposing, I can't remember the math, but I thought it was effectively, like, say, two, two county, one city.
[23:57] It's two county, three city. So it's also the five member board. In most cases, B&D is a recommending body.
[24:05] I think there's only experiences in maybe traditional uses right now.
[24:12] that we have for PNC would be decision makers on and we could have met that.
[24:17] So in those cases, they're recommending body and BOCC makes the final vote.
[24:21] I think those numbers should be flipped.
[24:25] Okay, with the three in the two, it just should be flipped the other way.
[24:30] Three counting into city.
[24:32] Yes, further context.
[24:35] This is what the city of Drake's has been doing since 2007.
[24:40] that's where those are hurt will. And we did approve these same numbers for the
[24:46] city of drinks and they're updated A.O.I. so it's fine if we switch
[24:50] numbers but just know it would be a different configuration than what the
[24:56] city of drinks is done and I know we're trying to streamline things a little bit
[25:01] or the counties planning department.
[25:06] I think it's fine if we switch those numbers
[25:09] But I did just want to point out the difference.
[25:12] I think that we should switch the numbers.
[25:17] I think we should also switch the numbers for drapes,
[25:19] but we can address that later date.
[25:23] I agree.
[25:24] The show was an oversight.
[25:25] We may need to make it again.
[25:27] A joint ANZ is a good idea.
[25:29] Yes, we've been doing it with drapes.
[25:33] Not opposed to the idea, but it is counting jurisdiction.
[25:36] And we could just have it go in county, PNZ,
[25:41] that would be the other options.
[25:43] I'd like this, I think, important here.
[25:48] And this counter jurisdiction,
[25:50] Tricks was operating under a whole different arrangement
[25:53] in the past.
[25:54] They were using theirs on the anyway.
[25:57] So, right.
[25:58] We need to switch that to the consistent degree there.
[26:15] This is in under B,
[26:17] during cleaning and zoning commissioners,
[26:18] of powers and duties identified in the planning nights.
[26:23] I think we should put blue breath.
[26:27] I don't know if this would be the first time we would show up,
[26:30] but local land use planning nights,
[26:39] it's a big amount.
[26:40] We're planning that every first one.
[26:43] And there's a couple of questions
[26:54] under three,
[26:55] the planning planning administrator,
[26:58] A, the county planning administrator,
[27:00] there, all there does mean has the powers and duties, so this has to just insert the
[27:07] empty landing pressure under a little A,
[27:25] leaving us,
[27:36] to do you have anything else there?
[27:39] I'm basically skipping to zone districts for my next moment, chapter two.
[27:49] Just to check the box, do you have to open a second public hearing because it was noticed
[27:53] that way?
[27:56] The 920, the 920, I should talk to her about zoning discrecies.
[28:06] Sure, I mean, we're in deliberation on both public hearings.
[28:11] Sure, but thank you.
[28:12] I'm just building the suspenders.
[28:13] Uh-huh.
[28:16] How would you think that would be?
[28:19] Because my pants don't want to fall down.
[28:24] So we are deliberating to the language,
[28:33] right?
[28:38] These continued public hearings for the Victor area of impact update in the Victor area of impact zone change
[28:50] and currently just looking at the the proposed code for the area of impact we will get to the zone
[29:00] zones for the zones for the area of impact.
[29:09] This hearing was continued just some October
[29:18] 28.
[29:29] We did hear public comment.
[29:32] Let's see what you see, Victor, participants here today, also in the comment.
[29:45] Chair, maybe for clarification.
[29:48] You know, after this word session, we would re-node this everything before adoption was my understanding.
[30:03] That
[30:06] was my understanding. Just given that the materials are materially changing. I don't
[30:47] think it needs to be
[30:53] digital district.
[31:04] The second under A,
[31:08] I'll take the second to last
[31:09] panel, says owners, residents, and other users of property, adjoining
[31:15] agriculture, agriculture, zone, land, should expect inconvenience, discomfort
[31:23] and the possibility of injury to property and health arising from normal
[31:29] and accepted agricultural practices and operations.
[31:36] There's allowed in our district,
[31:39] such as keeping the livestock production.
[31:53] I am not like super comfortable with that language.
[31:59] That language comes straight from the right department act.
[32:04] But we can reference the law rather than having the language in there.
[32:07] That's what you prefer.
[32:09] Absolutely.
[32:09] I mean, it's not our
[32:14] county law.
[32:16] If we remember if it's state law.
[32:26] What do you want to say right to farm act applies on your snow period?
[32:30] I mean, I don't know, why do we need to say it?
[32:32] If it just exists, kind of like saying, you know, stealing your neighbor's cows is not allowed.
[32:39] You know,
[32:42] we need to be in there.
[32:45] To call it out.
[32:47] Typically, in some of the language we've used, we've not only said right to farm, but we've a band of life.
[32:54] What that means, I don't think it's
[33:00] the way it is.
[33:01] No, not the way it is.
[33:02] You don't need to paraphrase the ad, you just refer the ad.
[33:06] Yeah, okay.
[33:15] And then the last sentence, the references to the R are district.
[33:26] You must have an older version, we did a work session earlier that we did update the names
[33:34] of the districts to the zone one and zone two of the counties coming to the district.
[33:39] So,
[33:42] what is your 2.2 I can call this?
[33:46] So, there's the 2.5-acre area of impacts on one,
[33:51] ALI-20 area of impacts on two,
[33:54] and then what the new one that we're proposing is ALI-10-3.
[34:06] What version do you do?
[34:08] I'm looking at the red line.
[34:11] I'm looking at the concerned red line.
[34:13] What does it say for at 2.2?
[34:17] From the beginning?
[34:19] Just that text that I'm heading.
[34:21] This is AOI-2.5, area of impact zone 1.
[34:42] This now.
[34:44] Even though we were moving on, you would reference that as so.
[34:49] Crackers are saying, okay.
[34:56] Underbee, dimensional standards, number 5.
[35:00] The city of Victor shall be exempt from minimal loss.
[35:04] We already removed those per year request in the last work session.
[35:18] So five is till we out.
[35:23] The city is not exempt from falling in those.
[35:25] Yeah, I'll see that.
[35:43] Okay, so you guys are in five.
[35:46] On what?
[35:48] I mean, it's seven.
[35:50] Sorry.
[35:52] Under our agenda items.
[35:54] I'm
[36:00] going to attach my number 7 to a weird line.
[36:04] Okay.
[36:17] We're friends, students that haven't already been remembered.
[36:27] This is the latest and greatest grid.
[36:29] Yes.
[36:29] Do not ask me that question.
[36:32] There's a, I'm not really far.
[36:33] I'm not a map guy, frankly.
[36:35] Such a.
[36:37] So what I'm just saying is right.
[36:39] Attachment.
[36:43] There isn't a way.
[36:45] Attachment 5 is without the red lights.
[36:53] Including you all.
[36:54] This is the 12th time.
[36:56] We've got it.
[37:08] That's a question.
[37:12] Three, so we eliminated AOI 20 and taken it all the 10.
[37:18] There's 2.5, 20, and 10.
[37:22] 10 is the zone three that the cities are proposing that would be a bit more of an average density
[37:29] with requires some kind of medication to help in space or application of agriculture.
[37:36] But I just wanted to confirm that the 20 and the 2.5 did not have the average density associated with them.
[37:49] The 10s have really confusing one.
[37:51] I think we're going to end up spending more time on that.
[37:53] I don't particularly think it's a good idea to come up with a whole new zoning designation for a few parcels in the city.
[38:02] Victor and I talked about, we'll get to that.
[38:05] You can discuss
[38:37] a few point three,
[38:41] 10.
[38:50] Did we want to say in that first,
[38:54] for the second sentence,
[38:57] residences are allowed on large agricultural
[39:01] persons within the county,
[39:03] or do we want to reference a line at the act?
[39:08] Did you meant to say county?
[39:21] The first sentence.
[39:31] Either way, that shouldn't change the meaning
[39:32] of a girer graph.
[39:35] You just have consistency.
[39:36] because the first is finding the way.
[39:40] The intent of the A.O.I. 20,
[40:17] the A.O.I. 10.
[40:21] Is there any other comments on the 2.5 or the 20th?
[40:30] No.
[40:35] This is the A.O.I. 10.
[40:39] This 2.4 area, an impact.
[40:48] Victor,
[40:55] is it supposed to say Victor Natural Resources
[40:58] a residential cluster?
[40:59] Nope.
[41:00] It is just a very, very appropriate.
[41:02] When
[41:15] we,
[41:18] this was in many of the earlier versions of the ALI proposal,
[41:29] so I just want to make sure that the county, this planning department and
[41:41] the commissioners here are comfortable with this
[41:47] additional zone in the Victor area, then that requires
[41:55] is space to be managed by the county. There's three different ownership options. It can be owned and by a single ownership.
[42:06] Ownership is, I'm just talking about management.
[42:11] Ownership management to open space.
[42:19] Owned by a single owner by a land trust.
[42:25] And then the configuration of the open space, open space priorities, and uses, I can all
[42:32] have these, they can all be put or finished, they can all be managed by those same
[42:37] ownership groups.
[42:39] It doesn't specifically say that anything would be under specific ownership or management
[42:44] of the BLCC or the county.
[42:46] It does talk about in regards to the configuration and the uses that there's some authority in regards to subdivisions.
[43:01] I think that I am confused by the term ownership. When someone does a subdivision, the ownership doesn't change.
[43:15] That would be correct. The ownership of the open space can be a single landowner including
[43:22] HLA or if they choose to dedicate to the sea of County or any other land trust in regards to
[43:29] the long-term ownership and maintenance on the property.
[43:44] So let's look at the specific language.
[43:50] That is under,
[43:55] really, mine makes it a little bit more confusing.
[43:59] So
[44:32] it starts with the amount of open stuff.
[44:37] All right, let's just go back to how men and women,
[44:44] how density and open space is being proposed.
[44:50] And this is up.
[44:58] The staff report has a few records.
[45:00] References and regards to actual acreage scenarios. If that's easier to follow.
[45:22] So, the examples that are provided is if there's a 40 acre parcel that would be using the 10 acre average that a 25% dedication would be required and it would allow for four buildable loss.
[45:36] So, 40 divided by that time, would get you that.
[45:41] However, the residents would be on a smaller portion.
[45:44] As only 25% of that would be dedicated open space,
[45:48] and they could go under any type of configuration
[45:50] with the minimum size of one acre.
[45:55] Then the other scenario would be,
[45:57] a 50% dedication,
[46:00] and then they'd be able to use a five acre average
[46:04] to determine a total of eight building lots.
[46:07] that 50% would be 20 acres of dedicated open space with eight residential lots in
[46:13] any other average configuration of the remaining 20 again with a minimum size of one
[46:22] acre.
[46:26] Okay, where are you reading for this is page three and four of the staff report of the city
[46:32] staff report that is a county staff report in the city staff report.
[46:35] We're
[46:41] really concerned about how this could be implemented and speaking for 30 years working
[46:48] with land trust.
[46:49] They don't most land trust, including one more, one more, except the property less than
[46:54] 48 years.
[46:57] They also require an endowment to some kind to provide them with the means to do the stewardship.
[47:05] I would think that the city is administering it, they would also need some sort of
[47:09] need to assure that they could provide the stewardship that they do the annual check
[47:13] up or whatever on the property.
[47:17] So in any case, you need to be some provisions that allow for implementation when
[47:23] I just looks really difficult for me to implement.
[47:27] I like the intent, but with acreages this small, it's hard for me to see how it could be done.
[47:37] It's, I would guess it would have to fall back to the city, because I don't think most
[47:42] agencies would take it off.
[47:45] But it can, because it's county jurisdiction.
[47:48] So it is the county that has to enforce implement, steward, managed, what does the funding count
[47:56] to do?
[47:56] I don't see any other values.
[48:00] You guys already have a number of subdivisions that include open space through PUDs that
[48:05] managed and maintained by the homeless associations which would be allowed in this configuration as well.
[48:16] I think the difference is that when we had a PUD ordinance we required that the HOA managed the open space.
[48:27] I do, I am a little confused about the ownership and convey in structure of the open space.
[48:33] And if you have, if you're the landowner and you have these options, I'm sure you're immediately
[48:38] going to just say, well, I can be this to the county or, you know, to take care of it and
[48:43] come to that cost.
[48:45] Because I mean, we have to accept it as well.
[48:49] I guess I would wonder about, like, if this is the county's AOI code, then the county doesn't
[48:54] accept open space, the offer to it, then what happens?
[48:59] Are
[49:05] you organized within the individual development agreements case by case for these subdivisions?
[49:13] It could even be conveyed to the city.
[49:22] Or the city or a land trust?
[49:25] Did you just hear what Mr. Repilson?
[49:27] Well, the land trust might not be interested because he's intimately
[49:51] extubable.
[50:15] Determined, yeah, why
[50:22] concern that?
[50:25] You're able to meet the terms of the code, the way it's written.
[50:28] on
[50:31] the ownership of
[50:37] the safety tube,
[50:58] aren't they kind of like little quasi-many PUDs,
[51:01] if someone actually developed it in this way.
[51:05] And we don't hold on that PUD up in the right, but it's designated.
[51:11] We got rid of PUDs for a reason.
[51:13] They're not easy to manage.
[51:15] We live at Tito's frames.
[51:16] That book is basically Tito's frames.
[51:21] Violated the PUD terms, particularly with that horse pasture.
[51:25] And so I don't think T-tons produce a good example by about like,
[51:29] but I'm like, it's like a box frame.
[51:32] It's a box frame.
[51:32] It's a traditional community.
[51:35] There's no valve and to do that on anything in box frame.
[51:38] So if you take box frames, which is a textbook, PUD,
[51:43] it's plated with 25% lots, 75% open space,
[51:47] and that's the end of it.
[51:49] What is the county,
[51:52] do with fox brain's open space, how does it?
[51:57] Yeah, I don't know.
[51:58] Jay, did you explain that?
[51:59] The PUD.
[52:00] The open space is required to be managed by the nature eye.
[52:05] What does the manage mean?
[52:06] What we manage?
[52:07] It depends.
[52:08] But Jay, can you chime in?
[52:10] Yeah.
[52:11] I think this is where the challenge with our PUD ordinance was,
[52:16] is that we have to allow the HLAs to manage the open space,
[52:21] And we sign off on there, initial open space management plan,
[52:25] whatever that may look like.
[52:28] It depends on the application I suppose.
[52:32] But then it's up to the H-O-A to enforce and maintain
[52:36] and from the county side of things, we see a lot of them
[52:39] that are just not.
[52:42] And we do see a site from noxious weeds.
[52:57] So for example, I would
[53:04] be thinking about
[53:39] it.
[53:39] Right now, we don't.
[53:40] We don't
[53:46] do a good job of
[53:49] it.
[53:49] We don't do a good job of it.
[53:50] You know, we would need to like,
[53:52] create a position
[53:55] of what we do.
[53:56] I mean, we need to just down on or something to provide the structure.
[54:02] Can that happen through that?
[54:03] Yeah,
[54:11] if we keep this provision,
[54:13] I would suggest articulating some sort of
[54:16] endowment for open space management
[54:19] if it's within
[54:22] teach on county overlay areas,
[54:25] So, including, you know, wetland, so I guess there's not many wetlands in the Victoria Y or wetland
[54:30] to have a habitat, but the immigration corridor is onward, those things.
[54:39] Line of agriculture is allowed as one of the uses, too, right,
[54:48] and I'll turn the suggestion
[54:50] or we'll be married to those ten acres right here, you know,
[54:58] any other vision like the
[55:00] ten acres like you said, I don't know, and I know many people concerned about it, a land
[55:05] trust or conservation compliance is smaller. Yeah, there's chunks of that that are already in
[55:12] conservation easements.
[55:16] Specifically, we're having a big time by their conservation. Yeah.
[55:20] If there were multiple parcels that had continued as open space, that added up to something,
[55:28] then it conserving severely interest might be interesting. But for tiny little parcels,
[55:34] You know, they're not going to take that on.
[55:37] That's just two burdens of the stewardship tour.
[55:43] You're dealing with, you're dealing with, you have to recognize that.
[55:49] Maybe the initial landowner to one of these is agreeable to what was done,
[55:54] but the subsequent landowners often disputed it.
[55:57] So it's just a can of worms sometimes.
[56:00] And I think this is pretty much a long-awaited floor as a part of what the public had.
[56:06] Correct.
[56:07] It is mostly flat than kind of the justification.
[56:11] The city has for choosing the zoning district as opposed to others.
[56:15] Is that it's still within the natural resources over lay district.
[56:20] So even though the slopes don't exist, the overlay district still applies to these parcels.
[56:30] Correct.
[56:32] Again, do you guys have the alternative you refer to this piece?
[56:38] Sorry.
[56:39] And one of the lots, I guess, is a related question.
[56:41] The goal from my perspective on the regulators to assign city,
[56:46] hurts are accounting zones.
[56:48] Not a whole million zones.
[56:50] Yes.
[56:51] A completely different style of approval process.
[56:56] And I'm not comfortable with some of the
[57:04] I think
[57:07] we're just talking about this.
[57:13] These terms are correct.
[57:14] Some two to ten.
[57:16] The ten is on the middle.
[57:23] But if you, how full.
[57:25] Some maybe look at the proposed AOI's own math.
[57:34] All
[57:37] right.
[57:38] I can share my screen.
[57:39] That's helpful.
[57:40] So
[57:56] this is just the zoning map for area of impact within the AOI.
[58:01] There's the other map for parcels composed to be removed.
[58:05] I'm
[58:22] going to be talking about that on some piece, IDL, and
[58:36] then the city annex.
[58:40] I mean, I'm just thinking it through that city intends to annex that green, all of it,
[58:48] but we're looking at the green area in particular.
[58:51] So the city intends to annex that
[59:01] is the sort of clustering that you're talking about.
[59:04] but it means to tie them into season or not.
[59:09] It would be a much easier route than something that's going to be here.
[59:13] And how's the spread all over the place?
[59:15] And then how would we, in the county,
[59:17] if the county were trying to accommodate that future
[59:23] and annexation in a subdivision application?
[59:30] Then the open space would really maybe not be where the open space needs
[59:35] to be able to be more, where the city entrance just sees
[59:39] sewer and water services would dictate where the homes
[59:44] are in the cluster.
[59:49] The money in the case that I would also think
[59:51] that maybe to make that particular zone
[59:54] meaningful would have to be a scripture requirement
[59:58] for the cluster.
[1:00:02] If it's
[1:00:07] true now here, Kim, but
[1:00:11] it's a bunch of technical parcels and they can put a home anywhere on the technical parcel. As long as they have 25% on the space.
[1:00:24] Somewhere else.
[1:00:25] Somewhere in that ten acres. It'd be lots more manageable. It'd be better for the provision of services, sewer and water, and provide more meaningful open space.
[1:00:40] if there were requirements that it'd be clustered in some way so that buildings are together
[1:00:51] and spaces to continue to.
[1:01:01] Yeah, I think we're struggling with the implementation and having to determine what the goal
[1:01:08] is for that cluster such as space and how to actually manage it and so that it's.
[1:01:15] I mean, everybody serves me directly as the city of Jackson or T.T. on County, tried to form a independent of the Jacksonland Trust, they formed a local city preserve.
[1:01:30] City preserve dress.
[1:01:31] It can work.
[1:01:35] It's.
[1:01:36] And for these kinds of reasons.
[1:01:41] They kind of manage that.
[1:01:42] So there's that there they have.
[1:01:44] They have those designated scenic prison chest lands.
[1:01:47] and they were like bits of carcels
[1:01:51] of required open space,
[1:01:55] which is kind of a little part of us.
[1:02:01] Yes.
[1:02:01] And then the county is supposed to be managing that.
[1:02:05] But they didn't.
[1:02:07] Do you know what is managing that now?
[1:02:10] Is it anyone?
[1:02:11] I don't know.
[1:02:14] There is under 4D required open space.
[1:02:18] must be adjacent to neighboring areas of designated open space or other protected areas such
[1:02:24] as areas designated by the county natural resource overlay or FEMA flood lanes.
[1:02:32] So that does help in regards to where these would be from the parent parcel as someone was going
[1:02:39] for the subdivisions to process,
[1:02:41] but to
[1:02:53] language in terms of how building
[1:02:57] all the little church cluster would, I think, work.
[1:03:06] But the other option is to say, sort of, sort of.
[1:03:11] You know, just curious, is it, is it, like,
[1:03:14] between living, if it's good, even though at the time,
[1:03:17] a year, some of them going to the 28th or the 2.5,
[1:03:22] probably, apparently, is the perspective.
[1:03:23] like what's better in the solution to the wildlife overlays, etc.
[1:03:36] I mean, I think the term maybe is it's
[1:03:42] quite figure out how to implement a term.
[1:03:47] There's something like that.
[1:03:49] Yeah.
[1:04:03] How is that current this one?
[1:04:06] 2.5.
[1:04:10] And that's the area that the current ALA that's outside of the county's political zone.
[1:04:16] Correct.
[1:04:17] So
[1:04:20] if you're joining, put those on, there's a 20, 20, 20 right.
[1:04:25] So we're getting ready for it.
[1:04:27] Correct. Yeah, that's what it's about.
[1:04:29] Correct. Yeah, that's what it's about.
[1:04:29] What do you want that area?
[1:04:32] So the buzz is an attempt to make a compromise.
[1:04:35] Correct.
[1:04:35] Based on the public comments, that's ever been even, like, in the blood,
[1:04:40] in such a powerful public comment,
[1:04:42] with the way I know they're basically saying that you wanted the same thing.
[1:04:47] That's true.
[1:04:55] I kind of agree with the idea of having that
[1:05:03] intermediate zone, just, it needs to be, I think, you can still allow some density without allowing scattered density that makes the open space meaningless. That's the point, I think.
[1:05:19] So there's a way to require clustering, you've done it somewhat where you say required
[1:05:27] open space, must have joined in the neighboring areas of open space,
[1:05:41] a little density, but cluster it.
[1:05:47] I don't believe so, so the configuration of open space number four is kind of that we would
[1:05:58] want to beef this up if we thought that the more language was needed, this is probably
[1:06:01] with the space to do it.
[1:06:02] It includes the reference that we talked about,
[1:06:05] where SV adjacent to other open space.
[1:06:07] It does have to have a minimum of 100 feet weights,
[1:06:10] so it can't be like a long narrow strip of open space.
[1:06:15] That 100 feet could be expanded,
[1:06:16] but I think it's generally adequate for working around
[1:06:21] violent corridors and development together.
[1:06:26] And then, see, can probably be adjusted.
[1:06:32] Most of the language came from the city's hillside zoning, which has similar provisions.
[1:06:40] And we have over 200 acres of development.
[1:06:42] I don't know if there's even a single parcel.
[1:06:45] Is 200 acres of all of this?
[1:06:48] So that could probably be adjusted to combate some of the concerns that we have.
[1:07:11] is the city plan to annex these millions?
[1:07:15] Not all at once.
[1:07:18] There's probably three of these that we probably
[1:07:22] be willing to accept in the next few years if they
[1:07:27] submit applications for them.
[1:07:29] The city will not actively be more
[1:07:31] than annexing any properties.
[1:07:37] What's the vision for this area,
[1:07:40] according to the city
[1:07:46] It has it labelled within our ALI as transitional, so something that would remain
[1:07:51] at a cultural until it was annexed, and then the annexation provisions for this area include
[1:07:59] a material or pathway along the somewhere, I guess, really anywhere within this zoning
[1:08:07] I'm kind of right at the edge of the foothills and kind of residential on one side of that pathway and a trail item and open space or agricultural on the opposite so something immediately adjacent to those foothills would remain in some type of open space or agricultural uses kind of a line of comprehensive plan.
[1:08:28] So you want it to be rural, rural county, so this is a way to
[1:08:38] put a book for the city.
[1:08:41] But is that the point of the area of impact?
[1:08:44] Is the point of the area of impact to buffer the city or
[1:08:55] designate where the city is going to grow?
[1:08:59] I mean, it feels like this is being used to buffer the city with more agriculture in open space.
[1:09:05] Which I don't really agree with, but is that the tool we should be using?
[1:09:12] But somebody, right now it's just one lot.
[1:09:14] It's 10 acre minimum.
[1:09:15] The rest is really just kind of a dense deep on us.
[1:09:18] There's your book.
[1:09:19] I mean, could somebody just go and build one house on 10 acres?
[1:09:23] Yes.
[1:09:26] So it's amazing.
[1:09:27] If it comes out of the area, then in fact, it's days of the county,
[1:09:30] with the main sale date, it's 2.5.
[1:09:32] No, it would be one of the only zoning, so probably.
[1:09:36] I would have to find it right away.
[1:09:37] Yeah, I would say that it is an offer and I think the person I think the answer would be yes to both of those.
[1:09:52] You got to have some sort of transition between your 20 acre hillside.
[1:10:01] What do you think of what this is?
[1:10:05] Oh, I think town.
[1:10:07] Especially whether it's county or C.
[1:10:10] That's the transition zone.
[1:10:19] We need the city.
[1:10:20] Thank you.
[1:10:22] Most of our overall users specifically are around that.
[1:10:26] on the downtown. We don't have any, I don't really like, we have a whole site, so I'm going to just write it
[1:10:39] down.
[1:10:39] Nonsense, I don't know, Jay. Anything that would be in the natural resources of the county is where we're kind of the intent of the health side, so I'm going for the city.
[1:10:49] So these were the annex, the health side, something district within the city is the most likely zoning district that we would assign.
[1:10:58] Of course, anyone would be able to enjoy application of annexation and resounding and robust
[1:11:04] specific zoning district if they had a subdivision plan in mind.
[1:11:08] What's the, um, do you do the, um, what's your hillside zoning district, zone density,
[1:11:18] in the requirements for open stuff?
[1:11:20] It's this exact provision.
[1:11:21] on the scale of how this one has the 10, 10 acre average, which 25% dedication of open space,
[1:11:33] 5% or 5 acre average with a 50% and then we also have a specific to city limits because it
[1:11:41] has to be required to connect to city sewer and sewer and water services. 75% dedicated open space
[1:11:48] with a 2.5 acre average regards to determining the number of parcels.
[1:11:56] The lot sizes that would be able to be significantly smaller about ordering her to be able
[1:12:02] to connect to CSA or water services to that offset that with 75% of their open space.
[1:12:08] How many acres of land are in that district?
[1:12:10] I don't know if I can, but the, the large one in the middle is just under 80, so if that's 80, we're looking at
[1:12:27] about 320 acres.
[1:12:35] So
[1:12:38] just for context, I put up some current zoning maps and also have included our natural resource overlay.
[1:12:47] I guess the one that just recently adopted, but yet to be effective is essentially the same in this area.
[1:12:56] You can see here this is where the current ALI boundary is and the county zoning begins for that foot hose 20.
[1:13:06] I just let's take this off really quick and also pull off the zoning and just take a look at it.
[1:13:14] I'll just do slopes and not the full topography, but you can see it also kind of flattened
[1:13:19] out in this area and maybe doesn't completely match the characteristics of a foot
[1:13:25] house 20.
[1:13:28] Some of it maybe does, but maybe not all of it.
[1:13:54] It used to be
[1:14:08] really subtle.
[1:14:09] I
[1:14:21] mean, what Jay used to put up to extend again to that.
[1:14:27] And then what I've heard from the farmers in this area is that there's also a very unique
[1:14:31] for my growth finance, what it makes it very apt to specialty
[1:14:41] dedicated.
[1:15:11] I know, I know, fall circle, farm does.
[1:15:15] Poll circle, can you have to imagine, how many of those funds?
[1:15:22] Yes, we know, it's just, practically, and I don't know.
[1:15:26] Yeah, and that's in the city, we've been with the rest of the community.
[1:15:30] We jade, what was that? Brown, overlay, had their previously, to the central resources of the community?
[1:15:37] which is all over all of this.
[1:15:39] Yeah, specifically the Brown is from being migration
[1:15:42] or taking
[1:15:47] migration and those other
[1:15:49] and those which are being partoration.
[1:16:03] Any other comments on that?
[1:16:08] How do we resolve it?
[1:16:11] I mean, it's a clear moment back to 10 in this,
[1:16:14] as well as this.
[1:16:15] Yeah, it is a special thing.
[1:16:19] Yeah, I mean, I think it sounds like, as you say,
[1:16:21] It's you're trying to fit two different boxes, which is why we created a unique summoning
[1:16:29] distance.
[1:16:30] And I appreciate that.
[1:16:31] I think it's worth it.
[1:16:34] Well, it sounds like minimum leader should pay a little more of the definition of clustering.
[1:16:45] I think if we redefined or added to the clustering definition a little bit and then also
[1:16:53] We visited the ownership component, and maybe just said,
[1:16:57] possibly managed by an H.O.A.,
[1:16:59] it sounds like it doesn't.
[1:17:01] Or it wouldn't make sense for conservation,
[1:17:04] easements, given the size, potentially,
[1:17:08] and ensuring that the city or the county isn't,
[1:17:13] financially held to open space management.
[1:17:35] Commissioner Whitfield, could you talk a little bit more
[1:17:39] about and in Commissioner Regal as well.
[1:17:43] Could we talk a little bit more about definitions
[1:17:46] to the cluster in section that would codify this better
[1:17:52] and get the intended results?
[1:18:00] Well, the intent, as I would say, it would be
[1:18:02] to create as much continuous open spaces possible,
[1:18:08] while also allowing some density and trying
[1:18:11] keep the density as more towards the city, the existing city, and the open space toward the
[1:18:17] foothills.
[1:18:19] These animals, particularly the elk, they'll come down into those axles, they do to
[1:18:27] forage when they, because they green up faster than the stuff up on them.
[1:18:38] I get there in terms of zoning.
[1:18:59] Obsessions to this are going to be like C1, the clustering should be, you know, I think
[1:19:04] It needs to be reworded, but I think the intent of using roads because we have the existing roads that are already on the west portions of that so being close to the roads.
[1:19:17] I think is one indication saying if it's towards the city, it could be another indication.
[1:19:24] Clustering, just almost like a priority list that should be checked that you can review this as someone submitting a subdivision application for this area.
[1:19:32] I'd be like, okay, well, you've met these items and these items and you're good or
[1:19:37] hey, you've met this item and this item but you haven't met this item, can we try to shuffle
[1:19:41] some of the lots around to get more of the open space together and actually have something
[1:19:45] in the language to point to on that.
[1:19:53] If any of the lots are in the natural resource over the way which most of them are,
[1:20:07] they would be
[1:20:10] So, we have that's a great advantage.
[1:20:14] That's why I'm using this subdivision requirement in addition to these items,
[1:20:24] and building envelopes,
[1:20:27] avoidance of the most critical aspects.
[1:20:31] That's a good point too.
[1:20:33] There should be some provision around designated building envelopes too often.
[1:20:47] I
[1:20:53] think a lot of them will be in there.
[1:20:55] Is that a doctor?
[1:20:56] Oh, not a 12.
[1:20:59] Mm-hmm.
[1:20:59] Great.
[1:21:02] You said I'm a 12?
[1:21:04] So I can find that on that part.
[1:21:05] I can't find that on that part.
[1:21:25] I think ultimately it will appear very well, but I'll be through that.
[1:21:33] And there is a reference to the management as well.
[1:21:40] Great.
[1:21:54] But it doesn't convey.
[1:21:55] You know, like the conveyance was my biggest issue.
[1:22:01] We need to do management and we plan to ownership in the hands of the land owners.
[1:22:23] We'll see a new version.
[1:22:26] Yes.
[1:22:30] I mean, it's not going to be easy still because it's a different zone, but we can...
[1:22:42] Again, thankfully, it's only about 320, 240 acres, so it would be only subdivisions within those
[1:22:51] themselves will be impacted by this. And hopefully they choose to annex instead and use the
[1:22:58] whole site to get further density and utilities, but we'll leave that up to the property
[1:23:02] and there's some of what they choose to do.
[1:23:08] Stuff in here is uses if we're done with that.
[1:23:16] At what point would the commission like to talk about the general AOI boundary, say no, let's
[1:23:25] Was it a large point of conversation there in the public hearings?
[1:23:29] I'm going to start it on
[1:23:35] document.
[1:23:36] I don't
[1:23:40] necessarily want to get back to the boundary.
[1:24:08] These provisions.
[1:24:10] I mostly get over this because you're not skipped over.
[1:24:17] But I don't, I didn't match it.
[1:24:23] So, the main thing is as you go through,
[1:24:25] You can see that we as far as use standards in individual uses, there wasn't too many changes.
[1:24:35] There can be some additions or subtractions but nothing majorly impactful within the individual use standards.
[1:24:45] The bigger impact that you're going to see is where we were moved uses from AOI, mainly because these uses are either going to be
[1:24:54] Some type of higher load demand on the property or something of a higher density or commercial use that could change the parcel enough to make it where it would be very difficult or challenging for it to be annexed
[1:25:11] or at the point of annexation with the challenge to provide appropriate services or work around these types of uses.
[1:25:21] So commercial lifestyle processing was the first one on the list to be removed, but at where we
[1:25:30] three, four, one. So this would be a few pages in. So you can see that kind of short-term
[1:25:35] wrinkles. We made a few minor amendments mainly in regards to RVs that an RV cannot be used for
[1:25:44] official short-term rental, but it could be someone brought in RV, they couldn't store it there,
[1:25:52] but clarify those items. And then I think in the last two that are on there were recent changes
[1:25:59] that were added by the county code amendments. So you'll see that all county code amendments are also
[1:26:07] represented in here as well as to what, a sub-sector and use standards under short-term rentals
[1:26:13] that there's no more than one dwelling for property that can be used for short-term
[1:26:17] metals and the permit number must be within the listing or booking.
[1:26:26] Actually that one we might have had ourselves.
[1:26:28] I think 11 was maybe added for you guys.
[1:26:33] I don't know that we can legally say only one dwelling unit can be used for STR from property.
[1:26:40] This I think has to match hers, exactly.
[1:26:47] I just don't think we
[1:26:51] versus to manage different STP. We can't even manage her own
[1:26:55] regulations like and to have it through different, that what the county's already trying to do
[1:27:02] is just...
[1:27:05] We also have the compliance state law.
[1:27:07] Well, right, and then there's the president for you.
[1:27:09] Yeah, so I'll take out 11 and 12 because I'll take those with the ones that we had it out
[1:27:13] Would like to keep the provision that I changed for such an extra number of four in regards to RVs being used for short-term rentals only in the instance that they're
[1:27:28] that they're not occupied as one of the units because it has to be paired to the septic system.
[1:27:36] So when you're adding extra units by adding an RV, I feel like that is kind of missing the mark on the intent for the father called language that's in here in regards to the septic capacity.
[1:27:51] Teams work.
[1:27:52] Well, because we, that's one of the ways that we, that's pretty much the only way we can administer these things is public safety.
[1:28:01] Well, we, in our code we have short-term rental regulation that are all tied to public safety.
[1:28:07] This addition may make total sense, but I think if we're going to, we need to add it to the county code.
[1:28:17] We don't need to separate one additional requirement for our short-term rental and a period of impact to try to implement.
[1:28:28] If the county code needs to be updated to include this, then that's what we should do.
[1:28:35] And not try to just narrow in additional requirements for the area.
[1:28:42] That's what that's meant
[1:28:46] to.
[1:28:47] This thing might be adopted lots when we're going to amend it to the county code.
[1:28:55] I mean, the city can propose and amend what
[1:29:01] I would suggest.
[1:29:04] Just to remind everyone, the way that the county permits, church and rentals, we have
[1:29:11] always water-associated permit that eastern Idaho Public Health will fill out.
[1:29:20] The county needs to engage- I was told later earlier this year I suppose that in order
[1:29:29] To enact that fully, we need to have an engagement letter with Eastern Idaho Public House.
[1:29:34] Even though they reviewed the form, they reviewed the wastewater study that the county had done.
[1:29:42] And they were fine with it, but now to engage, they want a formal letter.
[1:29:46] They're a little worried about workload.
[1:29:50] And so I do wonder if we utilize that same form for short-term rentals in the area of impact.
[1:29:58] and if that would be an issue.
[1:30:00] And that form is called the T.T. and County sceptic capacity evaluation form, which the applicant pays for eastern Idaho public health to fill out if, you know, there's a site that's that, whatever, but if it gets traditionally 75 dollars.
[1:30:20] And the way we tackle the RV component is that we say all dwelling units must be
[1:30:28] habitable space, which an RV could never constitute fully habitable space, because
[1:30:33] it's a temporary structure for an RV, so that I do appreciate the desire to clarify
[1:30:44] that even further.
[1:30:45] And the other part of the county vote says,
[1:30:48] Can't for trailers, both trailers,
[1:30:50] transport trailers, can be parked on site.
[1:30:54] But we never, and we say that
[1:30:57] camping in RVU, show monarchs, see the number of
[1:30:59] tenants specified on the short-term rental business.
[1:31:02] So that's the way that we've tried to manage that.
[1:31:06] But I do agree it could probably be added to it.
[1:31:13] So what's this consensus?
[1:31:14] Do we want consistency?
[1:31:16] When this is county jurisdiction, do we want something different, do we have to sleep in different areas of time to when it comes to short terminals, or do we want it the same as in the county?
[1:31:31] Well,
[1:31:34] my perspective would be, if we're suggesting something here that we can enforce,
[1:31:42] that's that compliance or state code, and it's more protective than what we've got in the county.
[1:31:51] We want consistency, but the vector direction is the way we want to go.
[1:31:56] So we go with what is suggested here, and we amend the county code.
[1:32:04] the challenge being a men in the county code is going to mean it ever happens
[1:32:11] but
[1:32:17] I think if we have this in here and the impetus was coming from the city of Victor
[1:32:22] would be helpful that is my perspective under the circumstances I agree
[1:32:31] okay so everything else consistent besides for that sign I'm concerned about everything is exactly the same
[1:32:37] It's not a red line, but it's exactly the same because you said you said something out 11 inch while we add it and I can take those out
[1:32:48] So it's not the same
[1:32:50] We already mentioned that 11 inch while would be removed. That's why I was asking
[1:33:27] this that was achieved
[1:33:32] I'd like to go back to these shirts and now
[1:33:36] How about
[1:33:37] And fortunately I do the comparative red line if that chart is it doesn't get included in that for some reason
[1:33:44] So that would have to kind of do that one a little bit more by hand.
[1:33:48] I can prepare that or a future work session for you.
[1:33:52] So you can see exactly which items were removed,
[1:33:56] but as you go through the text you can see that those full sections
[1:34:00] are red lying to be removed.
[1:34:03] So the way the line up in here
[1:34:06] and not to resources is the 20, right?
[1:34:11] I'm sorry I have to go back.
[1:34:14] So what was it be and I believe is the 10.
[1:34:20] Is it the 10?
[1:34:24] Is there a line up of those different than the, yeah.
[1:34:29] How they're interesting to this.
[1:34:31] So 10 is
[1:34:34] the
[1:34:38] thing to be
[1:34:44] zone 3, right?
[1:34:46] Yes.
[1:34:59] So did you, I just want to make sure that this,
[1:35:08] Yeah, we, yeah, because I put them in order
[1:35:11] I want you to erase all the cracks.
[1:35:15] Just to make sure that you've got,
[1:35:17] Yeah, all the cells of weight can.
[1:35:20] When you rearrange them, correct?
[1:35:26] Right.
[1:35:26] So what we really need to know is
[1:35:29] how the 2.5 and 20,
[1:35:33] mainly the ones that choose,
[1:35:36] compared to current use chart for 2.5 and 20s.
[1:35:46] And I guess in a way it doesn't really matter since I don't really, I mean I guess we still have the 20s, so maybe that's even more important.
[1:35:55] Yeah, and again, we don't have to, if we want to try to get through everything knowing that there's probably going to be another work session before we have the final adoption is to look over everything and make sure
[1:36:06] that it's consistent with what we talked about, I can go through these sections, all the charts really by hand and get you a comparative red line of the charts, because the charts did not red line when I did it side by side comparison of the documents.
[1:36:25] So I can outline those stories specifically so we can then have a little bit more to talk about within any changes to the use chart.
[1:36:33] Okay. Do you have any comments on that, Jay?
[1:36:37] I have a new track to that.
[1:36:40] Do you just, okay?
[1:36:42] No, I mean, I just noticed that the proposed is different than the counties.
[1:36:48] But don't have too much to add to that.
[1:36:56] Any questions on that?
[1:36:59] Okay.
[1:37:00] What?
[1:37:01] And the other changes, then.
[1:37:04] Decided to turn around.
[1:37:06] Yep, so.
[1:37:07] Yeah, again, we have uses that are being removed, so commercial livestock processing was one that was going to be removed within
[1:37:19] club or large.
[1:37:23] It looks like we may have changed it to a special use.
[1:37:27] As I added that language in there, most of the code already would have a pretty decent job.
[1:37:33] whether it was general use standards, limited use standards, or special use standards.
[1:37:39] So if I were made a change, most likely that's a change to the chart as well.
[1:37:43] And then we added a maximum square footage for a structure for a club or a lodge,
[1:37:49] which is quite substantial, in my opinion,
[1:37:53] but I'm sure if there's some club or lodge out there that probably are,
[1:37:56] that they want more.
[1:37:58] There's a 10,000 square foot structure next moment.
[1:38:05] And there's that is 3, 5, 3.
[1:38:28] Or is that
[1:38:33] upper lodge?
[1:38:48] Or a lodge?
[1:38:49] Is a special use in 20.
[1:38:52] A.Y.20's on 2.
[1:39:07] The
[1:39:18] garden center is the next one that there's some edits.
[1:39:21] Again, other than the ones that were specifically calling out to be removed,
[1:39:27] Garden Center has a proposed minimum lot size of 10 acres,
[1:39:35] and
[1:39:38] buffering requirements around vehicle and equipment storage areas.
[1:40:04] The next one where we made some edits is Re7-1,
[1:40:08] which was originally worded as food-ease beverage processing facilities,
[1:40:13] which is ingenious to have a culturally-related food-in beverage processing facilities,
[1:40:19] so it can't be a stand alone processing area,
[1:40:22] but this directly associated with agricultural operations on the property,
[1:40:29] would allow for washing, sorting, using dehydrating, milling,
[1:40:33] Masterizing, cooking, canning,
[1:40:36] bottling, packaging, or storing of agricultural products,
[1:40:40] harvested on the premises, or on a property owned,
[1:40:42] or least by the same facility owner.
[1:40:45] And this would just, again, link it back to agricultural
[1:40:49] operations rather than having it be concerns
[1:40:53] of a food or beverage or slaughterhouse or any of those types
[1:40:57] of things independently.
[1:41:00] And then also, open the doors for some of these
[1:41:02] to be able to do these things on site.
[1:41:14] And then we did also clarify at the end of that definition
[1:41:17] that it would not allow for industrial hemp fiber
[1:41:22] fermenting, distilling, mixing, and we're then
[1:41:25] able to haul up products, those types of things or slaughterhouse
[1:41:28] just to make sure that we're having those types of things
[1:41:33] appropriately regulated through appropriate
[1:41:35] own industry facilities to do something instead of
[1:41:38] for cultural aid,
[1:41:42] and then another couple of other items being removed,
[1:41:59] what was the point
[1:42:00] of the industrial hemp fiber?
[1:42:05] There's typically more state regulation in regards to any type of hemp growing products,
[1:42:13] so it can be more complicated for local agencies to enforce, which is easier to say that that's not
[1:42:20] of the processing a lot in these areas. You can probably still throw it. I don't think there's anything
[1:42:27] from steel on it. You can't throw any of these products in this area, but the processing
[1:42:35] of it would be a bit more hard to manage.
[1:42:44] And the next one that's been added it would jump us over
[1:42:50] three, nine, let's go back to that, like, what can you explain the point of that again?
[1:42:58] I mean, this is our code, so the way we, and this is just edits in the way the county has presented it.
[1:43:06] So why would we want it different in the area of impact? It's just confirmed that the area of impact is county jurisdiction.
[1:43:14] And why would we want
[1:43:19] different food and beverage processing facility regulations in the area?
[1:43:29] Well, an area of impact is proposed.
[1:43:32] It's going to be zoned or annexed in the next few years, right?
[1:43:37] Or would we set up a business?
[1:43:38] We would be open to annexation in most of these areas right away.
[1:43:43] I think the kind of differentiation of why I wanted it,
[1:43:46] to be able to relate to food and beverage processing facilities as opposed to just regular food
[1:43:53] and beverage processing facilities would be that the city has industrial zoning already outlined
[1:43:59] and designated for these purposes that are connected to sewer and water for appropriate
[1:44:06] management of their waste. So that's kind of why the change in something that's going to be
[1:44:16] uses, then I think it would be more appropriate to have it related to the agricultural operations
[1:44:21] going on on that site as opposed to something that's a standalone, if it's a standalone
[1:44:27] then they can come and use any of the other industrial zone areas within the city limits
[1:44:32] connected to the sewer.
[1:44:40] So I was kind of my alternative other than completely cutting it out as
[1:44:44] a use that shouldn't be allowed. So I was still having it be as an allowed use but related to the
[1:44:50] the level of vibrations on the body.
[1:44:53] Thank you.
[1:44:53] Thanks, coach.
[1:44:58] The one that I have is feeling will probably...
[1:45:00] Comback up for discussion, whether now we're at a future meeting. I did cut out mineral resource development, which would be basically gravel, gravel pits, mining operations. There are, I think there's two within, so there's at least two, maybe three that are within.
[1:45:30] AR that are active. I was just thinking it could continue forward as an
[1:45:35] on conforming use, but it may be necessary to pull the mining minimum resource
[1:45:43] development back in to the standards. So I'll take your direction on your feelings
[1:45:51] on that.
[1:45:57] That's going to go to some of our concern. I think about a white boundary.
[1:46:03] I
[1:46:07] mean, you don't want it when you're in it, you know, it's not ideal to have an operation,
[1:46:16] cost-presenter future when the land needs to be annexed.
[1:46:30] Yeah, this one's active, and this one is active, and I don't know if that one is.
[1:46:38] Which one's
[1:46:41] next one?
[1:46:42] No, this is just to lean.
[1:46:44] And they're injecting gravel on the other side.
[1:46:49] And then the other one is south of Cedar and that one's active.
[1:46:55] The one that I'm not sure if it's active is, um, I don't know if a land is state owner is
[1:47:01] adjacent to this one that's state owned, but it's just south of the,
[1:47:08] maybe J. Kimple
[1:47:09] is an apple.
[1:47:11] It's just one of them.
[1:47:11] Well, then she would be this long.
[1:47:13] Cedar is kind of right in the center of the action, so it's be good.
[1:47:15] That would be
[1:47:20] that.
[1:47:20] the city parcel, you guys can come
[1:47:26] up with it, feels to be like, be filled with it.
[1:47:28] Yeah, it's really more of a on demand kind of thing. So if we need it for repair of city roads,
[1:47:36] we haven't available to use, but yeah, most recently we've been putting stuff in there as
[1:47:44] we clear of sites from city construction or infrastructure.
[1:47:51] Starry, we can come back to it as we go through the map, but I'll be open to adding that back in and
[1:47:57] knowing that there are active pets and just kind of different perspectives on enforcement.
[1:48:05] We want the regulations to be there and just treat it as a non-conforming use.
[1:48:13] The city gravel pit, as I was just mentioning, is kind of an on-demand thing that sometimes we're taking from it, sometimes we're adding to it.
[1:48:20] So recently, we've been adding to it,
[1:48:26] putting...
[1:48:26] Yeah, we have an excavator here throughout.
[1:48:28] And that's just right
[1:48:39] now.
[1:48:39] I don't know how to do it.
[1:48:41] I don't know how to do it.
[1:48:42] I don't know how to do it.
[1:48:42] I don't know how to do it.
[1:48:43] I don't know how to do it.
[1:48:48] And then that fence was recently put up.
[1:48:51] That's true.
[1:48:52] That's
[1:48:55] true.
[1:48:56] Oh, that's man.
[1:48:57] I'm not just seeing it.
[1:48:57] Here's his outside.
[1:49:05] And here are just on the other side.
[1:49:07] The city's perfect.
[1:49:10] Yeah.
[1:49:10] Yeah.
[1:49:10] That is kind of the own.
[1:49:12] And the other plate.
[1:49:16] We're going to have a pit.
[1:49:17] I think you really can't see from the runway, that is, there's a slight depression.
[1:49:25] We
[1:49:27] can't derog every story, especially if we don't, we can't reuse it.
[1:49:31] But the tip that's visible, we're going to see debris and stuff like that, that is probably a portion of the head.
[1:49:38] And that is also the end.
[1:49:47] And then again, more uses being removed.
[1:49:51] And then the next one that we've made, edits to
[1:49:56] our tour is something.
[1:49:58] And I think we just expanded on some of the potential uses.
[1:50:05] We removed the portion about vetting breakfast accommodations.
[1:50:13] But added, agricultural classes, tours, animals shows, petting zoos, featuring farm animals,
[1:50:22] that other domestic animals cropped me as a picnic area,
[1:50:26] our hay rides, tractor rides, cider mills,
[1:50:30] haunted houses, et cetera.
[1:50:31] So just kind of expanding some of those
[1:50:34] agricultural tourism.
[1:50:38] Actually, listing out some of the uses
[1:50:40] rather than having it open ended.
[1:50:43] And again, we're moving the camping
[1:50:45] better breakfast overnight accommodations
[1:50:47] associated with agritourism.
[1:50:50] But if they did choose to do that,
[1:50:51] would have to follow whatever the provisions are for those items and use standards.
[1:50:58] What's the number of them?
[1:51:00] Three, nine, four.
[1:51:02] Three, four, eight.
[1:51:07] Jade, curious.
[1:51:09] Again, consistency.
[1:51:14] One of the issues we've had in the past with period impacts is having vastly different codes
[1:51:21] for the Arab impact versus the county in terms of management and implementation and enforcement
[1:51:30] of those things like it makes it more complicated when
[1:51:37] they're different because it's
[1:51:39] again kind of jurisdiction.
[1:51:40] It says same thing, same question.
[1:51:43] Is it long
[1:51:47] term?
[1:51:47] Is there going to be better for us to add these additional regulations and
[1:51:57] or trying to keep it consistent between city and area of impact code and my
[1:52:08] inclination is to keep them the same as much as possible.
[1:52:15] That would be mine as well. Or at least keeping all area of impact regulations pretty similar when
[1:52:25] it comes to land use allowances. Like the city of drinks essentially adopted the same
[1:52:30] the same use chart as the count of mass,
[1:52:35] and so that has been consistent.
[1:52:37] I think adding these changes that are specific to the ROI are fine, so long as, you know,
[1:52:44] it's not incredibly cumbersome or it's relatively consistent among being allies.
[1:52:53] The alternative is that the C would recommend not having this owning district then within the AOI.
[1:52:59] Again, the concern is around all of the camping log in how it's currently written in the county.
[1:53:07] There are concerns with camping, it's again, back to the waste and I'm going to connect it to
[1:53:15] Taptic at this type of scale versus something connected to sewer and water.
[1:53:26] That's the city's preference.
[1:53:30] Yeah, I think that's taken out.
[1:53:31] Yeah. I think that's fine. All this other specific mention might get us in trouble.
[1:53:40] I think because we just can't imagine all the specifics.
[1:53:51] If it's out, then it's just not a lot within that.
[1:53:55] You. I mean, the choices.
[1:53:57] Read it as is or take it out.
[1:54:04] or option 3 proposed changes to the county's code that may hit that, you know, when we
[1:54:14] did the agrochorism section of our code, it was kind of like this, you know, 10 acre plus
[1:54:24] It came late, and we just did the best we did this a lot of time.
[1:54:33] We were very analyzing it, and we just adopted it, because it made sense to have
[1:54:39] provisions for average words out, and to get advantages to farmers, and that probably is
[1:54:47] a perfect bet.
[1:54:50] Yeah, we essentially adopted the recommendation of a planning and zoning commission member,
[1:54:55] and I think it's appropriate that you take out camping for the reasons you've stated,
[1:55:06] and it may be something that we need to get, or the county needs to get more restrictive on,
[1:55:11] But in terms of listing out all the activities,
[1:55:17] I think that's a hazard.
[1:55:19] I would keep it more general like the county has
[1:55:22] with that exception that you alluded to.
[1:55:26] I would not have taken down any thoughts like that.
[1:55:28] In line with that, you know,
[1:55:35] I would much rather
[1:55:36] see an accident already,
[1:55:45] but maybe it's really not
[1:55:47] that difficult with to move at a moment
[1:55:50] I
[1:55:53] want I would I think it's appropriate for the city to propose and
[1:56:02] especially because you can spend some
[1:56:04] much time on it you know especially the agriculture is not a lot of the hard work
[1:56:07] is out there. Food industry stuff. It's a choice between
[1:56:12] agritors and in camping or none. But it sounds like like it's amenable to take it in camping.
[1:56:21] Yeah, I can remove all of the additional items, so the definition matches the county's code
[1:56:31] other than on-site hospitality, and then, you know, we have your support, we'd like to still remove
[1:56:39] the campaign accommodations, otherwise the rest of it would be the same.
[1:56:44] That's worked for me.
[1:56:46] Wait, you still want on-site hospitality?
[1:56:48] I do not want to take hospitality and what's like that to be removed.
[1:56:53] If I remember correctly, we had amended the county code in the agritorism section
[1:57:00] to only require a limited use permit or a special use permit for the hospitality component
[1:57:09] and agritorism by itself was just allowed.
[1:57:19] So, if we could also just say like general use standards, under section B would be that I'd be good in that.
[1:57:50] In other words, that general language on site educational programs and recreational farming programs.
[1:57:57] All that other stuff fits under that.
[1:57:59] Okay.
[1:58:00] Works for me and I think I understand what Jade was talking about with the,
[1:58:03] a few special use limited use items, so I'm clarify those as we go through.
[1:58:09] Then the only other one that we've made at it is two, and I think it's pretty consistent with your code is 3-10-5 food bending outdoor.
[1:58:21] Just the definition we've added outdoor bending may also be considered an accessory use, but it is permitted through a temporary use permit.
[1:58:31] actually this might have come from you guys but just aligning that it can be an
[1:58:37] accessory use or temporary use within the definition and that they use
[1:58:41] containers here to believe this 10 is temporary use. Yes. So number 3105.
[1:58:53] So these
[1:58:54] limited use standards are specifically for when it is a temporary use. I'm not
[1:59:00] making changes to any of those from what the county code has but just a
[1:59:04] and say that it can be considered an accessory use or permitted here as a temporary use.
[1:59:11] Does that make sense, Eugene?
[1:59:15] I'm looking at 3.5 now.
[1:59:19] Kim, sorry.
[1:59:19] Can you re-describe to me the change you're proposing?
[1:59:24] Yes, that's a key.
[1:59:25] It's presenting a sentence to the definition and just saying that our food vending may also be considered an accessory use.
[1:59:32] but is permitted through a temporary use permit is included in this temporary
[1:59:36] section. So it's just saying that these use standards apply for when this is a temporary use.
[1:59:42] This is under 310, which in that subsection is all of the temporary uses.
[1:59:47] But of acknowledging that food vending, it can also be classified as accessories.
[1:59:54] So if someone's just looking up food vending, outdoors, and this is the only section they see, they might be concerned that
[2:00:00] It's only a lot as a temporary, so it's just clarifying that it's also an excessive use.
[2:00:07] When I go through the accessory uses, I don't see it listed and I don't see general accessory use standards.
[2:00:15] Am I missing that?
[2:00:21] Oh, is it 399? Yes. Oh, that's us food service accessory.
[2:00:28] I
[2:00:43] mean, is this going to happen in the area of the capital because it says it's a board edge of the primary business function?
[2:00:53] The main one that we have listed that is still allowed would be club or large.
[2:01:03] That could have food service, there may be potentially others, but that one is specifically listed as accessory.
[2:01:20] And so to have a food truck, you can either get a temporary use permit and a temporary operation,
[2:01:31] you know, made for the summer or just the season, or it's considered accessory.
[2:01:36] You can do it year-round with a limited use permit, with no limited use standards other than its subordinate to the primary business function.
[2:01:48] Neither of these mentioned if it's in a food truck, or actually you say example to a truck.
[2:02:06] I could just see this being really tricky.
[2:02:09] To enforce or to make sure things have to be ready for permitting.
[2:02:14] It's as it stands now.
[2:02:17] It's not making sense
[2:02:21] of that.
[2:02:22] I just removed those red line.
[2:02:29] A bit loosey because
[2:02:33] it is a satisfactory to there.
[2:02:37] It makes sense if it's covered large.
[2:02:38] But I don't know what else they're going to argue for.
[2:02:45] I'm wondering if we could remove it as being
[2:02:48] accessory and just add a provision to the temporary
[2:02:51] used permit standards related to food service.
[2:02:57] That way, there's only one section of code.
[2:03:00] And in that section, we could articulate,
[2:03:04] it is done through a temporary use permit.
[2:03:07] You need an annual permit or something like that.
[2:03:09] That way, it's reviewed at least once a year.
[2:03:11] and it's just in one section, would that make sense?
[2:03:16] That wouldn't be consistent with the rest of the county code.
[2:03:22] No, but we don't have anything related to accessory use for food service.
[2:03:30] We can just write it completely,
[2:04:00] which, what are you saying, straight?
[2:04:03] The food service accessory 399.
[2:04:07] That is in our code, Jade.
[2:04:11] That's our code.
[2:04:12] But if that's what
[2:04:20] makes sense from the city's standpoint, you know, and we're going to
[2:04:23] pull the whole thing out and set up reworking it.
[2:04:31] Well, is that consistent?
[2:04:34] I mean there may be situations like clever lines where you want to have a permanent
[2:04:40] through a year-round food service.
[2:05:14] We'll just keep it exactly how the county has
[2:05:19] it
[2:05:33] just through chapter 3.
[2:05:36] Again, once I have an opportunity to go through the chart by hand, we can dive into those
[2:05:44] uses being removed a little bit more and we can feel that any of those seem to come back in.
[2:06:10] use the
[2:06:17] next
[2:06:41] application procedures.
[2:06:53] So, most of this is just in regards to changing what was,
[2:07:00] just the planning and zoning commission, to the droid planning and zoning commission. I did add
[2:07:06] that for under pre-optification conference, that they should be meeting with both the county
[2:07:11] and city administrator or their disease or meeting with us individually. This is something that we
[2:07:17] kind of already been implementing over the past year. So it's just being consistent with that, making sure that they've got an idea of what both entities expect and whether or not annexation is on the table for the type of requests that they're looking to do.
[2:07:37] And
[2:07:41] that's just a follow-up state statute that
[2:08:16] this first item in regards to what was just the LDC amendments for the county code, which is then going to be the AY, LDC amendments.
[2:08:26] Sorry I need to back you up a little bit.
[2:08:28] This common review provisions,
[2:08:35] addition that the fault number 5.
[2:08:39] I'm
[2:08:45] going to ask you about that.
[2:08:53] 5,
[2:08:57] 1, 4.2,
[2:09:02] B, 5,
[2:09:15] which is needed.
[2:09:20] There we go.
[2:09:23] I am muted now.
[2:09:26] Okay.
[2:09:30] I'm having trouble finding that section.
[2:09:33] common review procedures is that under oh I see it and it was four to be five.
[2:09:53] We don't have it codified that way but I would say any applications I get was in the
[2:09:59] Hawaii I have contacted the administrators of those cities just to ensure that we either
[2:10:05] do the meeting together or I would ask you know Kim drew a view proposal before I sent some kind
[2:10:13] pre-app conference form with just letting them know how it conforms.
[2:10:25] I don't know, I don't know what I think about, if it's not possible to have a single meeting
[2:10:30] with the applicant that they would need to meet with the city individually.
[2:10:35] I could see that we need to a little confusion where an applicant discloses some information
[2:10:41] and one meeting in different information and another.
[2:10:47] So I don't know, I think they know we can just get rid of that and keep to, you know, we're going to have a joint review of this.
[2:11:00] Yeah, I think so.
[2:11:16] So the changes to five and six come out.
[2:11:21] All right. Yes.
[2:11:28] So I was explaining good news for.
[2:11:33] Where in the county code, it's about.
[2:11:35] I'll be seeing and.
[2:11:37] Complain amendments.
[2:11:39] In this case, we can't touch the complaint.
[2:11:41] countenance countenance countenance countenance. So removing our new reference to
[2:11:44] countenance and clarifying that it's the AY, LDCs, not just the countenance LDCs. So
[2:11:50] that's going to be the major changes I'm four, four. And there's a few
[2:11:57] and a full straight throughs of a couple lines because of the reference to
[2:12:01] countenance language versus card management language.
[2:12:27] We just added
[2:12:28] is joining JPZ, is that consistent for them? Yes,
[2:12:35] because I see joint planning and zoning and JPZ.
[2:12:40] All of them, JPZ and JPZ? Yeah, it's not consistent.
[2:12:52] We have the original reference allows for them all.
[2:12:59] Ideally, we just use one throughout the document.
[2:13:05] Do you have a preference?
[2:13:05] Okay.
[2:13:14] Go ahead.
[2:13:14] That's fine.
[2:13:17] Tap the least resistance is just to put a J in front of PZC.
[2:13:25] Okay.
[2:13:25] Least resistance and probably most consistent, I would say.
[2:13:48] I'm not saying that.
[2:13:49] What about your mouth?
[2:13:51] What's up?
[2:13:52] You can come back for the mouth.
[2:13:58] Thank you, Rose.
[2:14:09] And then the next addition we do is in 4-5.
[2:14:15] We're talking about zoning map amendments, so this will be any type of zone change request.
[2:14:21] We just added provision about development agreements because it didn't exist.
[2:14:26] And state statute outlines the development agreements could be implemented at the time of our resomes.
[2:14:32] We just added that.
[2:14:40] But consistency we can remove it.
[2:14:42] The state statute already states what it is.
[2:14:45] It's just making sure that everyone knows the process for development agreements.
[2:14:49] And
[2:14:54] there's another section under, I just still have to use text in my mouth.
[2:15:30] I'm still reviewing that just a little bit. I guess the development agreement component that was re-included in the subdivision, right, are just included as it is with the county.
[2:15:45] It's included in the section for rezoning and it is included in the section under special uses and let's see if it's also in the subdivision, which should be.
[2:16:13] If I can have it outlined under the subdivisions as in the same format, we can definitely add that because it would be subdivisions would also be subject to development payments in the same manner.
[2:16:29] Yeah, the other thing I would suggest is that we just created a new development agreement template for
[2:16:37] Victor Eury of Impact applications of all required implement agreements.
[2:16:44] Just to make sure that they are referencing all the same AOI code that you know.
[2:16:51] So just making note that we'll need to update that.
[2:17:04] Should we keep this language in or to remove it and be consistent with the county?
[2:17:10] Sorry, I got onto, I like scrolled away from it, let me get back to where I was.
[2:17:16] I'm just saying that for 676511A, that you allowed have to have all of my agreements
[2:17:25] that they would be approved by the BSCC and a public hearing and that the development
[2:17:31] agreement would be recorded with the clerk reporter's office.
[2:17:37] I think we can keep it.
[2:17:38] I think I thought the county code had something specific to special use permits that also allow that same language, but I don't think that's saying anything new and I think it is a good clarification if we missed it.
[2:17:57] We suggest that jumping to special egg uses 4-8 that I think you guys have an
[2:18:08] expression of one year and we're just suggesting that at the end of the five years
[2:18:14] so every five years you'd be becoming evaluated for your special use,
[2:18:30] we can keep
[2:18:30] the
[2:18:36] thing, Jude.
[2:18:38] Very candidly, I didn't remember that we had a one-year expiration.
[2:18:42] So I'm just reviewing that now because let's not make it one year.
[2:18:53] No, no.
[2:18:54] The expiration under the county code says, unless provided otherwise in the written decision,
[2:18:59] special use approvals expire one year after the date of the written decision,
[2:19:03] unless the applicant files a complete application for a building permit,
[2:19:06] or is made substantial progress to their development.
[2:19:09] Do you guys renew special use permits at all?
[2:19:13] There's like no, we would just check in.
[2:19:16] If there's if the board at the time wishes to do so, they would just put it in the written decision.
[2:19:23] You know, in their review process to review everything years, review every five years, etc.
[2:19:28] And I think two dates, the county has maybe looked at three or four special use permits and really only one of them was one in which
[2:19:38] the board wanted to see them submit a new application and I think it was five years.
[2:19:43] So do you feel that we need to have a time limit as a default or just do a case by case with the conditions?
[2:19:53] I think it should match the county code.
[2:19:54] Okay, so we're going to do that.
[2:19:56] As long as there's some type of, if it's then consistent that there's at least a consideration of a time limit that I think it's fine.
[2:20:05] We don't have a 1 year limit.
[2:20:29] We have a lot of undershort clads.
[2:20:32] We removed some dates and timelines that were specific to abocultural and divisions.
[2:20:40] It wasn't sure if we were going to have parcels that would be qualified for that.
[2:20:56] We don't have as much language if it's not necessary.
[2:21:03] Oh, yeah, I do see that you change the minimum parent parcel size for the egg land divisions.
[2:21:10] Yeah, I mean because I tried to kind of match it with some of the options that were to have
[2:21:14] a similar minimum loss sizes.
[2:21:20] So I think in the county code, it was only a lot of certain zoning districts and at a higher scale.
[2:21:28] and I kind of bump those down, dealing with only two-and-a-half, 20, and our new zone, three,
[2:21:38] trying to find a more appropriate option for lock sizes for X-plets or short-plets.
[2:22:14] I'm going to share that a little bit more of an evaluation of some of the few larger
[2:22:24] I think maybe 160 might be the largest single lot that we have, and maybe only two or three of those within the proposed AOI boundaries.
[2:22:38] So if it, if it even applies, we'll keep it.
[2:22:42] And if it doesn't make sense, we can remove that at lots of less section, and just have it be regular shortcuts.
[2:22:49] I mean, the only zone that would, the only zone you have now that, what sort of match that
[2:22:58] county code is that A and R 20.
[2:23:01] No, not even that, because all of ours is 35, right?
[2:23:06] Yeah.
[2:23:08] So that doesn't even match.
[2:23:09] So it allows for
[2:23:15] a relatively end of vision of a much
[2:23:21] smaller piece of property with.
[2:23:26] Yeah, so again, the charts don't aren't affected by the red line for some reason, but we did within 4-11.
[2:23:33] So just the page before ALI 20 and ALI 10.
[2:23:37] If you had a parent parcel of 80, that you could go more, you could go down to 40.
[2:23:44] So, okay, making for the smallest lot that you do in an active vision, but as far as removing those states and timelines,
[2:23:53] those should probably stay in, if we have parcels that call it like that.
[2:24:04] Lots of them can board.
[2:24:13] Can we be exact divisions, though?
[2:24:16] Create a new one to answer to your information.
[2:24:33] As long as it matches, yeah, I know, look at those states and timelines,
[2:24:37] and make sure that that's appropriate to add back in with the, I'm going to be nice for
[2:24:41] way to do that, experts.
[2:24:45] And
[2:24:55] then I just clarify in with the references, so this is
[2:24:59] in subdivisions for 13,
[2:25:10] for 13G, for preliminary plot, there's G, there's a requirement
[2:25:15] for HIV, so basically you're CC&Rs, and I'm just saying that they're only required if there's
[2:25:23] any shared or HIV parcels, let's to address private management easements,
[2:25:31] fire homes, stormwater detention areas that will be maintained. Basically, for some reason, there's
[2:25:37] a subdivision that does happen to not have any of those things that they're not forced to have
[2:25:43] each way of requirements if it's not necessary.
[2:25:50] I actually think the county has been using those
[2:25:53] to help ensure compliance with septic maintenance,
[2:25:58] dark sky lighting.
[2:26:03] They're cognizant.
[2:26:04] They're cognizant.
[2:26:08] I don't know.
[2:26:08] I agree that to the board whether or not
[2:26:11] CC&Rs would be desired even if there was
[2:26:15] a common road being utilized for access or something?
[2:26:18] I
[2:26:33] think it should be required.
[2:26:40] Yeah, I mean the way we do our subdivisions is
[2:26:43] in terms of the approval process.
[2:26:45] We always...
[2:26:46] Deep down on the HOAs to be able with to things that we can't do.
[2:26:51] They also add a lot of restrictions of our above and beyond
[2:26:54] what the content of the code is.
[2:26:56] That's for sure.
[2:26:57] What does that mean?
[2:26:58] I'd like to design the individual subdivision design standards
[2:27:02] it's not following agricultural operations in big Zeldland, those types of things.
[2:27:07] We don't have any of those in the industry.
[2:27:10] We have some of these students.
[2:27:12] They're in the majority of the HLE requirements.
[2:27:15] And the things that we're looking at, not to develop, and the things that we're looking at,
[2:27:20] have nothing to do with design.
[2:27:21] Yeah, I'm just saying, like, by refiring them sometimes they go off the deep end,
[2:27:26] in regards to what they want to regulate.
[2:27:27] Right, but that's up to the developer, right, and I'm sure the developer is.
[2:27:38] Yeah.
[2:27:38] I found the same type of thing.
[2:27:41] Yeah, and then if you, if you, you know, in this area of impact, the idea is that the city
[2:27:51] we have an ability to point that out during the training.
[2:27:59] Yes, we haven't had that ability before, so.
[2:28:01] Yeah, I mean, I see.
[2:28:05] But are you dealing somehow?
[2:28:07] How is the CD?
[2:28:12] I guess I'm just trying to understand how and how
[2:28:17] CC&R is our impact in the city.
[2:28:20] I'm not specifically, I'm just thinking a lot of the CCNRs that I've seen that restrict
[2:28:25] agricultural uses in agriculturalized areas, can just be counterintuitive to the comprehensive
[2:28:34] plan of the county.
[2:28:35] This is where we want to see these activities take place, whether it's a two and a half
[2:28:50] more of a personal concern that there's so many subdivisions that don't allow for those uses when it's
[2:28:56] the intent of the county code to have those uses allowed.
[2:28:59] The county area example is where the city council has a living, so I have to go back and get for
[2:29:06] increased testing talent, which is the system of the county council plan. There are many of those
[2:29:11] CC&R's prohibited who need to use and things like that. So it goes beyond BTB and check in,
[2:29:20] But those are city, or in the city, so it's the city is a subdivision in the city.
[2:29:29] Yeah, I'm just just examples that I've seen.
[2:29:35] We add is kind of extra.
[2:29:41] I think I just reword it.
[2:29:42] I don't think there's really much and entench changed.
[2:29:44] So same session for 13, D, 4, subsection C was one of their review criteria.
[2:30:00] We just kind of reword in regards to impacts present for studies, we just kind of clarify that a little bit better and also adding items for potential mitigation.
[2:30:16] So just whether or not we're looking that, looking for that as a review criteria and then kind of giving latitude for potential conditions to mitigate those that items.
[2:30:30] I'm sorry, I'm not tracking where that is.
[2:30:32] Okay, so the language before side impacts presented.
[2:30:37] Where is it?
[2:30:38] Oh, so under preliminary flat, four C.
[2:30:47] So it's one of the review criteria.
[2:30:48] It's at before.
[2:30:49] It's at impacts presented from any studies requested.
[2:31:10] So it's under the review criteria, before it's had impacts presented from any studies requested, related to natural overlays, economic impacts, or traffic studies, and it just said, kind of period ended there.
[2:31:29] So I'm suggesting a reward of impacts related to scenic corridors, natural resource overlay,
[2:31:38] economic impacts or traffic impacts, and if or how those impacts are proposed to be mitigated,
[2:31:45] and that would be what you would be reviewing as a review criteria. It just gives you again a little bit more
[2:31:53] ability that if they're not proposing any additional mitigations to those potential impacts
[2:31:59] that you would have the ability to either add conditions to mitigate them or that could
[2:32:05] be justification for a denial, other than just impacts presented in these studies period.
[2:32:17] So I don't think it changes the intent.
[2:32:18] Significantly it just, again, gives you that a little bit extra leverage to make sure that
[2:32:23] Not only are the impacts being reviewed, but potentially whether or not they're mitigating those impacts.
[2:32:30] That's good.
[2:32:33] I think that's one area that our code could be.
[2:32:39] Sorry for that.
[2:32:41] That's for you guys.
[2:32:45] Yeah, that started.
[2:32:47] Yeah.
[2:32:47] Yeah, that sounds better than it does now.
[2:32:50] And then I have the same calendar dates redlined that I did under short cloud.
[2:32:58] I want to confirm that with Jade, because that seems like a more of a technical item.
[2:33:16] But basically, it's within a certain number of days from different procedures.
[2:33:22] We need different notifications, because I think our kind of covered in the general provisions.
[2:33:28] but I'll come from a date if we want to keep all those, how it's been written.
[2:33:38] I didn't want to bring up while we're on the applications,
[2:33:43] can modification of special use approval?
[2:33:47] The way the county code reads is that if the modification
[2:33:50] to a special use is binary, it can just go to the planning,
[2:33:54] it's out in commission, and they would essentially determine, like,
[2:33:57] Nope, this is full new application, goes to the board, et cetera.
[2:34:01] But since the board is the final decision maker on special use permits,
[2:34:08] I would suggest that any modifications,
[2:34:11] especially use approvals, just go to the Board of County Commissioners,
[2:34:14] and not a joint P&Z.
[2:34:16] All right.
[2:34:21] That works for the board.
[2:34:22] That would be nice.
[2:34:23] I think that special use.
[2:34:28] I think that makes sense.
[2:34:29] So modification, especially use approval,
[2:34:31] goes straight to BOCC? I think so. Or if we wanted the PNZ to make
[2:34:39] a recommendation, that would also be fine, but the way the county code reads it
[2:34:44] essentially allows the planning commission to be the final decision maker on
[2:34:47] that modification. And we would just want the final decision to be made by the
[2:34:52] board. Okay, yep, that works. I think I'd be on because this is PZC, I just changed it
[2:34:58] I didn't realize that.
[2:35:05] I think that
[2:35:10] the majors still go to the giant PNC.
[2:35:15] Mine is just a registered tip.
[2:35:17] Yeah, so majors would be a PNC would have a recommendation from the joint PNC,
[2:35:25] and the BSCC would still be the, I don't decision major.
[2:35:28] Just like any other humanitarian class,
[2:35:30] so a modification to the flat would be the same.
[2:35:39] It for chapter four.
[2:35:42] I'm just going to make sure I did really have,
[2:35:47] And I'm
[2:35:53] looking through five to see if there's any tuning in substitute to two.
[2:36:27] We had,
[2:36:30] and it's mostly in the chart,
[2:36:34] so this is going to be five, four, two, rip
[2:36:37] hearing buffer.
[2:36:39] Within the chart, since it's not redlined, we switched out the T-time river with stroke
[2:36:46] brief.
[2:36:46] This stroke briefs the only waterway that goes through the Victor A-Y, and then we've added
[2:36:53] a FEMA floodplain buffer. This is something that we have in the city limits that has turned
[2:37:00] out to be very productive and not producing any floodplain claims. And also kind of
[2:37:06] predicts, protects those orders for wildlife as well. So from the edge of the floodplain,
[2:37:13] there's an additional 50 feet separate for structures. So that is added to the chart. And then
[2:37:21] and there's
[2:37:25] any specific additional language in the chat.
[2:37:29] Let's adjust in the chat.
[2:37:32] Was that additional setback camp have you seen
[2:37:35] an increase in the request for their answers?
[2:37:39] Not significantly, typically,
[2:37:41] when we see requests for their answers dealing with this,
[2:37:45] it is because there is a build to zone,
[2:37:49] which is kind of the opposite of a setback,
[2:37:51] so rather than having a minimum setback,
[2:37:53] want people within, especially in the downtown area, we require them to build closer to the
[2:37:59] street front edge. So when they build two zone and the flood zone conflict, there's so much
[2:38:06] flood zone that you're not able to meet those built two requirements. That's typically where
[2:38:10] we see variances. And in most cases, the applicant from our direction, the preferences to comply
[2:38:18] with the floodplain and the floodplain buffer as much as possible and get the variance from the
[2:38:23] build to zone. Otherwise from getting setback, buffer setbacks, I think we've only done
[2:38:31] one in the last five years and that was only because that property had buffers on both the north
[2:38:41] and south portions of this property and left a really, really small building envelope. So the
[2:38:46] only way to have it be built upon was through the process of a number of
[2:38:51] variances. And I think there was a total four variances in this case because the property
[2:38:56] was so restrictive. So in general though, we do not see just, you know, people
[2:39:02] concerned about the floodplain buffer, not being able to meet the floodplain buffer
[2:39:06] and getting variances of it. It can even, even with the smaller lots within the
[2:39:12] the city. It can be accommodated for
[2:39:30] it. It is labeled as table 7. It's under 5-4-2
[2:39:37] riparian buffer.
[2:39:43] The only change we added trail creek in the place of the T-Tem River and we
[2:39:50] added then the fleema fleema floodplain buffer, which is 50 feet outside the edge of the designated
[2:40:01] I'm sorry, I assumed out of the section again because I was looking for something else, but are you afraid to just zone a, just zone a, just zone a, um, it would be any portion of the floodplain, um, so I know the quitting zone x.
[2:40:17] No, not zone x, zone x is the where there's not floodplain correct.
[2:40:22] It's on the full the 500 year floodplain.
[2:40:26] I think we would probably honor that within the city, but I can I'll leave it up to you guys on which level you'd want to regulate that problem, so we can definitely we probably should now that we have those
[2:40:37] or will lead what soon as it's effective, it should be clarified in this chart as well outside that outer edge of the designated floodplain under the
[2:40:57] air.
[2:40:57] Well, just screenshot really quickly, because I think Victor is one area where, in the area,
[2:41:05] in fact, you can see the preliminary data is quite different from our, I'll talk a really
[2:41:12] quick, effective floodplain.
[2:41:17] Which is good. But, you know, there's not a ton of properties,
[2:41:23] so the orange would be that 500 year, that's on X, and then the blue would be on A.
[2:41:29] I mean, it's that AE. Maybe the red is actually the AA.
[2:41:36] No, that's still AE would be.
[2:41:38] So,
[2:41:40] there is a bit more in the AI now that the prelim data would affect.
[2:41:58] And, James, I think we, what did we land on for floodplain ordinance in the A to Y?
[2:42:05] Just that counties will apply?
[2:42:09] Okay, so anything related to flip-plane development
[2:42:16] for us can be covered at the county level,
[2:42:19] which, for example, something the county is
[2:42:22] considering during when we update our ordinance with the updated
[2:42:25] map is to not require flip-plane development parents
[2:42:29] for buildings in zone X, but to require some specific building
[2:42:34] requirements, so, you know, no basements or ventilated crawl spaces
[2:42:40] instead, things like that, so we'll be making those amendments.
[2:42:51] Good evening, very much.
[2:42:52] I call
[2:43:02] to patient, associate with the existing paratrooperations.
[2:43:07] These are the exemptions.
[2:43:09] So five, two, one, being two.
[2:43:13] The only red line I have on that is two to two a occurring on natural slopes that are less than 30%.
[2:43:24] That's the only red line that's on this version.
[2:43:28] Yeah, that's what I have.
[2:43:29] Okay, yeah.
[2:43:30] So do you want to keep that?
[2:43:32] I think so.
[2:43:34] I think I moved it because.
[2:43:36] How is this helps?
[2:43:56] It seems to
[2:43:59] be.
[2:44:00] So if the city has a 50 foot setback on the 100 year floodplain or the city.
[2:44:05] You, the city does.
[2:44:08] We now, you're suggesting the county has a 50 foot setback on the floodplain in the area
[2:44:17] Then we are now in forcing a different regulation than in the Arab impact than the county, correct?
[2:44:31] Correct.
[2:44:35] Which I think it's good.
[2:44:38] I'm not opposed.
[2:44:40] I would just want to clarify some clarification for the zones,
[2:44:45] So, which zones require the additional 50-foot set back other than outer edge of designated
[2:44:52] plug plane, so just clarifying that a little bit.
[2:45:00] Pardon? Yeah. So I'm going to add some a and parentheses 100 year. So people look at most people aren't going to know exactly what some a, as soon as they see it. So as long as we put both, I think it would be appropriate.
[2:45:13] All right.
[2:45:24] So there are some minor changes in 55 for scenic resources, mainly eliminating roadways that are not within the AOI.
[2:45:35] those road sections, language
[2:45:44] when it's not within those areas. And then in the type 1 and 2 resource development standards, I think there was just, I don't know, this was more formatic stuff that got messed up, that's fine.
[2:46:10] Yeah, and then it's like, he's get duplicated somehow with the formatting and the comparison.
[2:46:16] So I'm not removing any landscaping. It's just duplication of the charts.
[2:46:28] Okay, parking space.
[2:46:29] So yeah, we do add a G to parking.
[2:46:33] So this is going to be section 5, 6, 3 parking.
[2:46:39] And then, under that, it's G. So it's the very last item or just above 564, which is pedestrian access.
[2:46:48] We add a requirement that parking locks for foreign 20 spaces or more are required to be paved, including parking spaces and drive aisles.
[2:46:57] And this is just more in regards to consideration of if you're having a use that's been a trigger 20 parking spaces.
[2:47:06] That's in the ALI with potential annexation opportunities of having it paved as consistent with the city.
[2:47:17] You know, wouldn't be required for smaller loss, but something that would require 20 parking spaces.
[2:47:22] We think this probably used that would be a bit more substantial and probably wouldn't be going away any time soon.
[2:47:29] Right, right.
[2:47:34] then I think we do some clarification in the vehicle loading. So 5, 6, 6, 6. Rather than it
[2:47:41] being specifically limited to a zoning district, we're just kind of clarify that if it's
[2:47:46] unloading of goods materials items that all of those need to meet these loading requirements,
[2:47:52] and it's not specific to a zoning district.
[2:47:56] There's a number of different uses,
[2:47:58] even agricultural, that could trigger this
[2:48:02] if their loading areas happen to be right in the front yard.
[2:48:06] And just making sure that they're trying to find better places
[2:48:10] for those loading areas and screening where appropriate.
[2:48:39] And I
[2:48:42] think buffering is different than screening,
[2:48:45] and I don't think there was any where that buffering was going to be required in the AY because
[2:48:53] I was going to test generally by our own correct because of the zones that buffering is required
[2:48:59] in in the county that would not apply to the AY. That's why that section is taken out. Yeah.
[2:49:23] Temporary signs. It looks like it's the next thing that we added some clarification to 5, 9, 10.
[2:49:30] and we just added basically a time limit. There's four temporary signs per year but
[2:49:39] there wasn't anything of what defines the time limit of a temporary sign. So we just
[2:49:46] added for a period of no longer than two weeks at any given time. So two weeks, four times
[2:49:52] throughout the year.
[2:50:06] We need something, so we need something, so we need something, so maybe
[2:50:16] we need something. We
[2:50:25] need something, so maybe we need something, so maybe we need something.
[2:50:25] We need something. Yeah, so that's all good. And then I added, it looks like this might be just
[2:50:32] clear, re-wording.
[2:50:35] Oh, I think there's more formatting, because it's the exact same wording.
[2:50:40] So, there's actually no change to,
[2:50:50] there's actually a change there, it just looks like it's
[2:50:54] underlined and added back in for some reason, so I'm guessing it was a formatting issue.
[2:51:02] And then that brings us to six.
[2:51:09] So, the meaning thing with six is that the city and it's the kind of a large leader attachment
[2:51:17] or a condom that we're adding.
[2:51:22] Our city engineer has outlined kind of these modifications
[2:51:29] to the county road standards.
[2:51:32] It's just clarification on paving and
[2:51:39] if you follow this section,
[2:51:41] delete the section, that kind of thing,
[2:51:44] just to make sure that ultimately it's the county road standards
[2:51:49] that are being followed,
[2:51:50] but it's these minor changes to have a pay of, and I think there might be,
[2:52:09] this would
[2:52:10] apply to basically new subdivision roads. We would not have any expectation in the county
[2:52:18] roads would be needing to be paved through this process, but specifically for private roads
[2:52:25] within new developments being paved so that they are later annexed into the city that they
[2:52:32] immediately be maintained by the city as well.
[2:52:44] I guess practically speaking,
[2:52:52] the city
[2:52:53] intends to adopt those internal subdivisions.
[2:52:58] That's definitely the goal.
[2:53:01] Once things are annexed,
[2:53:03] there will be required upgrades,
[2:53:05] as it's required that everyone be connected to city water.
[2:53:09] Subject and probably get filtered out over time
[2:53:12] or have a time limit on when
[2:53:14] subject systems are abandoned, but because of meeting a large service to be installed and
[2:53:23] maintained by the city immediately we would want access appropriate roads to be able to access
[2:53:28] those things, to maintain them.
[2:53:54] Okay.
[2:53:57] Yeah, but the fading would still be required.
[2:54:01] Yeah, that's fine.
[2:54:02] Yeah.
[2:54:02] Yeah.
[2:54:03] It's definitely probably a case by case on the size of the annexation.
[2:54:08] Where it's at?
[2:54:09] I'm sure there's some of those that we would have no problem staying.
[2:54:12] It's private.
[2:54:14] Okay.
[2:54:15] One fire tone has the city of Victor adopted.
[2:54:24] I only bring this up because the current subdivision ordinance for fire protection
[2:54:30] for T. Jean-Camie is dated 2011.
[2:54:51] We're while you're looking at that.
[2:54:52] We, you know, I don't know how well this will
[2:54:55] guide with your goals.
[2:55:06] All these sort of visioners pay.
[2:55:08] That makes sense.
[2:55:09] Travelers.
[2:55:10] All drivers must be constructed to refer
[2:55:12] to seeing development and
[2:55:13] dimension standards for public roads.
[2:55:16] Must be for public work structure.
[2:55:18] So we...
[2:55:20] We have a lot of on-page roads, right?
[2:55:23] So, and mostly they're going to run some of our, some divisions, some of them are just one
[2:55:28] name house in 28 years, and it's a driveway essentially.
[2:55:33] Um, a private road, private road service must be paid.
[2:55:39] I assume that's excluding drivers, um, but I don't know.
[2:55:44] And then, how does that drive us or this idea that we want to maintain, you know, the agriculture
[2:55:51] the world nature of the area of impact until it's
[2:55:54] can't be asked.
[2:55:56] And it's doing cluster development with protection
[2:56:03] of open space.
[2:56:05] But there is a road going through the open space.
[2:56:07] That is not like really appropriate to have
[2:56:10] it be a paved road.
[2:56:11] It's just getting from 0.8 to 0.8.
[2:56:15] I worry about this requirement,
[2:56:17] because I think there are these circumstances.
[2:56:20] where nobody is going to want that road paved not the landowner, not the city, not the county, not the neighbors.
[2:56:28] Also where it's, sorry.
[2:56:30] No, I mean, I'm done better.
[2:56:32] So we're potentially more challenging to bring it.
[2:56:35] The water is there.
[2:56:37] Oh, yeah.
[2:56:39] Yeah.
[2:56:39] So you have so there's a slide for good.
[2:56:41] Yeah.
[2:56:41] We put it in the water.
[2:56:42] The water is just more expensive.
[2:56:45] We can do that.
[2:56:46] Well, then actually it's back to the subdivision part.
[2:56:49] If it's a subdivision in the county, we want to typically be on the repair requirement
[2:56:55] to be paid.
[2:56:56] But if it's in the heroin impact, the requirement is that we're going to repeat adding
[2:57:02] sewer down the road.
[2:57:03] Do the commissionary thoughts on them,
[2:57:10] I think the general concept is a lot of something that's, like it would be, that's something to be, right?
[2:57:17] Even I don't know.
[2:57:20] Yeah, I don't know how someone's to develop a subdivision within the city.
[2:57:25] We have our street stand, right?
[2:57:27] To include eight men.
[2:57:29] And prior to that, we also have to read standards.
[2:57:32] So they would be paved as well.
[2:57:40] But then it doesn't matter, you know, then it's like, it probably doesn't encourage
[2:57:44] these exercises, you want it, right?
[2:57:47] Yeah, yeah.
[2:57:47] Yeah, I'm going to be wondering if that would become that a barrier in the organization,
[2:57:50] and when it otherwise would have been able to be an easy-
[2:57:53] Yeah, yeah.
[2:57:54] I just don't think that the length of statement that all private and public roads must be paved
[2:58:01] is really, realistically,
[2:58:06] always willing to be to the advantage of the city of the county.
[2:58:11] What I'm thinking we could add, because we have something very similar in the city, so
[2:58:15] I could look at to that as a reference,
[2:58:20] is it could be exempt from being paved, approved by
[2:58:25] B.O.C.C. because this would go through, this would be associated with the subdivision.
[2:58:29] And that's 6th, 3, 3.
[2:58:33] When else would private roads be added outside of a subdivision?
[2:58:42] Some buildings building house.
[2:58:43] I think it's a private road to access.
[2:58:49] So I think we can definitely accept driveways.
[2:58:51] I don't think that's the...
[2:58:53] Commissioner Meal does bring a good point though that
[2:58:56] Hanika requires things to be improved from driveway standards to road standards
[2:59:01] once they're accessing two or more lots.
[2:59:07] So if there weren't instance where, you know, there was a private driveway and then someone wanted to build and it would trigger those requirements, so just clarifying that I think.
[2:59:25] is that it is not in the high-waisted hundreds?
[2:59:37] You're talking about the difference between driveway and...
[2:59:41] Yeah.
[2:59:42] Yeah, that would just be the Tijon County highway standards.
[2:59:46] Although I think our code did generally go over, like, at least the dimensions,
[2:59:51] and that would be the major increase, is just the width of the road.
[3:00:03] To requiring roads to be paved,
[3:00:09] there's other implications beyond just its better for future annexation.
[3:00:17] As you increase the number of roads that are paved during creasing the impervious surface, increasing the runoff, we talk about sewers like they're all sanitary sewers, but there's also storm sewers.
[3:00:32] And you have to have those if you have a lot of paid roads, as anyone thought this all through.
[3:00:39] I think the public works needs to weigh in on this also.
[3:00:49] I think the intent for the city is definitely in regards to new roads that are associated with new subdivisions.
[3:00:59] And I'm sure there's a way to clarify that.
[3:01:03] And then there is a storm water issue.
[3:01:09] I don't know.
[3:01:11] There will be the more you pay for surfaces as time goes on.
[3:01:16] You're creating a scum water issue.
[3:01:19] How are you going to address it?
[3:01:22] It's not with the first road.
[3:01:24] Maybe not with the second road.
[3:01:25] But you reach a point where you create so much impervious surface
[3:01:29] that water's got to go somewhere.
[3:01:37] Yeah, it doesn't look like ours, the
[3:01:46] appendix that was provided by our engineer doesn't look like he's changing the
[3:01:52] the ditch slopes or size requirements or anything like that. So I would venture to guess that they're
[3:02:03] Expecting the road ditches to have general accommodations for those things
[3:02:12] Then we probably want to live it should most of all very most of the visioners don't have ditches
[3:02:19] They're just surface
[3:02:20] The
[3:02:25] road standards have a one for
[3:02:28] Slope away from the road surface on all all of the current roads standards in the coming
[3:02:37] and then a two-one coming
[3:02:40] So the crown creates shedding of water off the low.
[3:02:45] Yeah, it's a 2% from the crown to the edge of the, well, edge of pavement or edge of roadway.
[3:02:52] And then a 4-1 slope to create a little bit of a ditch.
[3:02:57] And then it has a 2-1 minimum from the private property coming into that ditch.
[3:03:03] So it does feel as well.
[3:03:05] Yeah.
[3:03:05] I think it depends on, you know, talking about both, like, hollow,
[3:03:13] Timberline, Dolph Fist,
[3:03:15] which is on spring, all of these are heavily paved, and the road really runs right into your
[3:03:22] mind.
[3:03:22] Another is, no.
[3:03:24] Don't shout.
[3:03:25] It's a problem.
[3:03:26] It's a city of danger.
[3:03:27] Not a forcing.
[3:03:28] So, they're like, are you ready to depart?
[3:03:30] Yeah.
[3:03:30] I'm going to accept it.
[3:03:34] And we just have that up, because
[3:03:43] you see, it's me.
[3:03:49] I'm just raising the question.
[3:03:50] If you're civil engineer signed off on it,
[3:03:53] we'd love it, but I guess we'll love it too.
[3:03:55] But yeah, we could not do that.
[3:03:57] Through the city is always in the end of the year.
[3:04:01] But I think we probably do need more clarification
[3:04:04] to match the city's intent in regards to this applying
[3:04:07] to new subdivisions and not necessarily
[3:04:09] to all new private roads that would ultimately be,
[3:04:13] you know, someone's driving away.
[3:04:15] So I think we definitely need more.
[3:04:16] I got, I can probably work with Jade to figure out
[3:04:19] if this needs to be like a separate kind of ease
[3:04:23] subsection of this or kind of
[3:04:32] like
[3:04:32] where the best location of that language would be.
[3:04:38] I guess, I think this was already asked,
[3:04:40] but it was maybe hard for me to hear
[3:04:42] just about requiring pavement where utilities
[3:04:46] are not yet in place, like city utilities,
[3:04:50] and the fact that if we annexed
[3:04:52] then we're digging up pavement,
[3:04:56] is that a cost burden, or I guess I don't know,
[3:05:00] Um, they're probably the easier to add it into the ditch areas than under the roadway and
[3:05:05] have water on one side and sewer on one side would meet all of the separation requirements
[3:05:11] and would be a lot easier to be done and maintained.
[3:05:15] Okay.
[3:05:18] Um, all right.
[3:05:19] I do need to pop off for more well at 12 o'clock since seven minutes late.
[3:05:23] Um, but I'll be available for follow-up questions.
[3:05:25] came if you have any and believe as it pertains to the AI boundary I kind of identified in the
[3:05:32] county staff report areas that came up from the public that were at interest mostly along
[3:05:39] 9500 South the foothills not near old Jackson Highway in the bits on the north and those larger
[3:05:48] 40 acre parcels, so.
[3:05:51] Thank you.
[3:05:53] Hi, everybody.
[3:05:54] Thank you.
[3:05:55] We're in the home stretch, guys.
[3:05:58] Are we good?
[3:05:58] Yeah.
[3:05:59] We're at dead ends and then in the definitions.
[3:06:03] We're utility, some of them.
[3:06:04] I should speak up and then take a break.
[3:06:08] So dead ends.
[3:06:10] We just added clarification that new dead ends should be avoided
[3:06:13] and to kind of refer back to the stub road section.
[3:06:16] We'd rather have stub roads that have the ability to be connected if it's clearly, you know,
[3:06:23] this isn't as black and white of a co-section, but definitely something that can help give leverage to you have stub roads instead of dead ends,
[3:06:32] but if subroads are not possible, it's adjacent to another developed subdivision or some type of dedicated open space where you're not going to have free traffic,
[3:06:40] than the data and what clearly be the preferred option.
[3:06:43] But just outlining that it should be avoided when possible
[3:06:48] and do a stop road if you're able to.
[3:06:55] I think there's,
[3:07:03] yeah, nothing substantial in utilities
[3:07:04] and then we get into definitions.
[3:07:07] I think I only clarified density average
[3:07:12] and emergency lighting.
[3:07:14] it didn't think that. Oh, and jump.
[3:07:18] Those are the only definitions we added.
[3:07:25] Yes, they're brand-new.
[3:07:27] They're not.
[3:07:28] Density average, I think, comes from your use
[3:07:32] for your bulk chart and table.
[3:07:35] We're just pulling it into the definition section.
[3:07:39] And I think we also...
[3:07:41] We're going to dedicate it to public heat.
[3:07:46] So, it's the number of dwellings units for acre,
[3:07:49] For the total land to be developed, including the land dedicated for public use and that would be a roadways.
[3:07:58] So again, I think we just pulled that from your, what was normally outlined in your bulk standards.
[3:08:04] We put it into the definitions because we don't have that in our bulk standards.
[3:08:08] It would only in the ROI would only apply to our new zone three.
[3:08:19] Emergency lighting, there was one reference to emergency lighting as emergency lighting to be exempt from some standards, but it didn't provide any definition of what emergency lighting was.
[3:08:31] So I was kind of afraid that would be potentially used as a loophole of someone just saying, oh well, it's emergency lighting, so I don't have to follow your standards.
[3:08:38] So, giving a definition, kind of lighting to be activated when normal light fails, to reason
[3:08:46] to help people either leaving a building, can be designed for an escape lighting or a backup
[3:08:53] lighting.
[3:08:54] So, whether it's your standard lights would go out in a power outage and this would be your backup
[3:09:00] lighting whether served by a generator or a battery source, but also then, in the aspect
[3:09:06] of building safety or emergency lighting,
[3:09:09] and those types of things would apply.
[3:09:14] And then in a junk, we added as well.
[3:09:19] I think this is mainly because it pertains specifically
[3:09:22] to a recent enforcement issue that we're having,
[3:09:26] but basically, it's a laparated scrap of abandoned,
[3:09:30] are kind of the key terms there in regards
[3:09:33] to different types of materials that people could potentially
[3:09:37] have collected on their property
[3:09:47] that's it we made it so I'll link these
[3:09:51] adjustments and whatever we choose to schedule another meeting I will have all of these
[3:09:58] ready for you
[3:10:05] what do you what do you guys want from great you're going to have to leave it
[3:10:10] 12 30 so I'm sorry
[3:10:23] do you want to say you want to put these your thoughts on the map
[3:10:27] if you guys had any feedback I
[3:10:39] do see value in square and off this northern end
[3:10:42] there's a more south 38 years to 40s adjacent to it that was talked about the comment on the northwest part of the highway there and that
[3:10:52] because I don't see that to me is I think we have enough future on my gear if we just kind of
[3:11:18] It is the city's property.
[3:11:21] The extension we were hoping for has already been removed.
[3:11:25] So the city would definitely be open to taking that out of the spot.
[3:11:28] We don't need that to be in the city, but it's the way so speak.
[3:11:31] We don't need it in the A.O.I.
[3:11:33] That would be great.
[3:11:36] And then, you know, I don't know what J.D.P.
[3:11:37] I don't know if she's talking about the least.
[3:11:41] It's not even to sound like a trail.
[3:11:42] excited that we discussed that internally, what we had since, and then just a general comment,
[3:11:52] you know, you have to have boundary somewhere, so there was some suggestion of a comment that, you know,
[3:12:01] they didn't like where the boundary was, but again, it has to be somewhere.
[3:12:05] So I actually think this is a very logical,
[3:12:13] like what this should look like,
[3:12:14] and the colleagues and accounts for, I think,
[3:12:18] I mean, future girls, but also recognize
[3:12:20] what is the fact that a county property
[3:12:25] and a county selling rather than ever,
[3:12:30] that will sit in harmony goes away
[3:12:32] and they'll be short about how important that is.
[3:12:35] But thank you, General, it looks pretty good.
[3:12:43] The could generally disagree.
[3:12:44] All right, I agree with you.
[3:12:47] I agree with you.
[3:12:48] I didn't need a break.
[3:12:49] I'm not listening to that.
[3:12:51] No, I agree.
[3:12:56] We can dive into this after the break if you guys need a break, I just wanted to hear our question.
[3:13:00] We need to talk through it.
[3:13:04] But generally,
[3:13:09] when you're referring to the boundary, which section where you're referring to is the boundary to somewhere?
[3:13:17] Well, I can explain it differently.
[3:13:19] There is a very wealthy somewhat new property on the valley who wants in some theory to own all of the property adjacent to him
[3:13:28] And I
[3:13:30] That only stopped at the oceans
[3:13:31] Where is that stop?
[3:13:34] And so what I'm saying is the city has to stop somewhere in an AOA started somewhere in a county start somewhere
[3:13:41] Again, it seems suggested
[3:13:43] They didn't like where the line is
[3:13:46] But there has to be a line for it.
[3:13:48] And the state has provided some suggestions of guidelines
[3:13:51] on where that's going to be.
[3:13:53] The A-Y line, the city line, is the city line.
[3:13:56] You guys know what you are.
[3:13:58] The A-Y line is where you intend to grow,
[3:14:04] where you're in the next five to 10 years.
[3:14:09] I was a city like in the annexation.
[3:14:13] And the rest is just county.
[3:14:14] Yeah, I would, I mean, personally, I, I don't intend to have any, or I mean, I would, I would feel in that court as to be, I think it's, it's not, it's strategic objective to develop the rest of the, it's just, that's the logical grant.
[3:14:31] Well, I mean, it kind of has to be.
[3:14:37] That's the crux of the new AOI statue, it has to be where the city expects to grow and the next
[3:14:52] And then you can move it out from there.
[3:15:00] Based on geography and utilities, characteristics of a land in your comprehensive land, you know, all the things,
[3:15:14] and I think what, I know it's like really hard to do and to protect and to know, but the idea is to really identify to the community, like, these are the places where you have access in the future and the near future.
[3:15:33] or not the 50, 60, 70 of future, this is where there's an opportunity to take an X and get higher density.
[3:15:44] Yeah, I think taking into consideration's questions comments agree with those as well that beyond those changes, I think this obviously not all of it at once, but if any one of these parcels came in for annexation,
[3:16:01] I think it would be seriously considered, obviously, I can't project what council would approve,
[3:16:09] but it definitely would make sense from a planning perspective that any of those would have likely
[3:16:15] hud of being annexed. Something that's in the AOI.
[3:16:20] Yeah, in the proposed year, the boundaries that we just talked about, and then also with the
[3:16:25] removing the items that you talked about that. I think what would be about
[3:16:31] 168 acres immediately west of the reserve and removing the little carve out
[3:16:36] for the city property. Again, the exemption that we were hoping to have
[3:16:40] were that has already been removed. So there's no reason to have that in. So we'll
[3:16:46] you know, buy it those changes. I think again, any any one of those parcels if
[3:16:53] came in with an annexation application and we would
[3:16:58] who definitely have some positive consideration.
[3:17:05] I think a reiteration of lifeways is because there's a subdivision here inside
[3:17:09] the city. It doesn't mean there needs to be one on the other side of the highway.
[3:17:12] Just to get a task to stop somewhere.
[3:17:14] Right. Okay.
[3:17:29] At the moment.
[3:17:30] At the moment.
[3:17:30] At the moment.
[3:17:31] At the moment.
[3:17:32] At the moment.
[3:17:33] At the moment.
[3:17:36] She is a lot of really cool open space ideas.
[3:17:39] including potential medications.
[3:17:41] So we'll keep an eye on this.
[3:17:56] Matt is actually a little more.
[3:18:00] Yeah.
[3:18:00] Peace by that red line there.
[3:18:03] Dr. Glenn, did they go with that?
[3:18:25] Yes.
[3:18:25] I'm looking at the one that has both the proposed county and the proposed city
[3:18:30] is only, there's the others, other maps that we find it.
[3:18:35] This is more, these next year are free and more.
[3:18:38] So we can figure out why you're making a motion on.
[3:18:41] There's only through this area.
[3:18:42] I don't know if it's only a five city section.
[3:18:50] So that's why those work in our separate place.
[3:18:53] But that one we can do is use one.
[3:18:58] We'll go back because there's transparency.
[3:19:00] You can actually see a little bit of what's underneath it and figure out where you're at.
[3:19:09] Yeah, go forward.
[3:19:32] I mean, I can see it pretty well.
[3:19:41] I agree with that pulling back from six out of the south.
[3:19:49] makes a lot of sense for the county.
[3:19:54] I'm still a little bit troubled with some of the stuff on
[3:19:57] the southwest and the southeast,
[3:20:04] where we've got
[3:20:17] AG-35s owning or hillside 20 in areas that are already
[3:20:24] essentially
[3:20:27] subdivided. A fairly high density.
[3:20:31] What is states or
[3:20:37] what?
[3:20:37] Well, some of that stuff in between the existing ALI and the proposed one,
[3:20:50] it's all
[3:20:51] subdivisions.
[3:20:52] Like the piece that's north of Teton Springs and west of 500 West,
[3:21:00] that 40 acres square.
[3:21:06] Outside of that proposed line?
[3:21:08] Yes.
[3:21:08] I think the losses are small.
[3:21:11] Like we're not going to act.
[3:21:14] Yeah.
[3:21:14] All right.
[3:21:14] You said that earlier.
[3:21:16] Mm.
[3:21:19] All right.
[3:21:19] If
[3:21:24] you're referring to where the zoning in ALR and the case.
[3:21:29] Well, we're going to agree.
[3:21:30] You were, yeah.
[3:21:31] It's suggesting that the zoning goes to 835 in an area where I don't think there's a 35 maker.
[3:21:39] A lot in there.
[3:21:41] So, right.
[3:21:42] It's they're all except for a few exceptions
[3:21:47] But that's because it will be seen eventually
[3:21:51] And the much higher doesn't
[3:21:54] It's not in the A or it's not in the closed A or
[3:21:58] That's coming out
[3:21:59] It's coming out which one are you talking about Michael
[3:22:07] This stuff down here. Yeah, that's where I was looking to
[3:22:11] And some of this right here
[3:22:12] I
[3:22:19] mean, frankly,
[3:22:25] when we approve some of those subdivisions like
[3:22:31] just me and Lisa, I was really
[3:22:34] appalled that we were approving individual septic, but it's almost down to one acre zoning.
[3:22:42] When you include the human use,
[3:22:47] I hope was that eventually once there was surcapacity that
[3:22:51] goes and go into the city, because we've created something that's going to hurt us all.
[3:23:00] I think.
[3:23:02] Well, we had to, we had to follow the old code, but it's two and a half acres only with
[3:23:08] ADUs and pretty substantial subdivision.
[3:23:14] Yeah, I guess there isn't anything in this whole, this whole quadrant that's less than
[3:23:24] Maybe you've got a couple of people who are in one anger or a little trail creep.
[3:23:32] This does all have a very county feel to it.
[3:23:36] You know, part of the reason we are seeing here is, I agree with you.
[3:23:42] I think Jeremy might have a little
[3:23:46] acidity in the line.
[3:23:47] Possibly down a five-per-way storm of the story, either.
[3:23:54] You've also, you know, wrote, there's these several of these non-compliant subdivisions.
[3:24:00] Now, I'd like to point up a one, ninety-five hundred.
[3:24:02] on the northern boundary of the old line that they don't know if it's just a disaster to try
[3:24:09] out what we did in the county at the city, and that
[3:24:20] would just be for that portion, that's
[3:24:22] specifically, and I don't know if there'd be another serious list of calls on this side.
[3:24:26] This entire area is dirt road to an a half-acre loss.
[3:24:41] I don't know if the 35, you know, the LA-35 is the back zoning port, the city just kind of suggested,
[3:24:48] And we literally just took the surrounding zoning districts and pulled them in when we created
[3:24:52] the boundaries.
[3:24:54] We didn't want to concerns of spot zoning, but if there's appropriate justification
[3:24:58] of, okay, well, all of these, you know, because of that common denominator of being mostly
[3:25:04] already developed might be better suited for your RN5, then maybe that's appropriate, and
[3:25:13] as long as it's a larger cohesive chunk,
[3:25:18] rather than individual subdivisions,
[3:25:21] then I don't think it would be considered the spot-sounding.
[3:25:24] It's almost, yeah, to go from 2.5 to 35.
[3:25:33] It's a huge jump.
[3:25:36] It creates a liability for all of us
[3:25:39] thing in terms of,
[3:25:44] you know, that big of a down song,
[3:25:48] people taking, doing a taking in
[3:25:50] Alice or whatever, and suggesting that we're a troll-outway. And it does so to know benefit
[3:25:57] to the county because it's already developed, there's nothing there to protect.
[3:26:03] Well, there's a few underdeveloped larger pieces, but by and large you're right.
[3:26:42] It's just
[3:26:43] why it is what it is, is because the serious area in the night was jumping and that all remained
[3:26:50] 2.5.
[3:26:51] The far too long.
[3:26:53] It's all developed the way it is because that's where the area is and where it was.
[3:26:56] That is why.
[3:27:13] Yeah, you suggest it's got a county field.
[3:27:15] It doesn't have county field to be at all.
[3:27:18] It feels like it's a more urban, at least suburban.
[3:27:24] I mean.
[3:27:25] It's ex-serven sprawl.
[3:27:26] They're used to pay about.
[3:27:27] They used to be two PUDs and current AOI, right?
[3:27:31] No, not all of them.
[3:27:33] There were two PUDs and the current AOI.
[3:27:39] Teton, right?
[3:27:42] Tom's brain is over-reserved.
[3:27:45] How did those come to be?
[3:27:47] Counting had a POD or Nens and some county commissioners long before us?
[3:27:52] But they've got city services.
[3:27:54] Oh, that's a good question.
[3:27:58] I like the answer.
[3:27:59] The research.
[3:28:05] I
[3:28:17] don't know what kind of deals were made, or even if any deals were made, but the C.D.A.M. access.
[3:28:28] But what do you have?
[3:28:29] I mean, you got like, what is the technical answer?
[3:28:32] Yes.
[3:28:35] Do you have a date on your date on your date on your date on your date on your date on your date?
[3:29:01] Is it going to the Drake sewer?
[3:29:03] Yeah.
[3:29:04] Yeah.
[3:29:04] So you got other communities up here waiting north of what we're talking about, but we're also on.
[3:29:11] Now, the base and our remains with the city of Victor, like all of those different developments,
[3:29:18] got it because the city of Victor made the agreement to give it to Andrew.
[3:29:22] Andrew, Andrew.
[3:29:25] Right, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[3:29:27] I mean, along this is, we're trying to, we're all trying to fix this dates.
[3:29:34] Look at this entire, let's call
[3:29:39] it, it's pretty much exactly.
[3:29:53] But it's all known to your impact.
[3:29:55] It is now.
[3:29:57] Yeah.
[3:29:57] But it is.
[3:29:58] And it is all known to you.
[3:30:02] Right.
[3:30:07] But your point is taken, yes, that is also, is
[3:30:15] a pass and see what's in the blue inside of the blue again.
[3:30:19] And golf does that Timberline settlement for outside,
[3:30:26] or consistent with a city.
[3:30:28] It has dense small lots on water, so we're paved, whereas everything on this night market,
[3:30:34] south or north, between my thousand and ninety-five hours, is rural, it's a map, a bigger
[3:30:39] dirt road, you know, in the market, so
[3:30:44] good.
[3:30:45] The one thing that's different is that it's now, we haven't had any subdivision applications
[3:30:53] in our area, they're all in the self-bacter, they're even, the two-point bars, or, you know,
[3:31:03] to tell you how it's in China.
[3:31:07] There's...
[3:31:12] Well, I think the two squares between 9,000 and 9,500 can be between 500 West to 15,00 West.
[3:31:25] Those two squares definitely talk to be the RM5 and probably T-ton spring should be as well.
[3:31:42] I'll do the RM5.
[3:31:46] Yeah.
[3:31:46] This one and this one.
[3:31:48] Okay.
[3:31:48] Can't wait.
[3:31:49] What a problem.
[3:31:49] We're saying it's all 35.
[3:31:52] Okay.
[3:31:53] It should go to five.
[3:31:57] I would agree with that.
[3:31:58] I think that that's part of something.
[3:32:02] And I think 1500 is free doubt, but I think 1500 is the appropriate dividing line because West
[3:32:10] of there you start to see a lot of larger pieces and they weren't in the A-O-Colding
[3:32:17] O-I.
[3:32:18] Do you want to keep the 35 on the West of that or is there a different zoning that what
[3:32:24] do you think is more appropriate?
[3:32:26] Yeah, we could keep 35 there.
[3:32:38] Okay.
[3:32:39] I mean
[3:32:46] 35 because it's going to have a lot more of these allergic patients
[3:32:52] in this.
[3:32:57] Yep.
[3:32:59] I just want to try it out.
[3:33:00] I want to put it in the right spot.
[3:33:02] I'm just going to put it in right here.
[3:33:04] Okay.
[3:33:05] And then I do know these two have pending subdivision applications.
[3:33:11] I can tell you where they're at in the process.
[3:33:13] But I'm pretty sure they are at least a preliminary plaque.
[3:33:17] but I don't think they're the ones on the northern half have, but those two are more of,
[3:33:22] you know, so I don't know if that makes any different of just of a distinction, you know, with some of these are actually different ones.
[3:33:28] Should we bring it that far? Is that what you're saying?
[3:33:31] I mean, even all of it because these are all subdivided.
[3:33:33] It was anything style.
[3:33:34] Take it all the way over.
[3:33:35] Yeah, that all this would be five.
[3:33:39] And then since these are parts of larger parcels, keep that at thirty-five.
[3:33:43] I believe that long.
[3:33:44] Yeah.
[3:33:44] That's what I do.
[3:33:46] Okay.
[3:33:46] I'm okay with that.
[3:33:49] No, no, no.
[3:33:50] I'm just staying out.
[3:33:53] Don't be out of it.
[3:33:54] I'm staying out.
[3:33:55] So basically, everything you're talking to is probably this way.
[3:33:58] All the way over to here.
[3:33:59] All of this at least.
[3:34:01] Just to the current line.
[3:34:02] These are all.
[3:34:03] I mean, it was over here.
[3:34:04] I'm okay with that.
[3:34:05] And we haven't talked about.
[3:34:08] We since these are developed.
[3:34:10] These have, but at least, pennies, after those are ends for these two.
[3:34:14] And these are.
[3:34:17] All of these are.
[3:34:25] Right, correct. Yeah,
[3:34:35] yeah, that was brought up was
[3:35:18] in there's a lot of blood
[3:35:25] Detective, you talking about the triangle north of 9500?
[3:35:31] No, Alokandus in this, it's a larger piece that's kind of basically
[3:35:35] south of Mountside Village all the way over to this at the time.
[3:35:39] This triangle right here.
[3:35:41] And yeah, all the way over to Jansfries, you know, I would talk about that all kind of
[3:35:45] is the same consideration of why the county or the city proposed the same type of slopes as you
[3:35:55] would go alongside because you're going deeper into a valley but there's also the wildlife
[3:36:01] overlay and flood plains which is why the city kind of kept that hillside or the footjills
[3:36:08] zoning for all of this.
[3:36:30] That was some of the other public comment was about the pieces over in that
[3:36:33] the one that I saw the one that was the situation with the sewer water.
[3:36:42] There's no sewer water.
[3:36:47] Is there a sewer or a reyocost of cigarette water?
[3:36:51] No.
[3:36:53] There's no sewer.
[3:36:54] No, there's no.
[3:36:55] That there's sewer near fire.
[3:36:57] There's some of those comments we're regarding.
[3:37:04] It somehow helped city get access to water.
[3:37:08] Thank you over this yeah, I
[3:37:14] mean it's just water line has come from gangry.
[3:37:27] They over here
[3:37:33] I'd suggest the question. Let me just ask
[3:37:43] the city has provided service, but now the city has decided they don't want to
[3:38:59] It's just interesting like all the areas the city thinks it's going to grow is taking that an area where there are already
[3:39:16] I think the big chunk of it is that it's mostly floodplain, so it's very unlikely that any of these lots are going to develop further than how they are already are.
[3:39:26] So there's not really any benefit to have them annexed. They can stay on septic and stay where they're at.
[3:39:32] And if not inside or not, a proof of 20 years ago, I don't know that you would be seeing, yeah,
[3:40:03] by 24 and set of 24 or 23,
[3:40:28] we're going to have another public hearing on all of
[3:40:33] this.
[3:40:33] One thing we could go into that hearing with the changes that we could talk about,
[3:40:41] and the changes that we just talked about, for the sounding to South West, what's going to the 5th degree.
[3:40:55] Since it seems like we're almost done,
[3:41:02] but is this key here that needs to be done?
[3:41:15] Yeah, what we were talking about is maybe bringing this straight on.
[3:41:22] We have already had meetings with a number of these property owners.
[3:41:26] It's north of 7,000 of our potential annexation.
[3:41:30] Is he side?
[3:41:34] Well,
[3:41:44] I know we've talked with
[3:41:54] you what we're doing as T&C's recommendations to count on you.
[3:42:04] You were talking about straight down the highway over the last year.
[3:42:09] I was thinking, yeah, basically, at a sign line of 7000, right?
[3:42:14] Yeah, that's what she's proposing.
[3:42:16] That doesn't, that seems logical to me.
[3:42:32] Plenty of room to grow, wouldn't it?
[3:42:36] That's another anecdotal comment.
[3:42:37] If you fly over to Tom Springs and look down,
[3:42:40] it looks like there's about 20 houses there.
[3:42:42] It's totally about a third of the way it killed down.
[3:42:45] There's, we have more than plenty of developed infrastructure,
[3:42:50] page, clad in subdivision lots that are not built on. So I still, I don't even
[3:42:57] sort of agree with your word intent. It's the code, but it's not like we're out here.
[3:43:03] Looking try to figure out it, put in a bunch of more subdivisions on the peripheral of the city,
[3:43:09] but I agree, I don't see any reason why I couldn't come across at 6,000.
[3:43:22] What zoning district would you guys want to see there instead of where I was supposed to cut the square off here
[3:43:33] Five
[3:43:33] This mostly Jason
[3:43:35] I don't think I have all the zoning that come with that
[3:43:52] More zoning districts than what I have on the key here is that correct
[3:43:56] That's right, though. We just included what's in the area come
[3:44:10] down the highway and then kind of over at 7,000.
[3:44:23] And I'm pulling up the county's GIS map so get the whole, the full list of all the zoning districts.
[3:44:36] Yeah, it's all very undeveloped right now.
[3:44:38] Yeah, correct.
[3:44:42] Yeah, correct.
[3:44:42] Okay, so we have here.
[3:44:44] There's a nice Sage Land and Conward.
[3:44:47] Of course, some of that,
[3:44:52] I think, you have a great opportunity to create a bandage of 7,000 and more.
[3:45:22] So there's all of your zoning districts, so there's IR for your industrial research. There's the two ALI ones, the 2.5 is one that we've heard talked about today. The RN5, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E, RR20E,
[3:45:34] foot hills, 10, foot hills, 20, L, A, 35, which is for lowlands, and that's what Jason
[3:45:42] here. And R, A, 35, for rural agriculture. So those are your options. If there's
[3:45:50] something different that you want to do, does it be that chunk on the west side of the
[3:45:59] And what color should I make that on the map?
[3:46:13] So there's a rural agriculture 35.
[3:46:16] I don't know if this would qualify for the lowlands 35,
[3:46:20] so that would be adjacent to this one.
[3:46:23] So yeah, so there's R, R,
[3:46:27] A, 35.
[3:46:32] General consensus on that.
[3:46:35] At least make the map that way.
[3:46:36] We'll see what public comment is.
[3:46:38] And let's change it again soon.
[3:46:39] At least have something to present.
[3:46:42] We would fully, if I would say, again, if you look at all of the yellow that surrounds
[3:46:49] that, if I were a land or you might argue, you know, that's kind of a peninsula of 35 into
[3:46:58] this whole surrounded by five.
[3:47:00] So I'm going to go in the opposite way.
[3:47:04] I think that RR, the Royal Residential, could be a contender, because it's the one immediately
[3:47:11] Jason on the list in regards to density and kind of hierarchy, I'm assuming this is put
[3:47:16] in together in hierarchy, that you have a rural neighborhood 5 and a rural residential 20,
[3:47:23] and those are kind of, those kind of, like a live of 20, I mean, yeah, for the end of like,
[3:47:30] Intensive residential.
[3:47:33] Okay.
[3:47:35] Four.
[3:47:44] Just think already.
[3:47:47] Five leaders on all three sides.
[3:47:49] I don't understand.
[3:47:50] No, I do.
[3:47:51] I think twenty weeks since.
[3:47:52] I think thirty five would be better.
[3:47:54] I think that other side of the highway.
[3:47:58] Because there's been proposals.
[3:48:01] Yeah, I mean, I also really, I don't think we can do that.
[3:48:03] Yeah.
[3:48:03] The ALI, this is another call that I talked to some of the property owners on the South Island,
[3:48:08] is that the ALI doesn't preclude you from annexing.
[3:48:12] It's just this is how a planning mechanism that we have.
[3:48:15] But so anyone, if they're adjacent to the city and are able to annex, they can submit an annexation
[3:48:20] application and be considered the ALI.
[3:48:25] I was just to say again, that the ALI is just the planning mechanism we're using to put on these
[3:48:31] and regulate permits in those types of things.
[3:48:48] So, yeah, you want 6,000?
[3:48:50] Well, what's kind of the line?
[3:48:53] This, this, this, this,
[3:48:56] all
[3:49:09] the injection to it.
[3:49:10] Because I think it would probably scare the pants off council
[3:49:13] if they'd accidentally application actually got submitted.
[3:49:18] I don't know why.
[3:49:20] Like, this is, you guys know better,
[3:49:28] right?
[3:49:28] Yeah, it was mainly for me.
[3:49:30] Yeah.
[3:49:31] For some of those ones are around the south end of the reserve.
[3:49:35] As we talked about, like maybe it's just the parcels just north of 6,000 and we kind of jogged around those parcels
[3:49:43] but then the other aspect was let's try to square it out.
[3:49:46] So again there was a different discussion and this is just where I landed, so whether it's definitely
[3:49:50] we're up to further discussion on any changes that you think are more appropriate.
[3:50:08] He take us to a break and come back and I just get it.
[3:50:12] I'm going to look at the area all the way.
[3:50:13] Yep.
[3:50:15] Okay, I'm going to head out.
[3:50:17] Thank you.
[3:50:17] Thank you.
[3:50:18] I'm going to head out.
[3:50:25] Thank you.
[3:50:25] Thank you.
[3:50:40] I love that you're real.
[4:05:26] Rolls and things like that, so in that side we just go in right along 2,000 up to C-drone and then over, but it can't cut parcels in half.
[4:05:39] So I think to do anything at all outside the city, it kind of defaults to kind of where it's being proposed.
[4:05:50] Yeah, there's two subroads. Yeah, there's two, there's
[4:05:58] the main road that goes through.
[4:06:00] Workside, and then I kind of think that is that cutthroat that goes up and has the cold sack
[4:06:05] Whatever that last one is on this side. There's a cold assack here, but it's it ultimately stops
[4:06:11] It's right at the property line. So there's two stops there that have the potential to connect in to whatever gets developed here
[4:06:18] So there's
[4:06:20] At least future
[4:06:22] potential of connectivity
[4:06:25] The one key in corner two that I don't know
[4:06:28] Yeah, I don't know how a logical that that one is, but
[4:06:59] If all we said is that it doesn't preclude those properties from annexing, if they are eligible.
[4:07:20] Yeah, consensus to pull it in on the west side.
[4:07:26] I think it's
[4:07:28] It's easier for us to say that, like the suburbs, you know, maybe that's
[4:07:34] and indication that the city thinks that's a good place, you know, for city development
[4:07:42] or did.
[4:07:47] Or not or not or not or not or not or not.
[4:07:52] So, and that sort of depends again on, like, where it is easier to connect.
[4:08:00] I think that's the point.
[4:08:04] The other conversation.
[4:08:07] Here's a new, I do quite a lot of intel over there, right?
[4:08:13] Within the city, there's
[4:08:17] a whole lot of things.
[4:08:32] Is this cheaper?
[4:08:39] Yes, it's a safe light.
[4:08:47] It's here.
[4:08:47] This is so far.
[4:08:48] I've got notes from the north side.
[4:08:51] We'll take it down to 7,000.
[4:08:55] So 7,000 would be the farthest north piece.
[4:08:58] the ALI, everything being removed from the ALI would be at least this change that we're talking
[4:09:07] about, would be the RR20, the Royal Residential 20, reserve is still proposed as RN5 and then those
[4:09:17] developed pieces that are farther east, that are also impacted by portions of the
[4:09:25] NFC resource overlay. We had stop proposed as the health side for Hills 20. There
[4:09:33] are more flat in that area. There's a few kind of pockets where you're going to have
[4:09:37] some elevation if you guys wanted to see that to go similar to the RR20 or keep that
[4:09:45] of the city has proposed to you guys with the, what else 20?
[4:10:03] So all of the besides the reserve, all of that should be our 20.
[4:10:12] So I'm just, since we're making amendments to the Northern boundary,
[4:10:16] I'm kind of talking about all of the zoning outside.
[4:10:19] Yeah, from our old boundaries to any boundaries here.
[4:10:22] That is reserved for those pieces of the golf course.
[4:10:25] We're going to sell this here.
[4:10:27] Yeah, so 20 here do any cheap proposed changes to this or keep that great now. We just brought your for Hills 20. Yeah, through that
[4:10:42] Yeah, to bring it to this boundary here
[4:10:48] Okay, so keep the
[4:10:50] Hills 20 and just the piece that we just talked about changing perfect. Okay, I just want to make sure I'm representing this appropriately
[4:10:57] And then everything that we talked about, for zone change, to the south east, including
[4:11:04] two time springs, all of that as RN5,
[4:11:09] any other pieces from either changing boundaries,
[4:11:12] or changing for post zoning districts that we want to talk about.
[4:11:19] Yeah, is there consensus on the west boundary?
[4:11:22] Did we want to bring in the ALI closer to the city?
[4:11:26] They
[4:11:35] are adjacent, you know, answers, get a question.
[4:11:52] It just comes.
[4:11:54] And like the city is proposing our ALI-20 versus accounting,
[4:11:59] either 35 or 20 from what's around it,
[4:12:03] wouldn't be substantially different either.
[4:12:19] Do we want to then,
[4:12:23] the subdivision immediately adjacent
[4:12:25] to the north of the settlement,
[4:12:27] would you want that to stay in the ALI
[4:12:29] or also be remit from me.
[4:12:31] A lot's up to you.
[4:12:32] I've got to try to get you guys to think of all
[4:12:38] connections.
[4:12:41] One right door to this, that's how much the bubble's little.
[4:12:43] That's down.
[4:12:45] Yeah.
[4:12:46] I don't know if you're close and we're the borderline zone.
[4:12:50] If somebody came and said, I want to connect.
[4:12:54] This one.
[4:12:54] Well, it's just, in general, if this was going to be taken out,
[4:12:58] we want to continue to keep that in or out.
[4:13:02] We've got a new application on this, it's not complete, but it's in because I don't know.
[4:13:09] There's wouldn't be a great connection opportunity, because settlement doesn't have any stops out,
[4:13:15] and I know that there's a stop for the, it's called Twin Flies.
[4:13:21] They go to just that corner property line.
[4:13:30] You can see there are two, it's not even, it's not even built out.
[4:13:46] It might be because it's already a developed subdivision and did not have to worry about
[4:13:51] county spot zoning, you could keep it in the NY and give it to 2.5 because then you don't have
[4:13:58] to worry about changing entitlements on that.
[4:14:03] So that can stay, so just this subdivision here.
[4:14:07] So we could keep that in and give it 2.5 to
[4:14:13] this subdivision,
[4:14:14] just north of the settlement.
[4:14:15] We'd keep it with 2.5, and then this can come out.
[4:14:20] And we can either do the, because this is 35, and this is 35,
[4:14:24] we could do 35 here, and then why they're not going to want to do any of those of it.
[4:14:29] Oh, as well.
[4:14:34] Yeah, this one's an active, that's a little piece of yours,
[4:14:50] It's funny you say you're filling in gravel pits, there's a gravel pit near where I am.
[4:14:56] I'm probably not.
[4:15:00] Twenty years that I have 20 of the 24 years I have lived there, they've been telling it. The last year they excavated it, they've got a crusher in there and they're making a lot of money.
[4:15:20] So if we squared out further to that other area where the gravel pit is at and the surrounding agriculture and put that back as county.
[4:15:32] I would also 35 but I could double check what side of these are currently.
[4:15:37] You can see if that would have any impact.
[4:15:43] It might all be right around 40 right now but I can verify that.
[4:15:48] But then just north of that, there's the strip that's on me.
[4:15:51] We'd be the west side of 1000.
[4:15:56] that there's 1-E and 10-acre lots.
[4:16:04] If we wanted to take that out of the
[4:16:07] ALI as well and just follow 1,000 north up to 7,000. What do you think would be
[4:16:16] the appropriate county zoning for that or to keep that in the ALI?
[4:16:21] So this is into the city.
[4:16:24] It's just this little border right here because this one we've got
[4:16:28] our other blue station up here.
[4:16:30] So we've already talked to this guy about the annexing.
[4:16:33] But these, I think only two of these are developed.
[4:16:37] Actually, that one might be a sign to it.
[4:16:38] But these two are undeveloped.
[4:16:40] If that stays in the ALI and we maybe make it the 20,
[4:16:46] because we've already got at least three of these are 20
[4:16:48] those have already been divided to 10, or do we take this out and make it similar to them?
[4:16:59] So,
[4:17:11] with the liftation on the opposite side, you're friends with these, this, this, this, this, this, anything left rest of one thousand.
[4:17:19] So, the liftation, it would be another liftation.
[4:17:22] So, probably.
[4:17:24] Yeah.
[4:17:25] Okay, so take it out and then when you guys want it, our, our 20, like the other areas we're taking out,
[4:17:32] are five, like the adjacent subdivision, which are, I think, the
[4:17:38] five is in there.
[4:17:39] There are mostly 2.5s over here, but then this row is also, this is already
[4:17:44] the zone for, so if you wanted to keep it five, so keep it 20.
[4:17:51] Maybe make 1,000 the distinction, that it make those five and have 1,000
[4:17:55] be your justification.
[4:17:57] I don't, I think you're there one since, okay.
[4:17:59] I
[4:18:07] think
[4:18:34] we agree that it should say in the AY, but do we want to keep the flat hell's 20?
[4:18:49] Yeah, keep it.
[4:18:51] or no excuse me. Keep it how it's proposed being removed from AOI but if should it stay the foot
[4:18:58] held 20 in this area, kind of between highway and all Jackson and between most of the, yeah,
[4:19:05] I'm going to cross the road between the highway and Teton Springs.
[4:19:17] I've got my marching orders
[4:19:18] on the map and I will make those changes like all of the other items we talked about for my notes
[4:19:24] as far as items that have not been completely resolved that we kind of wanted to see what
[4:19:29] the comparison was or what the new languages before making final decisions is the comparison
[4:19:34] on the use chart, word new wording on clustering or better direction in regards to requiring
[4:19:43] clustering for the zone three. And then I guess I was going to say since we're now removing
[4:19:51] all of the active mining operations I can probably keep the mineral stuff out of the
[4:19:59] So yeah, I think those are the main two pieces that you guys still wanted to review before making final decisions on.
[4:20:08] I think it's just a used turret and what would be other things?
[4:20:11] The better wording on the clustering and all the items based for our zone three.
[4:20:18] So I can put this together,
[4:20:26] but I'm in next week.
[4:20:27] that's my parents, and I don't know how to watch the kids, so I can be in the office.
[4:20:33] I can make all of these edits,
[4:20:43] so if you guys wanted to do either another work session,
[4:20:47] or wreaking to be in the public hearing, we can do either of those in that time frame.
[4:20:52] We can do newspaper mode notice, and on site, you're just kind of all the little posters that we put around town.
[4:21:03] Hopefully, the earliest we could do a public hearing to make sure that we're meeting
[4:21:08] notice deadlines, it means it's a continuation, so it's not like it absolutely has to, but it's
[4:21:14] to still get the news out, we probably wouldn't want to do anything before the ninth.
[4:21:24] Is it a continuation, or is it?
[4:21:28] You continue to it today, so if you continue to it on a day, certain when it's day,
[4:21:33] I
[4:21:42] know I have no problem. We can still get it in the newspaper and we can still update
[4:21:45] signs around town. We can definitely do do those things. The mailings, we did do
[4:21:51] mailings to every property owner in the old ALI library. So whether they're impacted
[4:21:57] by being removed or staying in ALI, everyone has noticed this past go around and it was
[4:22:04] well over a thousand notices. We do have a new, the people that do our utility billing.
[4:22:11] We know that we can do that much cheaper this time around and maybe as a postcard instead of a full letter
[4:22:18] So we could get that out as well
[4:22:23] I'm not just you know how much time we have to turn around and I don't know what time we time they need
[4:22:28] I'm getting up together. Okay. Oh, okay. Then yeah, we can we have to do an ordinance
[4:22:38] Yeah, it's a final ordinance. I did draft one
[4:22:43] I'm happy from another testimony that you get.
[4:22:48] I knew with Jade leaving that I'd probably have to be the one to see this to the finish line.
[4:22:52] So I started preparing some of that stuff.
[4:22:55] It is attached, it should be attached in the agenda.
[4:23:00] Yeah.
[4:23:01] Oh, and then also, since there was amendments to title two to create the joint planning commission for the city of Victor and the county.
[4:23:12] because there was only a chapter for Drakes.
[4:23:15] I'll amend that to be the flip-flop, the two and three
[4:23:20] to represent the request change that you guys made today.
[4:23:25] So that will be updated as well.
[4:23:26] So that there's an ordinance to
[4:23:35] have the red line a table to title two, excuse me.
[4:23:47] No, it doesn't look like I have those printed.
[4:23:48] I did prepare them.
[4:23:49] I believe they're attached to the agenda.
[4:23:56] I'm already starting working with Jade.
[4:23:58] I'm getting the ordinance drafted,
[4:23:59] so you'll have an ordinance ready to go whenever you're ready for it.
[4:24:05] What's your time for it to do this?
[4:24:18] So I don't think so, it's just whether there's a lot of steps involved
[4:24:23] because we have to adopt an boundary after adopt.
[4:24:26] The zoning inside the AOA reactor, that means that we outside the AOA and then we have to adopt it.
[4:24:35] And the question, since there's so much that we talked about today on the North and West if you feel that by changing those AOI boundaries that that needs to be heard by your P&Z first.
[4:24:51] No, because the new code says, no, the new, um, statue is very specific about that.
[4:25:04] It says, even with, uh, changes.
[4:25:14] It has, we have to hold out public comment on that.
[4:25:17] And so, um,
[4:25:22] I think we can continue this.
[4:25:27] Is that the new material?
[4:25:29] That's part of the same hearing.
[4:25:33] Yeah, and we'll notice the public that public comment will be taken, it's not official notification, because it's already been
[4:25:40] didn't even know us, but that we had still to tell them. Yeah, this has been updated.
[4:25:45] Yeah, we can get out of fire soon. There's new information.
[4:25:52] There's a new, you know, there's a new, you know, there's a new information.
[4:25:56] Yeah, I can work with Jade on there for prayer wording. Yeah, I can get the days because we'd like to get this adopted as an ordinance.
[4:26:04] Okay, and I think we only have to swear again because you have old business in your first meeting in January.
[4:26:13] Don't you have to take care of all any old business before you do swearing enough the new members?
[4:26:19] Okay, and we definitely want to get this done.
[4:26:21] I thought we had one extra to take care of it.
[4:26:29] I hate all the amendments made by the end of the month, and we can at least have a
[4:26:35] available website and stuff as new as pending information,
[4:26:41] and then when are your
[4:26:43] regular meetings in December?
[4:26:46] Okay.
[4:26:50] Do we want to put it on the 9th?
[4:26:53] For adoption.
[4:26:55] For the continued hearing.
[4:26:57] Continue hearing.
[4:26:57] And we get it off at the end of that hearing.
[4:27:03] Yeah.
[4:27:04] That we need to know this requirement.
[4:27:05] Okay.
[4:27:06] And I don't know what your requirements are at the county level for ordinance adoption.
[4:27:11] But I work with Jay to see if that works.
[4:27:13] So we'll aim for it.
[4:27:14] I think it's just a sign for that.
[4:27:15] Like it's just a part of our review.
[4:27:18] Oh, you have to like put it in the newspaper a month.
[4:27:20] The ordinance has to be published within a month of adoption.
[4:27:23] Okay.
[4:27:23] I think it was a city where, obviously, like, before a lot of time before that meeting.
[4:27:30] Yeah, not like, oh, shit.
[4:27:32] Yeah, okay,
[4:27:37] December 9th, is there a specific time that you guys do land use?
[4:27:42] Like, I'm really tired.
[4:27:43] This agenda has had something like that.
[4:27:45] Be specific about land.
[4:27:46] We're going to continue this, too.
[4:27:48] And it's a dance and not to help it.
[4:27:51] A lot of people move forward playing.
[4:27:54] It was treated as a land use, like put in with the land.
[4:27:57] You can use the agenda the last time so I'm not sure I would assume that you want to try to keep that safe.
[4:28:03] Let's see what will be done at the beginning.
[4:28:06] Earlier, some of you could play after it.
[4:28:09] So as you're 11 a.m. would be fine.
[4:29:09] I said, more and more.
[4:30:28] We don't
[4:30:34] have to have to have to have to have
[4:30:54] So the
[4:31:01] plan right now is to continue this public hearing, reopen public comment on the next week, and then make a decision at the end.
[4:31:11] We have to change the things that we can do that last year.
[4:31:21] Yeah, that's pretty much.
[4:31:27] I just have to be a new hearing because of the material changes we've made.
[4:31:31] Or can we just take it?
[4:31:32] I think that's the part that I don't know.
[4:31:35] Like I can't make the legal decision.
[4:31:40] We'll have it notice as soon as possible, we'll do whatever we can to make it, so I'd
[4:31:48] have to get it to the paper by the end of this week's day and five or one series on
[4:31:54] 12 days.
[4:31:59] Yeah, I mean we can get the mailing out in time, we can do the posting in time and see if
[4:32:03] you have to do it on that as seven days, I still always try to aim for two weeks just because
[4:32:09] I mean, either way, whether it's continued or not, we can still do the notice.
[4:32:14] I think that's the safest way to do it without legal counsel.
[4:32:21] Ever?
[4:32:26] Mm-hmm.
[4:32:28] Is it considered good to do the zoning amendment?
[4:32:34] It's technically land use, but it's separate from your regular land use code because it's the AY.
[4:32:40] It's like a dog do the new red dog.
[4:32:42] Yeah, so that would be under 67 to 50, but a line that if it is, it's what?
[4:32:50] It's what?
[4:32:51] It's between these methods.
[4:32:56] If we have to close, that's in real opening.
[4:33:02] And like I said, I think that's the safest way to do it.
[4:33:06] I don't actually think we do have to do that, but
[4:33:14] we've been some pretty much.
[4:33:16] We don't want to have to redo it later because we didn't do it right this time.
[4:33:19] Yeah, so then the 23rd is your other meeting in December?
[4:33:40] Yes, we're doing two processes.
[4:33:44] Yeah, they're all noticed together.
[4:33:47] We're also a manning county, it's not a matter of
[4:33:58] time.
[4:33:58] It's not a matter of time.
[4:33:58] Yeah, yeah, what's happening, we're in the new way of life boundary, but then outside the new area of boundary.
[4:34:05] And inside the old area of life boundary.
[4:34:10] We did it, we did it, and we did it for drinks already, so we're coming down at this
[4:34:22] scene.
[4:34:23] Good,
[4:34:29] right, right, but there's everybody.
[4:34:40] Does, does what we have today,
[4:34:46] a dress, a county zoning,
[4:34:51] for things that are coming out?
[4:34:53] Yes.
[4:34:55] Yeah, the difference is that we're changing what's coming out is that's kind of the bigger
[4:35:00] big, probably the biggest material change that we discussed today.
[4:35:10] I think
[4:35:18] it most aspects will be at least in the direction of the public comment.
[4:35:23] I don't know if we're going to make ever what happened, but at least taking their thoughts into consideration.
[4:35:59] Yeah, if you really want to make sure you meet the new notice
[4:36:27] Even twice a week, there's the lines in the meeting dates. That's why we move to PNZ the Thursdays
[4:36:45] So, the 23rd and last year you guys wanted it to do a special meeting on the 16th.
[4:36:56] I could do either of those.
[4:36:59] I'll be working with a special meeting.
[4:37:08] Yourself's Wednesday or Wednesday.
[4:37:12] As soon as it's published, you have about 30 days after the vote to get published.
[4:37:16] So if it's the 16th, we could get it to the newspaper by that 19th would be the deadline to have it published.
[4:37:23] They're not doing a paper that week of Christmas.
[4:37:25] I would be January 2nd because the paper on the that would normally be published January 1st
[4:37:33] will be published on the second.
[4:37:37] That's what I heard.
[4:37:40] I just noticed for the January P&Z meeting for the city and I emailed them about all my deadlines
[4:37:47] to make sure I could actually meet the deadline and already got it sent over to them as a precaution.
[4:38:09] It would be a special meeting, but yeah I can, we can try to make that work at the Monday.
[4:38:14] At the Monday.
[4:38:15] At least days on your Monday schedule.
[4:38:18] There's this six, you know, there's 17, the 18,
[4:38:27] or 17th.
[4:38:30] Six, six works for me.
[4:38:49] 16th, the December.
[4:38:52] Yeah, it's fine.
[4:38:54] It's fine.
[4:38:57] What's time?
[4:39:07] 9 a.m.
[4:39:09] 16th 9 a.m.
[4:39:10] get off the publication out for that.
[4:39:18] Conclued our hearing that was continued today.
[4:39:30] Who's a candidate for those who are interested in the city?
[4:39:33] The city is responsible for all the notice costs on AOS.
[4:39:36] Even though there's some changes in California.
[4:39:41] I'll coordinate with Jade on the language.
[4:39:43] I've always had the document itself.
[4:39:46] I've drafted back County staff, and then the city gets it all out.
[4:39:49] Cool.
[4:39:50] Okay.
[4:39:50] You know that.
[4:39:53] I'm
[4:40:06] going to move to close the public hearing,
[4:40:14] the Victor area of impact update that was continued today,
[4:40:22] and we will notice a new hearing with updated information maps and
[4:40:32] for presenting in the victory of the act on
[4:40:41] December 16th and the 90th
[4:40:47] and the second one.
[4:40:49] That emotion.
[4:40:50] That's a motion.
[4:40:52] I'll hold in favor.
[4:40:54] I wanted
[4:40:59] to close the public hearing for
[4:41:37] your referring to the potential emotions.
[4:41:39] I'm referring now.
[4:41:40] I'm actually looking on.
[4:41:43] Oh, okay.
[4:41:44] the agenda, which is a public hearing on the vector, continued hearing on the
[4:41:50] the results of your AOI zone change. So that is actually the AOI zone changes and
[4:41:59] the counties and the changes. So I will move to continue the public hearing on the
[4:42:04] vector AOI zone changes.
[4:42:20] I just like looking at the work
[4:42:21] I think you just said you did too.
[4:42:24] I did say community.
[4:42:26] Okay.
[4:42:26] I was a club close.
[4:42:29] The public hearing on the Victor A.O.I. Zone changes.
[4:42:36] Okay.
[4:42:38] And re-notice new hearing on those amended changes for December 16th at
[4:42:52] the same time.
[4:42:54] There's a
[4:43:02] question, so are those two superimposed hearings or they're one hearing that's been merged from the two?
[4:43:10] That's a good question.
[4:43:13] They probably need to be treated separately from, I mean, with a one notice, but we'll probably have kind of like file number, you know, separate it for the area as being removed from the ALI receiving a new county zoning
[4:43:28] versus the new AOI boundaries inside AOI zone and the AOI LBCs.
[4:43:35] So I think that's kind of that to me.
[4:43:37] It's super important to me.
[4:43:40] Yeah.
[4:43:40] It's like on, oh my god.
[4:43:42] I'm hearing it too.
[4:43:44] For you guys, it might be easier to do one.
[4:43:46] You didn't do it last time.
[4:43:48] Yeah.
[4:43:48] It should be a lot easier to do one because people get confused.
[4:43:51] Yeah, I'll talk about both.
[4:43:53] Yeah.
[4:43:53] And we wanted to be able to address both and not like only talk about it.
[4:43:57] Because that was confusing.
[4:43:58] last time too. I think even for the people making comments it was confusing.
[4:44:04] But can
[4:44:09] we just make it more angry for two items that both need to reach?
[4:44:14] I think so. Because if anything like if someone submitted for a
[4:44:18] reason in a subdivision, they could take it for the process together.
[4:44:22] And while it's two different files, it still can be heard as one hearing.
[4:44:37] It is like just totally called the rationality.
[4:44:40] So here's the thing, we're closing these hearings.
[4:44:42] So let's just vote on that.
[4:44:44] And then we can figure out how to notice the other thing.
[4:44:46] Because we have time.
[4:44:49] And then we can continue in it.
[4:44:50] And then we'll be seeing that in the motion.
[4:44:52] So the public knows that.
[4:44:54] Is the same topic?
[4:44:55] Mm-hmm.
[4:44:57] Did you get the motion?
[4:44:59] Is that really what-
[4:45:02] Is this one?
[4:45:03] Any vote on the first one?
[4:45:05] Are ready.
[4:45:07] Okay, but I mean, I guess we can go backwards if we need to.
[4:45:12] But we have public hearing on the filter area of impact update.
[4:45:16] And we'll notice a new public hearing on the update.
[4:45:18] Could it be your area of impact on the subject?
[4:45:24] We could say close.
[4:45:29] Does that sound fine, do you?
[4:45:30] Yep.
[4:45:32] All right.
[4:45:32] That's one of those public hearing from the Victor Erden.
[4:45:34] I just
[4:45:43] want to make sure that it's clear that it's, there's no changes associated with the Victor A or whether it's something that's changing within the A and Y or outside of the B, and that's clear enough.
[4:46:05] we change the language in the company, document, and vocator board.
[4:46:14] That would be part of it.
[4:46:21] Yeah, that's the first one.
[4:46:25] In the second one, it's like the values of the building.
[4:46:28] You'd say, in the Victorio I, or associated with the Victorio I.
[4:46:33] That's better.
[4:46:35] That'll do it.
[4:46:36] Okay.
[4:46:37] This looks good.
[4:46:37] Yep.
[4:46:38] I accept your amendment.
[4:46:40] So, wait, wait.
[4:46:41] This is the second one.
[4:46:41] But that was just a question, because if it just says, in the Victor A.O.I., that's not covering it.
[4:46:49] Well, I just bore the Victor A and in that much.
[4:46:51] Yeah, it has to be associated with the Victor A and in that some change.
[4:47:04] The Victor A and in that some curve of view is in the zone changes associated with the Victor A and in that.
[4:47:12] Yes, yes.
[4:47:13] Yeah, because some of them are outside of the A and in fact, this is why we're making that change.
[4:47:26] We have to modify the first motion too.
[4:47:28] No, because that's really just the code that I like.
[4:47:38] All right.
[4:47:39] I'm going to make a set to question your questions.
[4:47:44] The amendments, all in paper.
[4:47:46] All right.
[4:47:49] Okay.
[4:47:49] See you in December.
[4:47:51] I will email Jade.
[4:47:54] As soon as I'm done with the updates,
[4:47:56] get those to you guys.
[4:47:57] So you have time to review them and prepare for the meeting.
[4:48:03] And I'll work with Jade.
[4:48:04] I'm getting the notices out as soon as possible.
[4:48:11] For language and for the second couple of hearings,
[4:48:15] it's the boundary, and it may be in there somewhere,
[4:48:19] and it's not quite right on our agenda, but it's the boundary and
[4:48:25] you know, just to be like the first one is boundary and code
[4:48:28] associated with the second one.
[4:48:31] So the second one is zone changes related to,
[4:48:36] like,
[4:48:37] yeah.
[4:48:38] Okay.
[4:48:42] Thank you.
[4:48:42] And also maybe as to
[4:48:55] you, you can notice them simultaneously and have people speak to both.
[4:48:59] Okay, we're into these shifts separate them off.
[4:49:02] Like, I'm feeling like we should separate them off.
[4:49:05] It seems like Jake got legal advice to that.
[4:49:08] Okay.
[4:49:08] Okay.
[4:49:10] The notices can still go together.
[4:49:12] It can just be listed.
[4:49:14] Like, we can, you know, say, title one, title two for,
[4:49:18] within the same notice document.
[4:49:20] Because that's going to be a lot easier doing the mill, the postcard flyers, trying to
[4:49:29] limit it to just the required language and the postcard flyers with a link to the website
[4:49:33] with all the other details.
[4:49:37] Yeah.
[4:49:39] Yeah.
[4:49:40] I'll work with you.
[4:49:41] You always go to that one.
[4:49:50] Thank you very much.
[4:49:51] Thank you.
[4:49:52] Thanks.
[4:50:06] I'm just so excited that after you've covered me for years we've been working on this work, we're just there.
[4:50:15] I'm going to
[4:50:33] close your room and explore after distance to the finish line and get after distance to the finish line and you can have to distance to the finish line.
[4:50:44] It's infinity, you're trying to get a pretty set,
[4:50:48] yeah.
[4:50:48] You're getting infinitely close, but never quite there.
[4:51:08] I wasn't anticipating that.
[4:57:41] That's your session for
[4:57:46] agenda and
[4:58:14] -
[4:58:14] Let it go, reference well.
[4:58:16] I do.
[4:58:21] I'm going to move to go into the executive session per Idaho code 74-2061F legal.
[4:58:28] That can.
[4:58:30] All in favor.
[4:58:31] I-
[4:58:32] What?
[4:58:33] roll call vote, Kim.
[4:58:37] I,
[4:58:45] there you have it, it's official.
[4:58:47] All right, I will get everything turned off and we're
[4:59:35] recording there.
[4:59:43] One,
[4:59:48] is you see yourself?
[4:59:49] Thing one.
[4:59:53] All right, we'll record the other one.
[4:59:55] Thing two.
[5:00:00] Okay, I'm looking to adjourn. Okay.
[5:00:04] All in favor. Bye. Bye.