Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Good evening and welcome to the September 9th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting. If we could have roll call, please

hear Missina here. Les here. Ward here. Copus here. Fleming here. Jamas here. McCracken here. Thank you. Can you join me for the pledge, please? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God and justice for all.

Thank you. Can everybody hear me out there? Yeah. Good. We good. Sean, can you hear me? Okay. Um, can we have approval of minutes for August 12th, 2025? So moved. I have a first by Commissioner Engel. I have a second by Commissioner Copus. All in favor? I. Any

opposed? Okay. This time it's public comment and that's anything that isn't on our agenda tonight. If you want to speak, come on up. Okay. And before I go over to staff comments, there's a signup sheet for tonight's agenda. So, if you want to sign up and speak tonight, just fill out the form. And if you change your mind and you didn't sign up, uh, before I close public testimony on a public hearing, you'll have a chance to come up. Okay, Hillary. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Good evening.

We did not receive any applications that would require a public hearing next month. So, we'll go ahead and schedule a workshop to continue some discussions on possible code amendments. And then just as kind of informative piece, I'll be presenting next Tuesday with Walter Burns, who's the chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, to the NIBCA, which is North Idaho Building Contractors Association Joint Government Group. They wanted to hear about the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts. So, we'll be doing that next Tuesday. That's all I have.

Great. Thank you. Commission comments. Okay. If not, we're going to get into our public hearing. Um the applicant is Eugene H Jr. Trust. The location is 22 48 East Stanley Hill Road. There's two items. The first one is a proposed 3.8 8 acre annexation from county um agricultural to city R3 and the second one would be um the five lot subdivision known as HEG estates. Okay, Sean, thank you. All right, go ahead. Thank you, chairman. Good evening, planning commission. Good evening.

So, tonight before you there are two requests. Grab the mouse real quick. Uh, Chairman Msina actually went through who who the applicant is, so I don't need to go over that. The engineer is Olsson Engineering. Uh, they are the applicant's representative tonight. So, legal notice was published in the Cordelane Press and mailed to property owners within 300 ft and posted to the subject property per the requirements for public notice. There are two hearings tonight. Um, and you planning commission, I'm speaking to you. You will need to make findings for each item separately. And I'll go through that as I progress through my staff report. The first one is an annexation. 3.19 acres in the county. It is contiguous to city limits, not in city limits, and they are requesting R3 zoning with a hillside overlay. The second piece is the subdivision which is a five lot preliminary plat which includes the extension of Lily Drive as it dead ends on either side of the property. So first we like to go through a little bit of background information. So starting with the location of the property. So the green line that kind of traverses out here in some of the hillside areas of the city of Celane on the other side of I90 is city limits. And then the red here denotes the subject property. Zooming in a bit, here is an aerial uh photo and that shows where the subject property is as well as the context of the area and what the lots and adjacent streets are. To the south here is Lily Drive. That is part of their request tonight, which would be extending that from east to west. Then a bird's eye photo. So this is kind of at a 45 degree angle so you can get a

little better feel of uh what the topography is and and see the houses from a different angle than from straight above. So um before I begin and dive into this, I wanted to denote up here that there is a and s. So those are the two requests. As I further progress through uh my my presentation tonight, uh you'll notice that the one of them will disappear and that'll be the subject matter that I'm speaking to. Um I did write this particular uh staff report in two parts. I did that because we were anticipating some items to come in for next month. They didn't, but uh it helps down the road. I don't have to deconstruct all of this for uh council. So that's the reason why there's a little bit of redundancy in here. So um the the existing zoning map. So this shows where R3 is. Once again, the kind of lighter green is where city limits is and then a suburban surrounding that which is in the county. Currently the subject property is in the county and it is zoned a suburban. I'm guessing I'll get this question so I'll get it out of the way right now. is uh what is the minimum lot size in the county in in a suburban? It's 2 acres unless it's over the aquifer and then it's 5 acres. So this is the annexation map and this darker bold line here is the area of request. All right. So moving on to just the annexation request. There are four annexation findings that are required for annexation and these are them. I'll I'll address each one as I move forward. Um I wanted to make this correction. I noticed that I think I might have hit control-z one too many times as I was

working through this because it says it's in city limits. It is not in city limits. It is contiguous with city limits. So I just wanted to make the record straight. And um this oh sorry and it falls within the single family neighborhood place type. This is the comprehensive plans future land use map and this is the city in its entirety as well as some outlying areas that the comprehensive plans takes into account that could potentially be annexed in the future. Zooming into the site, same future land use map. um did provide a an overlay over here. So you can see that this area is currently in city limits. The brown kind of ladder looking color here is current hillside. So if this request is approved, it would add the hillside around the subject property. Um I'll I'll address the individual lots when we get further into the presentation. So hold on for a second. So the single family neighborhood place type are places where the are lower density housing areas low lower density housing across Cal Lane where most of the city residents live primarily in single family homes on larger lots. Supporting uses typically include neighborhood parks, recreation facilities connected by trails. compatible zoning is R1, R3, R5, R8 and MH8. And the request is for R3. So the next piece of that the comprehensive plan that applies is transportation. There are three maps here existing in planned bicycle network as well as the walking network and then the transit network. So the subject property lies in an area where there's not much development for transportation other

than uh by by vehicle. And so there's nothing that is adjacent or through the property. So um this is the policy section of of the comprehensive plan. U there is also a hillside piece to it here. Um it just discusses that hillsides are areas that are beautiful around Celane and that they should be um protected and developed uh with care. So, community and identity is the first policy item here. Uh, Cordelane citizens are well informed, responsive, and involved in community discussions. So, I'd like to thank the audience members for showing up tonight and showing your interest in your neighborhood. It's always appreciative. Um, you know, may we may not all have uh the same opinion, but but we can handle these things in a civil manner, which is which is a great thing. So next is the environment and recreation goal ER3 is to protect and improve the urban forest while maintaining defensible spaces that reduce the potential for forest fire. Um there's some language for objectives here. Uh the number the ER3.4 Four is protect the natural and topographic character identity and aesthetic quality of hillsides and minimize the the risk of fire and wooded areas that also include or may include residential areas which are the the most important ones to staff. Um in at the end of your uh staff report there is a list of all of the of these these are curated by staff but if anyone planning commission decides to add to or or take away from feel free to do that. They are at the end of your staff report. So growth and development GD1 is develop a mix of land uses throughout the city that balance housing and employment while preserving the qualities that make Cordelane a great

place to live. Goal two is ensure appropriate highquality infrastructure to accommodate community needs and future growth. And then health and safety. Uh last but not least is continue to provide an exceptional police, fire, and emergency services. And so um I believe that each one of these speaks to to the request in in some sort of manner, some sort of facet. So finding B2 is that public facilities and utilities are or are not available and adequate for the proposed use. And so on pages 18 and 19 of the staff report are the comments from streets and engineering, water, police, fire, um and wastewater. and they have all reviewed the application and they have um denoted that you know there are some conditions but that seven conditions total but that it is um it is a able to be developed and that utilities are nearby and can be extended. So finding B3 is that the physical characteristics of the site do or do not make it suitable for the request at this time. And so the the site does slope. Um I do have a an exhibit to show in a little bit. It drops approximately 120 feet in elevation over the that subject property north to south. It is currently densely tried and the subject property would be annexed into the city under the hillside regulations. So here is that topographic map on the previous slide alluded to. Um these are contour lines. There are 5-ft contour lines. each line represents basically a 5-ft gain in elevation moving north. Uh the closer the lines get together, the steeper it is. So you can see up at the top here, they're not as close together. And then towards the bottom, they do spread apart a little bit farther as well, where most of that um slope does

tend to happen right around this area. All right, so we'll talk about some photos now. This is the the subject property from Stanley Hill looking into uh the the parcel. This is the home that currently exists. Uh you can tell it's fairly flat and then the slope starts to drop off as it as as you move south. Then down at the bottom, this is the um dead end of Lily Drive. At least as far as you can take a vehicle. It does extend. This isn't the edge of the subject property, but this is as far as you can get with the with a four-w wheeled rig. And the subject property is at the end, which looks like this. On the other side of the subject property, the east side, this is the dead end. I believe my staff report said that this is Stanley Hill, but it's actually the Lily Drive. And then up from where the quote unquote trail is, that is on private property. um and climbed up there to find to help look for the sistern to take a a photo of that and took a picture of the home looking north. And then this is a picture of that sistern. So I wanted to clarify a little bit. There seemed to be some misinformation at the last hearing that there was a spring on the site and as far as staff can tell and looking at um the the documents that were provided to the city uh with encumbrances, the sistns uh were set up to provide irrigation water to an adjacent property that was in the county that has since been subdivided and no longer needs that irrigation water. Uh my understanding is is maybe between the time that the the application came to the city and tonight that that had been removed. Um it is it is a a condition. The first condition is that it be removed and remediated so that there is no issue with uh

irrigation or water flowing from from the sistern. Okay. So finding B4 is that the proposal would or would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood with regards to traffic, neighborhood character, andor existing land uses. Uh this is the comment that was received by our engineering department, uh Chris Booseley. He's our city engineer. He is here tonight if you have questions about traffic. So um use that resource if necessary. And basically I'll paraphrase what Chris said is that uh the traffic would be fairly minimal that's added to it. Although there will be additional traffic if circulation if it is connected and the streets department has no objection to the annexation and subdivision plat as proposed. So still finding before the neighborhood character. So, um, the subject site hillside location emphasizes the need for development that preserves visual and environmental quality such as minimizing cuts and fills, retaining n natural vegetation. Um, the code requires at least 25% of the lot plus the average slope to remain in a natural state and integrating wildfire mitigation measures. Uh the proposed R3 zoning and hillside overlay would ensure compatibility by limiting density and requiring the geotechnical study which was provided. I'll talk a little bit about that. Um erosion control and reveation to blend with the neighborhood's character. There is more in the staff report if you would like to refer to that. Um so this is the land use map. So this is the current land use map versus the future land use map. And as you can see, um,

all the properties that are in city limits are, uh, either vacant or a residential use shown in this this slide. The yellow denotes single family detached. There are some duplexes out in this area as well as some vacant lots which are that lighter color. All right, so we'll move on to the subdivision portion of the request. Once again, there are four findings. There are different findings that are required for a subdivision. So finding B1 is that all of the general and preliminary plat requirements have or have not been met as attested to by the city engineer. Once again, Chris Bosley is here tonight for you has reviewed these preliminary plat plans and has attested that the requirements are present on the plat.

Chairman, go ahead. Sean, do you mind if we potentially talk about annexation before we talk about the plan? Is Oh, yeah. Pieces. Yeah, we just went through a lot of information and absolutely have a few questions that would love to talk about from the perspective of annexation, not about development. Sure. I'll slow my roll. I'm ready for questions. Mr. Chairman, is that okay? Yes. Go right ahead.

Yeah, sure. So, um, when you look at annexation of this property, I'm surprised. I mean, I I see that all is Stanley Hill that it's not been in the city for a very long time. Can you clarify? Are they on city water sewer? Is the police going up there? Cuz it's literally looks like the same neighborhood that I grew up in that I didn't know wasn't part of Portland.

Yes. And I'm not an expert in where our utilities are exactly, but I do know that there are some water extensions and sewer extensions outside of city limits. Um I believe the one of the um the conditions that are at the end is that the water line be connected to the other side. So I'm assuming that that water is on the other side of Lily so that we can create a loop system which helps everybody in the long run. If one side gets cut off, there's still another way to get water to okay everybody.

So, is there a set of qualifiers for annexation that we could use as a basis to understand whether or not this meets the city's requirements?

So, great great question and great question and it actually that that is a our state requirements and so there's different categories of annexation. Um, in this case, the applicant has asked for annexation rather than the city forcing annexation. Those are the different categories. Um, there's a few different categories and Randy, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but largely it's, you know, is it contiguous? So, you don't leapfrog. So, it has to share a border somewhere along the city. Um, it needs to be orderly development. So, you know, you can't say, "Oh, well, we're going to annex this in because it's touching the city, but you know, the utilities are 3 miles away and we're not going to make them extend them." So, they they need to provide the utilities and then it's based on the record that's that's created tonight. So, your guys's understanding of of the the application, staff report, comprehensive plan, people that speak tonight, that sort of thing.

Okay. So from a city utility perspective, it's a matter of cost and support in some what I think I heard you say it might be more efficient to annex this in order to close a loop that's right now not connected.

So that is that is the uh if you look at what water had provided um in their their comments I can read those into the record for you. So there is adequate adequate capacity in the public water systems to support domestic irrigation and fire flow for the proposal. There are 6-in water manes on East Lily on both sides of the property. The area of the water system is located on the Elm Street boosted zone which may require the customer to install a pressure reducing valve on the main water service as it enters the building. So that's where it dead ends and it would be a good connection to loop the system.

Okay. All right. So from a from an annexation standpoint from the city, it's not an undue burden to take this piece of property and turn it into an R3 that looks like the rest of them around this piece of property and make it the same. Yeah, it's it's not an undue burden. Um the the cost of development comes is borne by the developer. So the city taxpayer won't be paying for these extensions. It would it would be borne by the the application. from an undue burden. I meant more on the capacity side of things. It's not like this is going to wreck water, sanitation, recovery, any of those capacities that the city already has in place.

No, we would not need to drill a new well to service the site or something like that.

Okay. Then the next thing from an annexation standpoint is I've seen a few of the letters that have been provided by different citizens are concerned about uh geography specifically. I've seen trees being removed or that are potentially going to be removed from it sounds like their properties instead of the properties involved. And this may get into the next step of development. But when you annex something, there's no requirement to remove trees from the city standpoint in order to make the streets more accessible or is that what we're talking about? just a the streets themselves coming through which were going to come through anyways and now all of a sudden those trees are gone where the streets are.

So you know the the the city has always been a tree city USA. We try and save we encourage it over the counter. I tell people save the trees you can but you know they are private to a degree. So on the hillside overlay district if this is annexed in there's a limited amount of disturbance that's allowed. So, when we're speaking about the rightofway specifically, those trees need to be removed unless they're designated street trees because obviously can't have a tree in the middle of the road with car driving down, right? So, um so those trees obviously would go away. So, in if it's approved and the lots are approved the way they are with the subdivision portion of this, there's a limited amount of disturbance. I alluded to that earlier where it's 25% plus the average slope of the lot. So, when we get into the subdivision, there's a a little more information on that. Okay. But there is an allowed disturbable area where those trees can be removed. Um, in the footprint of the home and the driveway of the home, those ones are allowed to be removed without replacement. If for whatever reason there is a a tree that may be blocking a view or something inside of the disturbable area only, if they remove a tree, they have to replace it somewhere else on the site. I believe it's a one and a half inch caliber DBA. I'm not a tree expert, but that's my understanding of the size of the tree of a similar variety that has to be planted on the site to replace that tree over time.

And just to add to that, Mark, the the whole hillside ordinance spells all that out. Yes, it does. Because when we created that hillside ordinance, there was talk about that. So, thank you. There is a definite clear definition of Yeah, there's a number of things that we look at at the time of building permit. It comes down even to the the color of home on a hillside. The city does control the LRV, which is the light reflective value. We don't say it has to be blue or green, but it's can't be a bright shade. It can be

darker shade of blue or gray. This is really helpful because it's the last piece I really want to talk about and it's the city's control over private property that's on a hillside and what the private owner intends to do with it. When you look at that related to the rest of the hillside, which is the same hillside that looks remarkably different than this undeveloped property. So, how does the property owner who owns this, how is he able to develop it and at the same time meet those needs for the people that are concerned about this specific piece of property being annexed and then developed? How does that still meet the hillside meets needs while he's developing the property?

I guess I I don't quite understand. Let me The thing that's really going to drive what can happen on this property besides the the four new homes and the four lost the existing home is the fifth one that's going to be there. It's the hillside ordinance really because a percentage of this property is in well all of it's in the hillside ordinance but that hillside ordinance is going to dictate what they can do

what they can do or cannot do. um which has nothing to do with annexation. It's the hillside ordinance that the city has in place that's going to say you can't take these trees down or you have to if you do take them down you have to replace them. And as Sean mentioned on the individual, let's say the new lots that are going to be developed, as he mentioned, around the perimeter of the building pad, the house, the driveway, normal everyday occurrence building, they would have to be kind of taken out to allow for driveways and a house. As far as um when these new utilities have to get to the property, if they're coming up on through Lily or in the street or however they're going to get there, that'll be another discussion that they'll have with staff to say, "Well, now it's got to go this way. How are we going to get this main line to feed off to say these lower new five home four homes on the bottom?" goods as well as getting water to the existing home that's there. Right.

So, that'll be a discussion. All right. How is all that going to happen? And and um staff will oversee all that. But if my understanding is right, the hillside ordinance is going to kind of dictate a lot of what's going to happen. It's not just a lot in the city that we just annexed that doesn't have a let's call it an overlay, which is the hillside ordinances. So there's a lot of restrictions on that hillside or besides where things can be built and it'll come up later where it can be built the slope what can you do and what you can't do in that area. Okay. And all those things are reviewed at the time of permit. So which is not tonight

which is not tonight. Right. Right. But in anticipation of this because of past denials the applicant did provide a geotech report which did kind of dive down into some of those details. They did provide that. when we get into the subdivision side of things, you'll be able to get some more information on those slopes. And also, Mark, I just want to add, it's really up to the property owner to understand what the hillside ordinance says, spirit of it,

because that's really the driving point to a lot of this besides the regular building codes and what planning uh department is requiring for parking and any of the other stuff that's a normal every day. So to back back away from this for a second and come back in from a more simplified perspective, uh the city is looking at a piece of property that may be uh reszoned, annexed and reszoned to R3 based on the design from the property owner and it will incorporate the hillside ordinance along with other city standard requirements in order to ensure that it meets all utilities services that the city provides along with ordinance requirements that are in line with the comprehensive plan. So, there's no sense of that that's out of violation. There's no intent to uh lose trees which border someone else's property unless they're on the property of the person that is being developed. So, they're not losing their own personal trees. I'm reading a note directly here without calling someone. They're not you're not taking trees off someone else's property in order to achieve what uh this requirement is for the

uh not unless they're in an already designated right of way right of way which is already designated which you would already know that those trees are on the docket. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And then I guess Sean, while we have the talking about trees and that kind of thing, um the street lily, if it did extend through, that would be entirely meeting public, you know, rules and that sort of thing. And would we get street trees planted on the on the sides of that?

So there that is going to depend on the ultimate design of what Lily ends up to be. Because it is a hillside, there is some slope there. And so, um, if you look at the very southeastern corner, that right ofway does have a touch of a notch that is missing on it. Um, where the the right of way comes in and there's a tiny little notch which would restrict dealing with storm water as well as as putting uh sidewalk on both sides. So, it meets the subdivision design standards which are in chapter 16, but the the sidewalk standards are in chapter 12 or title 12. So, what uh what staff has decided and met with the applicant is that the the uh there still would be public sidewalk, but it would be on the north side of Lily only.

Okay? Rather than on both sides because on the south side there's really not anything to connect it to. There's no sidewalk anywhere either end. Okay.

And in that, let's say if this gets approved, the connection of Lily on both ends, whether that'll happen or not, because there were some comments of maybe only entry on one side, not all the way through and so on. There are trees there and they will have to be probably removed because of the width of the the street and utilities and however else all that stuff is going to happen. Um there's some trees where will the hillside ordinance then affect any of that uh compared to how a normal city lot would be and they have to put in new streets to get to a city lot or a new subdivision and all those trees in that rideway would go away. Would the hillside ordinance kind of take precedence over where that actual road is, which is on I know we're talking about the the pro preliminary plot right now, but how would that road be dictated down the road since this is all in the hillside?

Uh you know, good question. I think there's there's a number of of things in there. Um the the the great thing about trees is they grow on the flat, they grow in the hills, they grow, you know, and so and they do return when they're replanted. And so they're they will be removed where that ride ofway is subject to anything that can be saved as as a as a street tree, but most likely most of the trees are going to go away in that ride of way.

Right. Okay. And again with that the hillside ordinance where we talked about before replacing trees that are taken out would the U property owner be responsible of replacing because there would be a number of trees according to the picture we see right in in the area that's to remain undisturbed. They can only be removed if they're diseased or there is a a a problem with it. they become dangerous or dead or have to be removed. Okay. Our urban forester is is on call for those types of things. He has gone out numerous times and inspected trees to determine whether or not they they will live or survive and whether or not they should be removed.

And that I believe is part of the hillside ordinance, the urban forestry. Yes. Kind of involved. Okay. Question Sean. I mean John.

So kind of foresting the trees here. we're talking about. I want to back up a little bit bigger picture if I could for a second. You know, we have findings to make. I think it was good to pause here uh and talk about the annex annexation part. I want a little bit more color and commentary maybe staff what you've heard as you brought this forward but you know we have findings to make with respect to you know character you know how it affects the neighbor neighborhood effect on the neighborhood uh there's a comp plan element uh uh GD1.5 that talks about recognizing the neighborhood uh that should be included I think. But uh so we've seen this three times. It's come here formally three times and actually a fourth because it got tabled once and came back a fourth time. And what I recall through all those meetings, the people that really are affected by this, that live up in there, the thing I heard over and over and over, and we'll see what they say tonight, but what I heard over and over and over is do not connect Lily Drive, you know, and um

thank you very much, but that's not necessary. So you know with respect to you know there's things that the council raised concern about you know which protect protection of the existing neighborhood was certainly one of them steep topography was another storm water drainage traffic and effect on the neighborhood character but I just want a little bit more information on you know the the last one that went forward was a plan that you know had driveways coming off of the in terminus this is and really you know some of the neighbors up there you know they don't want to they weren't nimies in in my recol recollection saying we don't want any development but they were really saying we don't want that con connection and and that that plan went I think somewhat reluctantly forward maybe you know maybe we didn't want to see any development but we heard from the neighbors you know don't don't connect that so you know I think I like I have a litany of questions you know is east side highway district been contacted? Have they been consulted? What is what would be the grade of that? Uh the portion to the west has been um mothballled and abandoned for decades. You know, who would who would repair and bring that up to standard and stuff. So, lots of connection of Lily. If you could help us with some of that evolution, I'd appreciate it.

John, hold on for a second. Um that's a great question. deserves an answer. I'm going to let Sean finish his presentation because then we can get Chris up here to kind of address what actually Chris come up. But we can have Chris come up at after you finish this particular um this particular hearing portion of it. So, let's go through the whole thing. I think it was great that you had those questions so we can get through that and then we can have Chris come up and talk about maybe connectivity and things like that before we get into the next hearing. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

And I think I was at the end of the the annexation portion of that. So is there any additional questions about the annexation before I move on to the subdivision? Okay, Mr. Chairman, if I may just clarify for the commission's sake and for the public too, the annexation request, the commission's only role is making a recommendation on the zoning if the zoning is appropriate. So, while you have those other, you know, the findings you have to make, it's really up to city council to determine if the annexation is appropriate. And so, you're weighing in on the appropriateness of the zoning. So, I just want to clarify that. Thank you. Okay, Sean.

All right. So, moving on to subdivision. Get situated here. That's my spot. Here. So once again, there are four required subdivision findings that are needed to be made for a subdivision. Um these are are them. We'll we'll work through them right now. So finding B1 is that all of the general preliminary plat requirements have or have not been met as attested to by the city engineer. City engineer has looked at the plat determined that all those plat elements are present. Finding B2 is that the provisions for sidewalks, streets, alleys, rights ofway, easements, street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and utilities are or are not adequate. So, this is a hillside. You know, it's not downtown. Some of those elements are are not available. I showed you in the transportation map for the for the comp plan that those elements aren't even close in most cases. So, some of those things are present, some of those are not. So sidewalk is shown on the north side of Lily. We did talk about that. And then the recommended seven conditions as part of the annexation and subdivision request that can be found on pages 9 and 10 of the staff report for those full comments. So as part of finding B2, this is the subdivision preliminary plat. Um this is the full the full thing and then I kind of made a larger extension of that and then provided the square footage of each one of the proposed lots as well as what is proposed for future and this once again would happen at the time of

building permit but where those disturbed areas would be. Um this dashed line shows that uh once again most of that elevation is in this area. And then um a little farther down we'll we'll talk about those uh the slopes for each lot. But suffice it to say that lot number five which is up at the top is less than 15% slope as determined by the applicant's engineer which would make that lot hillside exempt. Um so just be aware we would annex it in all as hillside but that particular lot would be exempt. So finding B3 is that the proposed preliminary plat does or does not comply with all of the subdivision design standards um in chapter 16.15 and the improvement standards of 16.40 4 and Chris Booseley reviewed those and stated that those design standards have been vetted for compliance. Obviously, subject to being on a hillside and one of the um conditions it the fire department made is a maximum of 8% slope. I think that was a a question that maybe uh Commissioner Copus had. So there's a a limit to to that because fire access still needs to be uh there to get to to any emergency. So finding before which is the last finding for the subdivision is the lots proposed in the preliminary plat do or do not meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district. And so, as Hillary alluded to, this is the part where the rubber really hits the road for planning commission and and does it meet that R3 requirement for for um for the subdivision as it's proposed. And so, the minimum lot size in an R3 district is 11,500.

Uh the smallest lot, which is on the very southern end, is 11,515. That's where there is the there's still slope there because it it's required to meet the hillside code. Um but uh it there according to the applicant's engineer there is room enough for disturbance and still have that be developed um up to a maximum of 8 18,812 square feet for the lots that are to the south. while that single family home that exists would retain six a little almost 61,000 square feet. So there's a minimum frontage of 75 ft along a public street. uh which is why in the last iteration uh chairman Les when it was a PUD that's how they uh proposed it was no frontage requirement through the PUD as a deviation to the standards and they used driveways to get to the lots rather than building a public street and then all setbacks in hillside codes must be met and review of these items takes place at the time of building permit. We discussed that and highlights of these codes are provided in the staff report. I believe that's kind of doubled up. That's the redundancy that you see there because this will also move on to uh council. So it's in both. So this is the grading table that I uh was talking about earlier and what each one of those lots are. Um lot five where the existing home is that's the larger lot that's over an acre. The average slope is 12 a.5% which is exempt from the hillside requirements. So each one of these lots has an average slope that is over 15% thus subject to the hillside requirement. Um they also have to provide the 25% automatically. Every lot must do that in the hillside and then the calculation of what must be left

natural for each one of those lots. I can kind of hop back here and you can see where the disturbance is very close to to Lily. Um, and that's where that would happen, the disturbance. And then back here, none of these trees would be removed unless they were diseased or dangerous. Okay. So, the proposed zoning exhibit here is R3, which is that that yellow color in the hillside overlay. Like I had mentioned earlier, that top portion with the existing house would be hillside exempt. So moving on to those seven proposed conditions. Um I talked about number one already is to remove the sistern and to uh remediate that. I believe that was happening as I heard that there was some disturbance on a neighbor's property and that sounds like that had come up in the letter that Mr. Copus was reading from. Um, so doing that would accomplish two things. It would end the easement requirement for irrigation water that exists for land that has been subdivided in the county and is no longer a viable source for water. And second would allow for the projected disturbance for the future home sites. So fire is requesting that uh the water be connected to ensure that fire fire flows are met and that the maximum slope of lily would be 8% which we discussed earlier. Water would like to see the extensions as well as fire hydrants and that extension would be required to tie into the other side of Lily so that uh it loops the system. Uh wastewater these are are pretty typical. These are policies of the city of Cordeline. are not necessarily real conditions. This is required for any development in the city to and through. So, make sure that you extend that sewer line all the way to the other side so that the next person

can develop if it's annexed into the city. And then the existing home on the parcel must connect to city sewer and pay the appropriate cap fees. So, the dep decision points and findings. Once again, this is the slide from the beginning. We have the annexation request of 3.19 acres with R3 in a hillside as well as a five lot preliminary plat known as the HEG subdivision. And so um this is the annexation portion of this. So, planning commission must evaluate the annexation request and make findings and you need to decide to recommend annexation with R3 hillside zoning with or without conditions or reject the R3 hillside zoning. And then for the subdivision side of things, you need to uh look at those, review them, and approve. Approve with conditions, deny or deny without prejudice. and the findings worksheets are attached. With that, that ends my presentation. Happy to stand for questions. John, you might have to restate some of that.

Right. Be happy to. I'm getting a little foggy. Any questions before we let Sean sit down? I'd like to. Go right ahead, Phil. Uh Sean, just a couple of quick things and thank you for for your presentation. I this is like the third attempt to get a resoning here, right? And as I understand looking at the map, property to the north, to the south, and to the east is all Coupney County. Only this property and as you come back to the west do we actually encounter Quane, correct? At least that are contiguous. Right. Okay. It does a kind of a a funny little

It's not quite a donnut hole as John and I refer to it, but it gets pretty close. That's where city everything that is to the west I mean sorry to the east whether it's Lily or whatever should be two acres based upon agricultural suburban zoning now I don't know how that got changed but I don't think any of those are at least doesn't look like many are they look much more comparable in size what's being proposed by uh this particular development is that correct am I reading Is that wrong?

No, you are correct. But the I think where the maybe the the misunderstanding is is that is a more recent ordinance than that happened after the homes were built. So, these were subdivided in the county and approved the way that they are. And I believe in and don't quote me on this, but I think 1718 when I was looking at the county's code uh this afternoon and and then it was also updated I believe in 2022 as well is when those requirements came into play for the larger lot sizes. Okay. Uh one thing you said earlier that you have received the geotechnical report that was requested I think previously by the city commission.

I'm sorry I didn't understand the geotechnical report that was previously mentioned. You have received that. Is that correct? The Oh, the geotech report. Sorry, I missed the that particular word. It was lost. Bring it out. Throws everyone off. Don't worry. The geotech report was was provided. Uh, that's off and out. Thank you.

Well, you um I got a little lost. Uh, so it's interesting that, you know, we're only looking at making a recommendation on zoning, whether R3 is appropriate or not. And I have no problem with R3. I think the the PUB that went forward was R3 and that was fine. So, I'm fine with that. What I struggle with is that we have findings in our finding workshop, findings worksheet. Uh B1, we're asked to determine whether this is part, you know, in conformance with a comp plan. B3 whether we think this is a suitable request based on the physical characteristics and B4 whether it affects negatively the neighborhood. So, if we're only looking at what the zoning should be, why are we talking about effect on the neighborhood? And why do we make these findings if we're only looking at zoning? I'm a little lost.

So, I'm going to look to Randy on on this one. You follow me? If it's just zoning, I just say let's vote for R3 and we'll be done with it. But I I have to make a finding of whether this uh negatively affects the neighborhood. And I'm I'm a little concerned because having seen four of these, you know, the thing that I think is a big deal is this connection that I've lived on a culde-sac. I know what that feels like. And when and so I wouldn't want that to go away either. So why why is it that we are we have these findings to make if if they're they're not applicable?

Well, I think they are applicable. I think they're required by statute. Um because the density of uh of development does affect the neighborhood, does affect traffic, does affect uh a a number of things. So that's why uh you have to decide whether the R3 as opposed to R17 or R1 is the appropriate one for this area. So, I guess those questions, John, I think are going to be answered or a they're asked the same but answered differently on each of the requests. So, like when it's just the zoning, I think it would be asked in the in the tense of does is this zoning compatible with neighborhood zoning? is it com you know like but then when we're looking at the PUD then it is this compatible with the traffic of the neighborhood and the you know the other elements I think kind of they're kind of separated even though the questions are the same I maybe is how I think about it so

well also we're looking at what is still in the county and will remain in the county with no effect from this development the egg suburban that is currently Lily and Gunnison those lots are small and So they are within the R3 that we would consider R3, but the suburban, you know, they've kept it that way in the county. I don't know if they're on sewer or if they're on septic on a small lot, where that water's coming from and who's serving that water. There's some answers we need, but this looks like it would tuck in nicely against the current Lily on the east side and and it certainly is compatible with the west side. So I I don't I we need some answers on East Lily. Um and and we're not touching it. We're we're not going to affect it except for traffic will affect it. And they and they have another exit if there's a fire. They have another exit if there's a you know forest fire or if there there's uh some accident at the end of the road and they can't get through. So there are benefits to connecting the east and the west of Lily. I know John may differ with me, but I would want to be able to get out in the fire having seen Pacific Palisades. I want to have another way to get out. Um, so I think that we have to see see that this isn't all that different from what is adjacent and north of it even, but we're not affecting those. We're not touching when we make an annexation. We don't reach out and grab your property that's in the in the uh um county. That's not what we do. Um people come to us and ask to come in or not. Um some people have the feeling that they're threatening us because they're making this part of the city. We don't do that. That's not what we do. That's called a taking and that's illegal in the state of Idaho. So, you can sort of rest easy on that. This is really about is there a road through or is there not a road through? That's really what we're coming down to here.

Well, I think when you separate the issues, I mean, the zoning is compatible and the land use is compatible with the neighboring adjacencies. Adjacencies. Now, when we get to the PED, I think there's other elements playing into that, but I think as far as if it were annexed, what would you recommend the zoning to be? I would say R3 would be the one that makes sense. So, thank you, Mr. Spe one final thing. The prior application uh that was denied, how many units was that if you know? Same. I think I believe it was five as well. Same as we have here. So, I believe there was four, but there was 10% open space in the UD that super

flanked the house to the north and the four lots to the south. John, when you u made some of your comments, were you talking about the findings we have to make for the particular this first one, the zone change? Zone change. It's we're just talking about zone change right now. I really don't want to talk about annexation yet because we haven't gotten into that one. So, I'm just want to be on the same page where you are.

We have A1 A1-25 has four conditions. And if you read B1, B2, B3, B4, um there's certainly things before us that are just seemingly beyond that or beyond a zone change. We have to decide whether this affects the surrounding neighborhood, whether it's in conformance with the comp plan, whether the physical characteristics of the site make it suitable. So those things talk about things besides zoning. This isn't about just zoning R1 or R2 or R3 or R8, but it it's right here, Tom.

Yeah, I should I'm on the same page. So, are they I'm looking at those things and trying to square those up with you know what I'm hearing in the staff report. Okay. Well, I think are we do we are we following? We are talking A1-25 right now. That's the one that John had in his hand, which is the annexation portion of um our charge tonight to make a recommendation to city council. Page three of your work sheet. Yeah. On Yeah, this that's the same exact one. I'm say I'm saying we we need to evaluate B1, B3, and B4.

Not just whether R3 is the right thing, but what about those those things is Well, we've done What about the physical characteristics? What about the surrounding neighborhood? But we've done it before. We're getting into a lot of discussion here at this point in time. I think it's best that we let Sean, if you're done, sit down. I'd like to have Chris come up

and speak about the road. Uh cuz we also have a lot of comments that we received uh from um neighbors. Uh there was a lot that were in support of this and there were some that weren't in support of it and some of them that weren't in support of it was addressing the road whether it should be not uh going into the um existing county property that's going to stay in the county. Uh it should only go or enter uh through the uh southern portion of the property let's say and the culdeac will remain. So Chris, if you can kind of talk about what you've heard and give us some ideas. We did have um uh information from the fire and the police that um Commissioner Fleming kind of addressed that their comments was that you know fire and and police think it's a good idea to have connectivity because it can get to the property that's going to remain in all those homes on the uh county side. So that was their comments. I just want to let you know these are the things that we have received and whether or not everyone who's here looked up any of that on the web page or not uh of the city because all that information is available. Not you didn't get our package like you have that we have here tonight. But those are the comments the police and fire made and other comments that the general public made that lives in the neighborhood. So Chris, it's your show. Go ahead.

My show, huh? Um, so you want, well, I'll address the traffic. So, um, typically a single family development generates between 8 and 10 trips a day. So, the additional trips generated by what's proposed is pretty minor. However, connecting Lily Drive to Lily Drive obviously is going to draw some through traffic. Um, if I lived in the culde-sac, I wouldn't want it connected either, but I'm don't it's it's not a heartfelt decision to be made here. I'm just presenting the facts. Um, the it will provide better emergency access. It would be better for snow plowing and things like that. We have not coordinated with East Side Highway District particularly on this project, but we do all the time. Um, and in the past it's generally been kind of a handshake deal as to who plows what street and stuff cuz it doesn't make sense for us to get to the city limits and stop and back out. I mean, that just doesn't happen. So, we would likely I talked to the director of our department today about it to find out how he would direct plow crews and he said he would likely take them all the way out to the end of Lily Drive. we'd have that conversation with Ben Weimoth with East Side Highway District um to make sure that they understand that that would be more beneficial for us to take that since we're doing the rest of Lily Drive anyway. Um we don't like dead ends. Um currently that's likely plowed at least a couple times a year by East Side Highway District. Um but that would be something that we would likely take over. Um,

of course, let me stop you on that. I just want a clarification on the east side district who plows Lily Drive right now. Mhm. That is beyond the um the the um property. Now, East Side High District plows that uh during the snow time, I guess. Is that how how does how does it is their jurisdiction. All right. So, that because I've never been out there to watch a snow plow. All right. But it does get snowplowed by some entity. Correct. Put it that way. And if there's connectivity, if I hear what you're saying

on both ends, you're in conversation with East Side Highway District to continue snowplowing from the lower portion of Lily, if it connects all the way through to Lily to wherever Lily continues beyond the culdeac. Is that kind of the conversation you guys are having right now? If that Most of Lily Drive is in the city of Cordelane. We would probably just do it from one end to the other. Okay. City would take We currently do not plow the little stub that comes into that property because I think it's just a dead end with no nothing no residence there or anything. All right. Sorry. Continue. Sorry if I interrupted you.

No, that's fine. Uh I'm trying to think of what else what other information you wanted. Um um oh so and one of the comments that I did read also um from the public was about cut through traffic to the golf course. Um, I measured that out on a map and anybody coming from Elm Avenue underneath I90 from 15th Street coming in it from that direction because that seems like the way that uh most people would be going like that would actually anyone who would be tempted to take Lily would be coming in from that direction to get to the golf course. it would be about 200 f feet shorter of a drive um to Ponderosa Golf Course. Um it not maybe not as direct. It's so it it's hard to tell if anyone would actually make that trip to to make those turns to go that way. Um it's it's hard to tell what people will do when they choose their their way to drive, but

Okay. Okay. Joe, go ahead. Thanks, Chris. Uh, one one last little thing. If if this were approved, you know, that section of Lily, maybe it's 150 ft or a little more, give or take, from the barricades uh there to the project limits is kind of a a no man's land right now. Uh, and it's in bad shape. It hasn't been maintained for decades. How would that get repaired? It needs to be rebuilt. Would that should that could that be part of the condition? It certainly could. I mean, that would be up to you guys to if you felt that that should If it weren't, what happens?

Um, then likely once all construction is done, we would take a look to see if if it needed some sort of overlay or something like that, but we certainly wouldn't touch it before anything with before all construction is done. Yeah. And given what you said, if that was a condition, and I'll talk to legal, would that be a condition that the developer would have to uh kind of address or would that be something the city would look at later on? Well, it could be either or or primarily we put it on the developer. Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead. One question, Chris, if I could. kind of hypothetical. You say people could use Lily as a cut through to get to the golf course. Now, most people I know when it vis road to the end and crossing over. How much of a magnet would that really be? I mean, other than the golf course, is there that much uh development that that would lead people to as a shortcut or whatever? Um, I don't think so. So, I mean, not natural.

People are creatures of habit. So, anybody who's going to the golf course now is probably going to continue going the same way unless they're really curious or really know the roads and want to take a different way to get there. Um, it isn't in line with a bunch of other developments. I mean, there are shorter ways to get out of there for most people. People who are very close to Lily Drive may take it to get back into Celane or something like that, but it doesn't due to its geographic location, it doesn't seem to be a huge draw for cut through traffic.

On on a similar question, do do the people that live east of Lily now, north of the golf course, would would the connectivity of Lily provide any reason for them to look at that as a shortcut going west? Oh yeah. Going towards I90. Sure. Going to Harrison. Is that Does that become a shortcut for those that live up there? It is a possibility. Yes, definitely. You don't have to go up to Stanley and go across because you have to go up to Stanley and come down the hill, right? You could miss the big hill, too. That's always fun in the winter. Yeah. So, the added traffic would not just be for these additional four homes,

right? And that's something we can't estimate. I mean, I can estimate how much traffic is generated by a certain development, but once a connection is made, I mean, even traffic models aren't going to predict because we can't predict human behavior. Yeah. Yeah. You can't Yeah. Because if we have connectivity, the people that live,

let's say, on the upper side, you know, they don't have any other way to go. But if you have connectivity, sure, it's going to go through. And I think a lot of that is going to go through if this gets approved where those new homes are more so traffic going through that part of it from the upper side down. So as Chris says, you can't determine how somebody's going to go. Um, you had a question. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Um, Chris, I'm looking at this map and I'm seeing two streets named to Lily with a gap between them. Just from an urban design standpoint, I know you probably weren't here,

maybe eminent domain, maybe the owner didn't want to develop at the time, but was there an intent? Can you speak to when you see two streets with the same name uh like a right of way so that people that are intending to purchase a property thinking they're being on a culde-sac they might be aware of the fact that this might not be a culde-sac forever. Uh can you speak to that at all?

Yeah, I was not here at the time. I don't know what caused that disjunction between Lily Drive and Lily or yeah, Lily Drive and Lily Drive, but looking at it, I would assume that it was meant to go through someday, much like the Cortara dead end streets from Indian Meadows that just and and these streets aren't just culde-sacs. I mean, Lily Drive does have right ofway for a culde-sac, but I don't think there is a city standard culdesac at the end of it. So, it was plotted with a culdesac, but I don't believe it was built with a culde-sac.

Plotted with a culde-sac as compared to built. Can you help me out? Like, was there a right of way? Okay. Um there is uh the the right ofway lines at the end of Lily Drive show a street show culde-sac not a street correct okay way but it was not built that way up here to get there I don't think there's anybody would ever and the reason may and part of the reason for not extending it at one point may have been the the lot to the south um that puts the little uh a lot of them dog ear in the in the corner of the property there.

Is there um and maybe this is an applicant question. Is there any easement at all on this parcel for Lily Drive like on a a recorded easement with the county? That would be a question for the applicant probably to address which okay he'll get up here in a minute I think. Any other questions for Chris? No. All right. Thanks Chris. Appreciate it. Okay. Um just getting the applicants. Okay. PowerPoint up

and the applicant will come on up. Okay, I have to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth? Nothing but the truth shall be God. Just state your name in the city you live in. I do swear. Eric Olsen. I live in the city of Post Falls. Okay, Eric. [Music]

So, yes, I'm with Olsen Engineering here representing Mr. Jean Heg. is also in the audience tonight. We've seen this already. I'm sure we'll go back to it. Why are we here again? Mr. Hey wishes to annex and subdivide this uh his parcel for the benefit of his family. There have been changes that have happened since 20 2005 and since 2021. Uh obviously growth in the city, a lot of housing needs, uh a renewed, not even a renewed, an emphasis, more of an emphasis on fire protection. We have additional information to present regarding groundwater or spring concerns. We feel there are several significant benefits to the city and to the public uh with this proposal. So we want to make the best case we can for those. And uh as as I think some of this discussion has centered around it feels like a logical annexation. Why the public road option again? As I understand the 2005 application uh brought this forward with the completion of Lily Drive and was shot down at that time. Uh 2021 came the PUD version where we had common driveways coming off the end uh on the east side of uh Lily and and another driveway off the west side. Um and that failed. uh it passed this body and some of you actually several of you were there then and uh but it didn't make it through

council narrowly and in my view having watched that presentation uh the biggest reason it make didn't make it through is because it didn't show enough benefit to the city. Um so that's what we're going to try to argue tonight. Uh my opinion, a public a public road is logical. Lily Drive was meant to be completed. City staff prefers this option. I as the engineer prefer this option. And really, it's a much easier case to make. And I guess I am making this case like I'm arguing the uh uh the findings that council will have to make for for annexation. Uh I also stand a bit confused on what your charge is, but I'm going to make my full presentation. [Music] Lily Drive was meant to be completed. Um this is just a map that just shows this Mr. Hey parcel in the middle standing as an island, a much larger parcel than everything around it and a very obvious gap between both sides of Lily Drive. I'm going to bail out Chris a little bit here. Um the this is the plat for Ponderosa Terrace. Uh that's the county subdivision to the east. Um, so we'd be connecting Lily Drive right here. I've blown up this portion. Um, it's not a culde-sac. If it was a culde-sac, it would have a big circle right here. There's a reason they put this radius here, and that's so it could start veering towards the other side of Lily Drive. And if you look right here, uh, there's a little temporary road easement with an

asterisk. Uh, that's This this part is blown up right here. The asterisk says this easement is to be vacated upon extension of the road. That road was meant to be extended. So I'm going to refer to it as Lily Drive was meant to be completed. The benefits of completing Lily Drive. I'm just going to read directly from your deputy fire marshal. The first paragraph that I've highlighted here. The proposed road connection along Lily Street enhances fire department response times to the to areas beyond city limits. Additionally, it provides access to a second fire hydrant location along Lily Street, improving fire protection coverage. The completion of Lily Street provides faster emergency services to Hill Street and Galina Avenue and further optimizes access and response capabilities in the surrounding area. I'm going to add on a couple of my own points. Um, it also provides a way out for for uh vehicles on the county side of Lily. Should that portion of Lily be blocked, they've got a way to get out with their vehicle. There's currently no turnaround at the end uh of Lily Drive on on the county side. That's that's not a good condition for uh emergency vehicles. This is uh this was up on the screen earlier, but the boxed this is a condition of subdivision approval. Main extension will be required to serve this subdivision and be tied into the existing main. Uh this water man on East Lily Drive. Both ends of the water man on Lily Drive must be tied together. So my addition to this, this project would connect two end dead-end water

lines providing increased water circulation, flow capacity and pressure during high use periods. I included this this slide just so we could have something to refer back to if we needed to about routes uh different routes people can take from this kind of convoluted uh slightly disheveled area in here where there's not a whole lot of

All right, I'm going to make some points on the next slide regarding this. Yes, there will be increased traffic on Lily Drive. It was meant to connect. County residents on the east side of Lily Drive will experience more traffic, but will benefit from reduced travel time to and from destinations along I90. Travel time benefits for portions of Hill Drive, Gunnison Place, Spring View Drive are not significant, but will likely result in some additional cut through traffic because the option would be there as it was meant to be. Uh more benefits, redundant routes for road closures during construction, redundant routes for fire protection. I'm going to wait for that. And my last point there, if there is increased traffic on Lily Drive, there will be less traffic on Harrison Avenue and Stanley Hill Road. A more even and more fair distribution of traffic to surrounding residents. Next benefit, sidewalk connection. So what you see on uh so yeah, I'll read my points. Currently, there is no legal walking connection between the dead ends of Lily Drive. Local residents trespass regularly on the subject property because it's a useful pedestrian connection. You can see on the uh the picture on the left, that's looking from the west side. Just gives you an idea that there's a beaten path there. And this is on the other side uh off the east side again showing the beaten path. Taking a it a step further, they've

actually installed signs and uh poop containers. And uh without notifying Mr. Heg. So, while I can appreciate the gesture of trying to keep that property clean, the point is there what they're doing right now is trespassing. And there's it appears there is a need there for a pedestrian connection. Required findings for annexation, there's four of them. B1 that this proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive plan policies. Uh Sean had included some some policies that he thought were relevant. We've got a few to add here, so I'm going to go ahead and read them. Bear with me. Goal CI3. Cordeline will strive to be livable for medium and below income levels, including young families, workingclass, lowincome, and fixed income households. And my commentary there says that the additional lots will allow Jean's children to be become property owners. He's going to talk more about that a little later. Goal GD3, support the development of a mo multimodal transportation system for all users. The annexation and subdivision would complete Lily Drive and make it legal for pedestrians to walk through. Also improve vehicle circulation in the area. Goal GD5 implement principles of environmental design and planning projects. Project will be built in accordance with the hillside ordinance and will have less impact on the urban forests from the previous PUD version which would have required additional disturbance to create useful open space. Goal HS3 continue to provide exceptional police, fire, and emergency services.

The completion of Lily Drive, elimination of dead ends, and additional looping of water system will enhance emergency access and the ability to fight fires in the area. Second finding, public facilities and utilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. All available, all utilities are available. Access is available. Third finding that the physical characteristics of the site make it suitable for the request. At this time, Sean did a pretty good job of covering this. I think I'd just make one point. When we get to this table, um this middle column here, which is the average slope plus 25%. I'm going to make another point, too. Um, when you're looking at topography and some of the some of the sites I have to work on, 20 to 25% slope, while it is a is a slope, it's more than 15%. It's not really pushing any extremes for what people are building on right now. So, you add the 25% you get here, and these figures over here are actually generated from taking these areas and dividing them by the overall area of the lot. So uh for comparison lot one which is this one uh the criteria is at 50% that we have to leave natural and based on this uh preliminary layout here we're leaving 54%. So that one's a little tight. The others are less tight. Um but the fact that they're not exact indicates there's a little bit of room to work with on these lots. still kind of on the physical characteristics. Uh geotechnical evaluation. This is just the the first page of the geotechnical evaluation. And then this is a map of

nine test pits that were dug on Mr. Heg's property summarizing the surface and groundwater portion of the evaluation. As I know that's been an issue of past concern. Groundwater was not encountered in test holes. Groundwater may yet be encountered during construction. It's not the end of the world. It can be captured and diverted. Surface water was found discharging from a pipe from neighboring property. These are direct quotes from the report. Based on our observations and the information provided by the civil engineer, does not appear that the free flowing surface water represents a naturally occurring stream or spring. The existing drainage pipe discharge should be evaluated by the civil engineer to redirect this discharge to an appropriate receiving location.

Can I ask you a question real quick? Yeah. Um on that um third one it says appears that preferring surface was represented but this the yeah the third one surface water was found discharging from a pipe from neighboring properties. Had you have a conversation with that neighboring property? I have not personally. I believe uh Mr. was was contemplating that conversation. Okay. Because I guess that would be some sort of a concern you'd have to have down the road with somebody.

Yeah, I will. I think it is. Um, I can tell you from reviewing the title report that there is no easement associated with uh any discharge from a neighboring property. So, you haven't made it aware to the neighboring property yet? I have not. That's in Mr. Heg's court. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

Uh, so kind of summarizing B3 physical characteristics of the site. Uh we've designed our design is based on an 8% street grade. It will work uh and it's acceptable to city staff. I think we've demonstrated we can meet the hillside ordinance. Uh there is not a spring surface and groundwater can be captured and diverted and adjacent areas with similar slopes have been successfully developed. onto the fourth finding that the proposal would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood with regard to traffic, neighborhood character and/or existing land uses. Talked fairly exhaustively on traffic. Um, as far as neighborhood character, uh, neighborhood character and existing land uses will remain similar with the addition of four new single family lots of similar size to the surrounding area, which is all R3 zoning within the city. and a legal walking connection will enhance connectivity between neighborhoods. Uh on to the required findings for subdivision, though I'm not sure it bears it's really worthwhile going into detail on any of these. We wouldn't be up here if we didn't meet all four of these. Um just figured I'd throw this in. This is a a cross-section of proposed Lily Drive extension matches the width on either side which is uh 36 ft back of curb to back of curb. We're going to have a 6ft planter strip on the north side adjacent to a 5-ft sidewalk, curb and gutter, pavement and utility easements. Um, before I get to my last slide, let me I'm going to check my list here and

see if there's any questions I can clear up. Um, the sistern is gone. It's been removed. Um, I've heard I'll pick on uh Commissioner McCracken because she's mentioned a PUD. This this is not a PUD this time around. It's just a straightup subdivision. And there is no easement for Lily Drive on that exists on the property right now. Summary of benefits. Better fire protection, better water circulation, better traffic circulation, sidewalk con construction, no connection, no construction costs to the city, increased tax base. city controls development through hillside ordinance versus potential county development. And I'll recognize that potential county development would be an uphill battle. We'd have to uh convince them to reszone the whole area to match what's actually built out there. It would probably be a restricted residential zoning instead of an a suburban. Um but if it's in the city, you guys get to control it. your hillside ordinance has a lot more teeth than the county's what the county has and the and finally housing opportunities. And with that, I'd like to hand it over to Mr. Heg uh to talk a little bit about that.

I have a quick question. Sure. On the existing lot five, is that also going to go on to sewer and water from the city? It's way up there. It's already on water and it would go on sewer as Good. So you will and will you connect to the low sewer down in the It would there would be a sidelot easement to do that. The B. Okay. Thank you.

It's kind of nerve-wracking sitting here listening to everything and I know that the neighbors are upset and of course I don't want that. Okay. Um let me just sway you in Eugene. Oh yes. Do you solemnly swear and or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Self you got. So, let me go. Just state your name in the city you live in. Appreciate it. Thank you, Gene. Hey, Cordelane. Okay, go right ahead, Eugene.

Yeah. So, as I was saying, I I know that there's a lot of frustration on the part of the neighbors with talking about traffic. It was the same conversation when there wasn't going to be a road through that it was going to be a big traffic issue. Um, I just really want to have a place so I can bring my six kids back. Most of my kids can't afford to live here anymore. I have one son that lives here and my other five kids have had to move out to seek employment opportunities where the housing is less expensive. I know that's something we talk about a lot. Um, and I'll have an ability to give them that land so they can build a home. It's going to be much more affordable for them. Brings youth into the area, jobs, labor. I'm an employer in the community and I'm having a hard time paying wages for my team to afford housing. So, I know it's only four people, but it's four people that were born, well, not born, but raised on that property, spent their time there. Um, my kids learned how to ride bikes there, and I just had my granddaughter there for the first time. So, it's it's a it's a family thing. I'm not I'm not a developer. I'm not looking to make money off of this thing. It's going to cost me money because my kids aren't going to pay me for those lots. I mean, it's true, right? So, um, and I' I'd like to be able to use my property instead of you guys using my property to walk your dogs and poop and to drain water onto my property that I didn't even know was being drained onto my property. I mean, so there's just, you know, it's sad that it it's adversarial. It's not my intention, but my intention is just to do right by my kids. So, I'm hoping you'll see that. So, that's all I have.

Thank you. Um, I have Dale Dennis and he does wish to speak. Come up, Dale. I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Help you God. I do. Go right ahead.

Okay. My name is Dale Dennis and I live at 2471 East Stow Court and I had joined this subdivision. Um, first of all, I'd like to say that I'm not against the proposed subdivision in that I support owners developing their property, but I what I am against is the subdivision in its concept and design. The proposed plan shows a continuence of Lily Drive to connect to western part which would be in the city with east in part which is and still will always be in the county. I've read all the comments for and against on your website. At one point one of the four comments stated that the applicant had six children. If you view the comments, you'll see that most of them are from relatives. One of the comments was from uh was for the subdivision is from someone that is not even affected. They're know they're living in the Cherry Hill area. One of the four comments um are from not one of the four comments are from anyone that is affected in this are one of the not one of the four comments any of the four comments are from those affected by this development. There are nine houses on Lily Drive that are directly affected. Lily comes to a stop sign on Hill Street. This is a slope downhill as you come to Hill Street. Very limited view both up and down Hill Street. Uh

with the proposed additional use of Lily, this proposes a tra a traffic hazard. Um, why would you even consider approving this to accommodate four lots and adversely affecting nine homes in the county? With a design change to include a culde-sac, you could accomplish the approval of the subdivision and not negatively affect so many other people. I have heard that the city does not like culde-sacs normally because of plowing snow. Um they could do what Post Falls does and that's what pile the snow in the middle of the culde-sac. Um now all from the county Lily is a deadend street. The street north uh Gunnison abuts property next to the proposal and is a culde-sac. The street to the south of the proposed site, uh, Stow Court is a culde-sac. At the last request in 2021, which was a PUD, the design was a culde-sac and the county had no uh from the county into the city and that seemed to be acceptable with the exception of coming from the county to the city to receive city services. This is the primary reason when I was here that it was uh declined because they had to come from the county into the city into the culde-sac by making the culde-sac come from the city into the property. Um you could accomplish the same thing by um approving the uh the PUD.

Um, this application could be all city to receive city services with a culde-sac rather than a through street into the county. I hope you turn down this applicant with a design that affects so many people to accommod accommodate just four lots. The applicant lives way up on the hill and will not not even see these lots if developed. and he's in the fifth lot of the proposal as something that came up uh a little bit earlier was the snow plowing of Lily. Um East Side Highway District plows uh the current Lily Drive. Um, if this were a through street, you've got um the center of a street plowed by the city and plowed by the county. You might have some conflict there or nobody gets plowed. Um, uh, if you have any questions for me, glad to answer them.

Thank you. Okay. I have uh Lauren Hayden opposed and does wish to speak. Just have to swear in. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Just state your name in the city you live in. Thank you. Lauren Hayden. I live in Celane off of Harrison Avenue. Okay. Thank you.

This is my third time here, too. um reviewing the developmental plans for this property and my opposition to this one follows some of the same reasons that I had previously. We've already clarified that contrary to what was represented in Mr. Olsen's narrative that this is certainly not the first time that Lily Drive pushth through has has been presented. With all due respect to Mr. Peg, whom I have not met until tonight, and I haven't met him then. Um, there is nothing in the comprehensive plan that I can find that bases annex session and zone change out of a desire to provide building lots for your children. And the representation that it's logical for this parcel to be zoned R3 and annexed doesn't make any sense to me when all of the surrounding area to the north to the east to the south is already it's a suburban and to say that it's logical for this parcel to be carved out for annexation and an R3 doesn't doesn't mean it's logical and at least At least in my opinion, what would be logical would be to leave it as an a suburban, the representation that the trespassing would be eliminated by pushing through Lily connecting the two ends is silly. Annexation does not stop trespassing. Fences stop trespassing. And there are no fences that I have seen

on either end of Lily Drive to prevent the trespass. So, it continues to occur. I am still concerned about the presence of water on the property. I don't know where the discharge pipe is located, but the water for that discharge pipe has to come from somewhere. The water fueling those systems had to come from somewhere. So, where is it? Is it all underground? and Mr. Olsen says we're going to capture it and redirect it. And I guess my question for him is how do you plan to do that in discussing the goals set out in the narrative? Once again, I see nothing in the comprehensive plan or in the goals and direct goals and objectives that provide for property ownership of one's children. There are multiple mechanisms for passing on property to one's children or anyone else that do not require annexation in a zone change.

That means your time's up, but if you have a few more seconds to say something, go ahead. I will end by saying that in terms of health and safety, if you push through Lily, you're going to have vehicular traffic where there is no vehicular traffic now. No amount of traffic is going to make this area any safer. We've not had Thank you. We have not had a wildfire in the 21 years I have lived there, and there may never be. I don't think that that is reasonable to push through Lily Drive. And finally, I want to thank you for your work and staff for their work in doing this. And I hope that you will deny this application. Thank you.

Thank you. Chris Chile,

do you slely swear and affirm that the test testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Hope you got it. I do. Just state your name and city you live in, Chris. Chris Chely, Post Falls. Okay.

But I was born and raised in Coral Lake. Born in the Iron Horse parking lot when that was where the hospital was. Um, and and that actually kind of brings me to part of what I want to say is uh I I've seen a lot of changes. Some of them I haven't loved. Uh, but that's what goes with uh having a place this beautiful to to move to. And uh although none of us love to see uh something happen next door or in our backyard at the same time, uh I think that what and I think Eric did an excellent job of pointing out the value. Um, we all have heard, well, many of us have heard about the the challenges of water pressure and volume and and the the uh benefit to the city of being able to loop that is tremendous. And as Commissioner Fleming pointed out, you know, the there were folks whether it was in Lahina or in Pacific Palisades or wherever that wished there was an outlet that they weren't blocked from. And so to to not take into account the fact that connecting that through as it was intended apparently from the beginning according to all those things that Eric showed us uh is is going to make a difference someday to someone uh whether it's an EMS or or uh just somebody attempting to to get out. But I I hope that we can recognize and and Gan is not a contentious guy. I've known him for a very long time. He's lived in that home for 23 years, raised his family there. Um, you know, this this is bigger than the community of of a of a couple of streets. At the end of the day, we're all uh looking for ways to improve anything from water flow to EMS connections. Um, and I think the the way the as Eric pointed out, the way the city will will be able to manage that hillside uh and keep it from turning into something that is is unsightly, uh, it will be a benefit that everybody benefits from. uh redirecting some traffic from this street to the other uh not really going to increase volume. It's just going to move it from one

section to another. So, uh certainly respect that that there are differing opinions and I certainly hope that we can all walk out of this tonight as as friends and neighbors in a great community. Thank you. Thank you. Janice Hogden is opposed and wish excuse me wishes to testify. Hi. Okay. Um, do you solemnly swear andor affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Help you got I do. State your name and city you live in, please. Janice Hton. I'm live in the county, Celane, Idaho. Go right ahead.

Um, well, I'm kind of reiterating a lot of what's been said. Lived on Lily since 1987, which was East Lily, by the way, until about three years ago when the city took the east away. Um, and this has I've been to all these hearings also, all the past ones. And to be honest, perfectly honest, I've never met Mr. Heg either. He seems like a really nice man. I've never really had a problem with somebody doing with their property what they'd like to do. It's his property and I understand he wants to be able to do something with it and make some money or whatever. Whatever whether it be for his family or not, I don't know. But I always felt kind of bad when he was denied because I know he's sitting on this piece of land that he can't really do much with. And yes, we all use it. We all walk through it. Um, friends of mine put up the no or pick up your dog poop things, which was cool because nobody wanted to see it get littered. We're all picking up litter in there whenever we go through because the kids would kind of go down there and be a little too rambunctious. So, we've kind of tried to take care of it, too. And we are appreciative of him doing that. I think it was very generous of him. He's never denied us access to it. There's no no trespassing signs, no fences. As far as I know, he's never denied it. and been he's allowed us all these years to do that. Um when we came here in 1987 um we bought this property because it was on a dead end road and I can't speak for my other neighbors but that was the reason we bought this property. It's a safe street. I've never had a problem with crime. We never do. And I've hate to admit this in front of people but we used to keep our doors unlocked all the time. We get to know our neighbors really well. We watch over one another. We never have any traffic issues. people speeding by. Where we live is on the um furthest east end of the road just as it comes down and meets in with Hill Drive. And there's a rise right there. So when I'm backing out of my driveway, I have to be really careful and always look to make sure one of my neighbors isn't coming. And it scares me to think that this is going to be a through street.

I'm not going to be able to see, especially if my neighbors parked their car on the road. I can't see around it enough to to eek out there safely. So that that worries me a lot. And that is the main issue I have with this. Not so much the development and the R3 zoning, but the punch through again. And that's what I spoke of last time is that I don't see why he has to have both. And I'm curious as to why he wants to punch it through. I don't understand that. Why is that only being looked at? Why can't you just have an ingress and an egress from the west side and make it a culde-sac of your homes in there? I I don't understand that. So, if somebody can answer that, I'd love to know. Um I don't think it's a necessity. The only thing I can see that was brought up before was the EMS access to the other side. Well, it was stated tonight that there's only 200 feet difference if you were going to the golf course if you went this way. Well, that applies to the EMS, too. It's a matter of 200 feet less that they would have to drive to get to us, which is not a lot of time. And the way they do it now is you have to go down south and come out. Um I'm not sure of the roads. I can't remember but um it's a couple blocks or around and then they come up hill drive in front of us. Um so they're still involving turns and such, but it is in a matter of five or 10 minutes. So in closing, I guess my time's up too. Um one thing I wanted to say was that was brought up that about the water pressure. I have extremely high water pressure. In fact, my sprinklers are always blowing pipes because the pressure is so high. It's not a water pressure issue for us. We don't have any existing sidewalks on either Lily Drive. So, there's no connecting sidewalks because there are no sidewalks. It's all just people walk down the roads because it's safe. Um and also um the time he was saying the time was less for uh or there was no time. It would be less for us but no time difference for

the people east of us. It's the same time difference for the people that live east live east of us and above the golf course. They'll be using this road. They come screaming down that hill right now so fast they'll be taking a quick right and coming right up on our road and passing through and it'll be the same amount of time that they'll be saving as we would. So that's not true. So, I'm just asking and for the matter of safety and for peace and quiet and the rights of the people that bought these properties because it was on a dead-end road, would you please consider only a westside ingress and egress and not punch the road through? I really don't think the benefits outweigh the um the impacts it'll have, negative impacts it'll have on our on our residences, and I think it will devalue my property. Thank you for listening.

You're welcome. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak that didn't sign up before I have the applicant come up and perhaps address some of the things I heard? Okay. Okie do. Okay. Um, there was a mention of concerns about unsafety of the intersection at Hill Street and Lily. I haven't studied that. Um, but I would say if you punch it through, they can go the other way. They don't have to deal with that intersection. And maybe if that intersection's unsafe, it'll prevent people from wanting to cut through. Um, Mr. Heg has previously installed no trespassing signs to no avail. They've been they've been taking that taken down for whatever that's worth. Um he doesn't want to punch the road through. Um he tried it without punching the road through. I advised him and staff advised him um that his best chance for having success with this la this uh application right now in 2025 was to do it as it was intended to do and that's why he's doing it. He doesn't want to do it because he doesn't want to pay for the road extension and the sewer extension and the water extension. Those are all ex those are all expensive items. I guess he's got to do the sewer and the water anyway. But the but the road and the cut and the fill all that extent doesn't want to do it but I think it's the right thing to do. Um I can I can respect that maybe the water pressure is high on Lily Street already, but this is a connection that's going to

benefit that whole area. So there's a lot of elevation here. You go down in 100 ft in elevation, that's 40 lb psi uh of water pressure. So, while it may not benefit that side of Lily Street, I would I would be willing to bet that there is some benefit in the lower portions of the pressure zone that that serves. Um, and I want to dispute the 200 ft difference. the benefit to this area or the uh decreased travel time, it depends where you're at. The greatest benefit, the greatest reduction in travel time is for the people at the end of Lily Drive. Um that's about a 6 mile reduction in distance for destinations uh on I90 West. as you move to this side of the culde-sac or it's not a culde-sac this side of Lily Drive um that that decreases and it and it decreases that that benefit decreases for this entire area up here. When I looked at it, we're talking 0.12 miles that these folks can save up here by cutting through this. But maybe they're dealing with an unsafe intersection. Um, it's not the way they go right now. Still, I It's hard to say. It's hard for me to stand here and say that there won't be additional traffic. I think there will. So, that's all I had on my list unless there's other questions from

I have a question on on your parcel. Is there an easement for Lily Drive? There's not. There's just the marking on the survey saying to about a potential Yeah, both plats. So I I I showed you the plat there for uh Ponderosa Terrace. This plat also left open that right ofway, right? But it did not explicitly state it like the other one. Okay. Just curious.

Um got a quick question. Um, besides having it go through, have you looked at perhaps having it so that it is accessible for emergency reasons for fire and EMTs that it has a ballard type system there at the end. And if that is something because I've known I've lived in neighborhoods that have that and it works. Yeah. But it also stops flow of traffic going through. So did you look at that and if that's something the city says you should or can't do or recommendation from streets or would that be an acceptable alternative?

We we discussed that a little bit. I think it came through on one of the uh one of the comment letters that we saw and um I don't think it makes a big difference to us. Um personally, if if I was sitting in Chris's chair or anybody who's making that decision, I wouldn't suggest the gate. But if the gate plates the neighbors, makes everybody a little happier, uh we still accomplish the majority of our uh benefits that I've listed here. Um I would I don't know why it won't come up. We'll just look at the smaller version. Um better fire protections still there except they got to open a gate. Circulation's the same. traffic circulation, no help there, but then you're making a decision that you don't want to change the traffic circulation. Sidewalk connections still there. Um, still no construction costs the city, still increased tax base. Uh, these are all the same. So, I I don't think we did we would object to that. Let me ask Hillary, is there a requirement or and I know you can't talk for fire, but I know that um it would be a matter of whether there that affects turnarounds or anything else or

something like that. Just to clarify, so as Eric had indicated, um when staff met with them for this proposal, we said we wanted to see the full connection because the roads were intended to connect and we thought all the benefits were there. We understand there would be some increased traffic, but we felt strongly that that was an important thing to have happen with this request. Um, to have the gated the ballard thing doesn't work very well on public streets is public streets. No clearings, all the other things. The fire turn around. You'd have to build them to turn around with the subdivision. It's just tricky. Yeah. I mean, for mapping, like if someone's trying to find directions, they don't know they they'll see a connection of a street with the same name that has a gate in the middle,

right? And I think that's in a non-gated community. I mean, that seems like an odd an odd thing. Gate or Ballards. Ballards are dangerous. If people are unaware, they're inebriated. They don't know what they're doing. They don't know what street they're on. It's it's bad news. I think the other thing in addition to it being platted as Eric showed the road is named the same. So the county had intended we have roads in the city that's continues through and has different names and this was doesn't even continue through and it's named the same. So there was an intention all along that it would connect once this property was developed. Okay. So for those reasons staff felt strongly. Just wanted to put it out there so everybody knows what options there are or not. Um

questions. Go ahead. I don't have a question for Eric. It's maybe a process question for us before we get spun around our own findings. Good. We have no more questions for the applicants. Maybe that'll wait. Okay. No more questions. All right. I am going to close public testimony and comment on this and bring it to the commission for further discussion and a motion. And we'll start at that end of the table.

Randy, I think I've got a question for you and it has to do with annexation. uh from a standpoint of what makes it viable in the state of Idaho and I think what I got from Sean was it's in the interests of the city and in the interests of the owners there's some form of percentages that are required for land and owners in this case I think it's 100% of each because there's just one owner which makes it really simple so then it comes down to the benefits of the city and whether or not the city thinks that this is viable uh for the city's long-term benefits. Do I got that right?

You do have that right. And the city council will make that decision as to whether annexation in any case is in the best interest of the city. The statute is pretty silent on on what uh the city should consider in in making that decision as to whether it's in the best interest, but that ultimately is what this council will do. and and uh they have wide discretion on that.

Thank you, Miss Hillary. I think you alluded to the fact that you've already looked at this from the planning city's planning department perspective to say there are things that make this beneficial to the city. So, if the applicant's interested, uh this seems like something that the we should present to the city commission as something that's beneficial. Is that that is correct. And that wasn't just planning. That was streets and engineering and fire and all the other departments that weighed in. All right. I am having a hard time with the ones and zeros of this not just being really clear. It seems like it's a benefit to the city.

I guess I think we're kind of I think we're mixing Well, I want to agree with Mark a little bit. I think when we're looking at our findings sheets and I went back and actually pulled the minutes from the last one we did cuz I was thinking maybe we have I I think it's a little confusing in that the if you look at our staff packet on page 13 we have the B1 through 4 but then in our findings and maybe it's just the way it's written we have recommendations of a conditions for an annexation agreement and then that's what gets into the details and the nitty-gritty on the the subdivision piece, but as far as the annexation piece and and maybe that because last time it was a PUD and this time it's really just a straight subdivision, the the conditions for an annexation agreement really are maybe more straightforward of the zoning is compatible with adjacent properties on both sides. Even though the county has it as agricultural, the lot size is very similar. the land use is very similar. And then the other requirements being um of course a comprehensive plan one which we can all pick our own I guess um ways that that might fit in. But then we have are the are the facilities and utilities available? They are or they are not. And all of the departments have weighed in and we've chatted about that. And then the characteristics of this site do or do not make it suitable. Um we've talked about the hillside ordinance. they're able to meet all of those requirements. The sloping of a potential road, even though that's not part of the annexation is reasonable. So, and then it the characteristics of the neighborhood in regard for traffic andor land uses. So, I think we've kind of chatted about all these different things, but then I think we get a little sidetracked when we start talking about the actual subdivision. But as far as

the annexation, I'm feeling like that's pretty straightforward of a recommended zoning of R3. Um, if it were to come into the city, the departments have said all those are available and R3 is a compatible zoning. Um, now I think we get into the other piece and that gets a little stickier, but I maybe because we have loaded that into the annexation agreement is maybe why we're getting stuck on that or something. But that that's kind of where I'm feeling. We're getting a little twisted on that piece. And so I don't know if we need to separate them. Sometimes I think they go well together and sometimes I think they're hard when we chat about them together because they are two separate decisions. Well, we do have to make two findings.

We do have to make two findings. That's why I feel like when we're talking about them, we're kind of getting in the middle of both. But as far as the actual annexation, which is the first one, cuz we can't talk about the second one until we talk about the annexation. I feel like that one is a little more straightforward to maybe kind of tie that one up and then chat about the second one if anybody else feels that way. Um, and just to also the annexation is a recommendation, right,

to city council. So, they're the ones that going to make the final decision whether or not it gets annexed into the city. And if for some reason we approve the subdivision or the um the next one, the S125, if for some reason like similar before, if the annexation gets shot down by city council, the subdivision goes away automatically, right? And technically they could be two separate meetings, you know, they are two separate findings. So we have to make separate findings. So, I suggest we talk about the annexation right now. And Randy, you can have the floor.

Uh, yes. Uh, the commission's duty is to decide on what zoning will be if it if if it is to be annexed, but there will be an annexation agreement. And these conditions are something also that the commission would recommend to city council that in the annexation agreement these conditions that are uh listed on pa uh pages three and four of the findings are from the departments and uh the departments are requesting that the commission recommend to council if it annexes to include these conditions in the annexation agreement. Could those alternatively, I mean to keep the annexation simpler, couldn't those alternatively be accomplished through a development agreement with a subdivision?

This is probably not the best best project for a development agreement, which are much more limited. We have an annexation agreement in every annexation, but we don't,

right? I I guess we're just like specifying things that are in the subdivision in the annexation. And really the annexation the purpose of the annexation is to recommend it for for from our perspective is to recommend a zoning and and with a zoning recommendation it like we think that R3 would be compatible. It doesn't really matter if Lily is connected or not to say that the lot size is compatible with R3. It might make a difference on how this is divided, but not necessarily the zoning it comes into the city with because it could just get annexed into the city and divided at a later date.

That's true. Uh, but I think the city departments are saying that if you're going to annex this property, Lily should go through. And if you don't want Lily to go through, maybe you don't want to annex the property. So that's it's it's certainly up to the commission to decide which of these conditions, if any, to recommend to council. But I think this is the appropriate stage to make those recommendations or not. And also if for some reason whoever makes the findings wanted to add a condition stating Lily doesn't go through they can add that to the annexation agreement if and then when we go to the um findings for the the plat portion of it. Maybe that would help get that through or not. So can we add a condition if whoever wants to make findings if for some reason they don't want to see Lily go through make that part of a condition recommendation

you can you can make that a condition to annexation or recommend yes that it be a condition to annexation for the city council who will hear this same presentation at city council can make the decision whether they want that condition not want that condition or whatever they would like to do at that Correct. Okay.

Right. So, the condition the seven conditions listed have I mean they have some of the requirements of the subdivision but they don't have all of the requirements. And that's where I feel like it's feels a little disconnected like you know the when you get into the subdivision there's the details of the sidewalks and the street trees and all of that. And then we have some of these requirements in here but not all. I I don't know. I guess this one feels because it's I don't know maybe the order or something is feeling off on this one to me at least.

I just suspect I suspect that the conditions for the annexation for the zoning uh would have would apply regardless of what the development would be on that property whether it's a this subdivision something else. These are conditions that should just go with the property if we recommend them.

Yeah. because I think the annexation is taking a piece of property and bringing it into the city. That's one separate issue. On the other side, when which we have in front of us, depending on how that goes, the tree removal and the the hillside ordinance stuff and all the construction stuff that goes into the the um the findings that we have to deal with and that's what will happen on that end. So, we're just looking at taking a piece of property that's in the county, bringing it into the city with the zoning that it's being recommended. Okay.

And then the rest of the findings and why we have more conditions in the the PUD, let's say, is because there's more stuff that's going to go on with that. Phil, you had a question. Uh, and maybe just a comment. I think we're kind of mixing stuff together and it doesn't need to be. If we don't approve one, you can forget the other, right?

You know, if we're not willing to annex it and what is what is required for annexation has to be certain location, has to be um allow the applicant to then have his city utilities and and really it's just a matter of geographically it fits in and meets with our master plan. Now, except for the fact this was denied before, which kind of concerns me. To me, this fully complies with annexation requirements. As far as the zoning, that's a separate issue. But I think we need to deal the annexation first and decide either we're going to recommend it or we're not. Thank you.

I agree with Phil. Um, the adjacency to the west is very evidently R3, to the south is evidently R3. doesn't quack like a duck. But the a suburban has been distorted on lily. There are not two and three and four acre lots. We have what constitutionally are threes. It's just that it's the county. They have they got to run to catch up with us. So I I would agree that we meet all the annexation and I think that it would be a safer solution if the city controls it. We have a tree lot here, a forest right there that can easily be thinned and be safer. I I live up against a forest. I'm worried every time we have lightning. And this is real. We can't deny it. We have a drought. We have we have very little water available to put out fires. Now, I think that we have to look at this as being as much a safety issue and accessibility issue and continuity. And we are we are building out here. So what is to the east looks just like what this guy's trying to propose. So I I just don't know why we would deny it. I think it meets all the boxes for for annexation.

Further comment.

My final comment is I think the reason that we would deny it is just because it would change the lifestyle of people that lived east of this property for many years. And I don't know that that's a reason to deny it. I I think that this is a a smart plan. There's not a lot of change. The connectivity to that road allows for four more homes to be developed that are going to look an awful lot like the seven homes that are to the east. Um I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that there's going to be a major traffic um issue, although there will be some. I mean, any new traffic is more than zero today and for the last however many years. So that will be a change, but I don't see it as a big change big enough to deny the owner the ability to develop his property, which is I think is a is a right that he has.

Thank you, John.

So I might be the uh minority opinion here, but uh I'd just like to explain a little bit why why a struggle. Okay. And I I support staff. I like and the uh the applicant points out some benefits for sure. uh they're there. But here's why I struggle. And Sean, in your staff report, you you lay out very very detail on why the city council uh denied 2.0. That was the the culde-sac version that we supported. And I'm I'm I wish that one. And I think I think that was the compromised one. I think that's the one that maybe everybody could have or should have lived with in my opinion. Okay. Um but here here's why you in your staff report the council said they're going to disapprove. They did disapprove this. They said protection of the neighborhood and they're talking about their neighborhood. The folks folks that came up here and spoke they talked about steep photo steep topography and that hasn't changed. Things have gotten not less steep from when the council denied this. The council mentioned concerns about storm water. Those issues haven't changed. They uh talked about traffic issues. And I hadn't even talked or thought about, you know, what came up tonight. This shortcut cut through kind of people get creative. And it's not just four homes. It's people now that are going to and the applicant even admitted there'll be more traffic. Uh and bottom line, the council said they're concerned about the effect on the neighborhood and we'll see where they go with this next one. But here's the bottom line for me is

proposal 3.0. This one in my opinion is more disruptive to the neighborhood than the culdesac 2.0 and if with that in mind you know I I just can't support it. Hillary, I have a question and I wasn't here for any previous versions. Um, but I so when I'm reading these wastewater and water connection, you know, recommendations, the other side of Lily Drive is serviced by Cordelane Water already. Is that Yes. Yes. and sewer? No.

No. Okay. So, how um because we do talk sometimes about these like donut holes and things in the city where we're surrounded by county like do you have any history on the way that that was planned out when those were built out? I mean that that I do struggle I I understand, you know, both sides of it, but I I do struggle with like when water was put in Lily, like it it seems like for the city to go put water on county and not annex it and then the intention was to have Lily all the way through, but do you guys have any, you know, historical knowledge into when that was added or why? I don't know if um Chris or Sean would have that. Randy and I were just visiting. Um there were definitely some agreements in this area for water and I know further to the east there's some failing septic systems. So there's definitely a challenge I think with some of the smaller lots and with what's going on in the area. But we do have several areas outside of city limits where we have extended water and then in some of those areas they have through that they've agreed to consent to annexation in the future if that is what's going to happen. But I guess to reassure the neighbors here the city is not going out and annexing in properties. But no, but I was just curious like at the point that the decision was made to pull water through, you know, and have a potential future connection uh, you know, platted on there. I guess it's hard to say there wasn't a lot. It seemed there seems like there was foresight to have that connection made and there was probably a reason behind it. I mean, I I feel like it's hard to ignore that piece, too. Mhm.

Well, um I hear what John says and you made a valid point actually. Um protecting the neighborhood basically protecting the neighborhood from traffic more than anything else. Uh is there a benefit for fire and EMTs to that neighborhood? Definitely yes. If it's a through street snow plowing, perhaps maintenance of roads, maybe. But I hear what John's saying as far as protecting the neighborhood from potential traffic uh going into that going into that neighborhood. So, um we'll just have to see where it goes.

Mr. Chairman, yes. Yes. Just just to go back to what Commissioner McCracken said. Mhm. The question for the commission is what is the proper zoning if it is annexed. Right. Uh council decides whether to annex it or not. Your recommendation is if it is what should the zoning be? Not whether the road goes through not whether any of these things occur in the development. Well I that may be part of the subdivision. You can look started Randy but the you had said that we need to address these seven. Well, those are all all things that recommendations for the annexation agreement.

Those are those are recommended by the departments and they would be recommendations for the property being annexed regardless of what the use is going to be. You need water, you need sewer. Those are the things that if we're going to bring it into the city, those are conditions that we want to make sure the property meets regardless of whether it's developed with single family residents or something else. So, I think those are properly part of an annexation agreement uh because they're general uh conditions, general requirements for the property if we're going to bring it under city jurisdiction. Go ahead, John.

So, I I would float a trial um motion not to crawl through the work worksheet, but I would say let's support annexation, a recommendation of the council that we annex this at R3 with seven conditions plus an eight that says Lily Drive will not be connected. That's my motion. Well, we're making we're talking about A1-25 R support of annexation, right, at R3. Gotcha.

With the seven condition, se seven recommendations plus an eighth that says that uh you know, Lily will will not be connected through and through. Okay. So that that is Commissioner Engel's motion and finding. Mr. Chairman first and we can have Go ahead. Before you vote on this, um staff just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that basically doesn't work with anything because you'd have to have a PUD in a private street because you don't have the frontage requirements and everything else changes. So if you don't have the connection, he's throwing it in

everything else that was presented related to the subdivision. So you're again your condition is not specific to annexation if you're talking about road connections because it's I guess I don't know we just need to you're dialing back to 2.0 the one that they rejected from us. Well I think the simpler way to handle it is simply to deal with zoning first. Y we're not even the commission doesn't even recommend annexation. It recommends zoning if the property is annexed. Yeah. And I think commission could decide if R3 is correct, approve that. Then we go on to the subdivision and you can talk about these uh road connections and so forth

because we can theoretically approve the annexation and approve the No, we can make the recommendation I'm sorry to council recommendation of zoning. Yes. as it sits and then we go and have another findings and another discussion for the uh plat and whether that gets approved or not doesn't make any difference what we made a recommendation on the annexation. Okay. So going back to John if you you may

have I have one more question. So when it when we get to the subdivision though, we could add an nth condition there that Lily isn't to be connected. No, because the subdivision is a public road that connects through. So you doing that basically turns the whole subdivision upside down. You would be denying the subdivision. Yeah, I get it. Thanks, John. Your motion withdrawn. Withdrawn. Okay. So now looking for a motion. Uh, I would say the motion would be that we approve A1-25

as presented by staff as public testimony was heard from um the applicant as well as the general public recommending uh with the conditions 1 through 7 as presented in our findings and that would be a motion of recommendation to city council. Second. Okay, I've got a motion or first by Msina. I got a second by um

Thank you. Uh and we can have roll call, please. flooding. Yes. Um, should we read the whole thing? We need to go through the findings. I'll do that. I'll do that. Supreme Court has required us to You're used to my stick, including the conclusions, each of the four conclusions. Go right ahead. Thank you.

Reading off New Yorker. Um, this matter came before the planning and zoning commission on September 9th, 2025 to consider A1-25, a request for zoning prior to annexation of 3.19 acres from County A Suburban to City Residential R3. The applicant is Olsen Engineering. The owner is Eugene P. Hog Junior Trust. The location is 2248 East Stanley Hill Road, Cordelane, Idaho 83814. Findings of fact we have u met uh a.1 which was publication uh notification to all uh adjacencies and um having a public hearing tonight. A public testimony was received at this hearing today and uh the subject site is located on an unincorporated area of Kney County with the total area of the subject property measuring 3.19 acres and is currently zoned a suburban. The subject property is currently developed as a large lot single family home. If approved, the project would include the existing home on a lot, four hillside residential lots, and a future public street connection and dedication of Lily Drive between the existing termini. A5. The comp plan future land use map designation is the single family neighborhood place type. Single family neighborhood places are the lower density housing areas across Celane where most of the city's residents live primarily in single family homes or on larger lots. Supporting uses typically include neighborhood parks and recreation facilities connected by trails. Compatible zoning is listed as R1, R3, R5, R8, and multifamily housing 8. We are currently looking at the R3 designation. Following comp plan goals and objectives are applicable to this request for

annexation in conjunction with R3 zoning community identity. We certainly open this to the public and have heard all all the viewpoints. Um environment and rec recreation. We are looking at um what is currently forested on the southerntherly side and a hill slope with grasses and um a residence on the top of the site. Uh we want to preserve and expand uh our street trees and they will in fact adhere to our uh guidelines as we go forward. Um we will be looking at growth and development addressing more housing in uh this already predominantly R3 and yes a suburban that's living as R3 in the adjacencies. For health and safety, we want to enhance um regional cooperation to provide fast, reliable emergency services. And the property is sloped and single family homes are the dominant land use nearby. The natural features of the site are consistent with the natural features of surrounding properties. Most certainly that entire hillside is sloped. Um A9 city utilities and facilities are available to serve the project site. If annexed, all departments have indicated the ability to serve. In conclusions of law, based on the foregoing findings of fact, the planning commission makes the following conclusions of law. B1, the proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive plan policies. B2, that public facilities and utilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. B3, that the physical character characteristics of the site do make it suitable for the request at this time. and B4, the proposal would not aver adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood with regard to traffic, neighborhood character and/or existing land uses. Uh decision the planning and zoning commission pursuant going findings of fact and conclusions of law

has determined that the requested zoning does comply with the required evaluation criteria and recommends that the city council adopt the R3 zoning with the following conditions. And first of all, the planning suggests a final plat recordation. The applicant must remove the nonfunctional system, which it has done already, and remediate that disturbance, which they've achieved already, and that will move out of the water issues that we're identifying. They'll have to identify any um invas invasive water um from other sites adjacent. Fire that water line connecting both sides of East Soly must be connected to ensure needed fire flows of hydrants. 176B and 177 C. Almost there. The slope of the proposed Lily Drive connection must not exceed 8% grade with the road width to match existing road width minimums. It must be built to accommodate 75,000 lb fire apparatus. Uh water any additional main extensions and or fire hydrants and services will be the responsibility of the developer at their expense. Any additional service will have cap fees due at building permitting. And five, the main extension will be required to serve the subdivision and be tied into the existing main on East Liy Drive. Both ends of the water man on Lily Drive must be tied together. Finally, wastewater. This project will require the extension of sewer to and through for this annexation as proposed unless private sewer is approved to serve one parcel. Policy 716 states one parcel, one lateral. And I I did ask the question that the existing residents will be hooked into set sewer um way up the hill. Seven existing home on this parcel must connect to the city sewer and pay appropriate sewer cap fees. In conclusion, um I move that we recommend the adoption

for approval to be annexed into the city as an R3 zone. Second. Okay. Okay. I have a first by Fleming. I have a second by McCracken. Roll call. Any further discussion? None. Being heard. Roll call, please. Engles. Nay. Jamas. I. Ward. Yes. Fleming. I. McCracken. I. Copus. I. Msina.

Yes. Okay. A1-25 is approved. Now we go to S1-25. I'm opening that. Um the people who are still here, if someone wanted to speak on this, they can, but I imagine it would be the same as we heard before or no public. No, we did the public hearing for both items. We're closed. the public hearing and all the testimony.

Okay. I'm sorry. It was on both sheets. Sorry. Okay. So, that being mistakenly said, we go to the commission for a recommendation. Go ahead. Yeah. Just got a question for Hillary. Can you summarize in the past I've heard PUD, I've heard water erosion requirements, I've heard, well, there was a different comp plan at the time. So, can you just give us a general summary of why the city last time said this isn't uh in the benefits of the city?

I don't recall specifics. Sean put in the staff report kind of just what council made for their findings, but they didn't get into a lot of details. I don't remember from the actual testimony and discussion what I don't know if Sean or Chris or if Randy even would remember the hearing details from that why there was those concerns. John, I'm looking at you. Do you any ideas? Yes. I don't really have a lot of information. It was prepared by a gentleman who's now retired from from the department. And so I Okay. I wasn't there to to live it. Otherwise, I would I'd share my pound of flesh with you.

I know you guys have some history on what your thoughts were. I just was curious what the city staff was as well. So that's all I had. Thank you. Okay. Sure. Thanks, Mark.

I I I just want to say it's a difficult site. There's no question. It's a challenging site. The gentleman owns his land. I think he has the right to develop his land. He's not developing a great deal of it. He's trying to develop on the most buildable location he can get out of that lot. Otherwise, he's on a big ass hill. And we don't want to dump more people up on Stanley Hill. that would be his other route is to try to terrace it down and build all kinds of roads and access into a very, you know, direct slope, you know, jig jogging down. And I don't want to put people on Stanley Hill. It's a very dangerous hill in the winter. Very ciruitous. It's icy. It's got some blind corners on it. It's not a pleasant road to come down. Um, yes, there'll be some traffic, but I don't think it's so adverse that people will, you know, yes, maybe we have to put those darn 25 mph zones. Nobody seems to understand that anywhere in this city anymore. Um, so, uh, we I I just I think the man has been very, uh, trying to do his best under tough conditions on a tough site and, um, a modest development at the toe of the hill. And, um, he hasn't in he's allowed all these people to use his land as a park for years. Now he's giving them a certified route through, walk your dog, ride your bike, whatever you need to do to get to the golf course. I see the benefits far more than I see the detriment here. And so I I I just cannot I can't cater to the, you know, the seven houses and blow off everybody else. It's just to me it's, you know, do what we have to do to do it right and take this road back where it needs to be and connect it, make it clean and then give them the adjacency for eventually tie into sewer so that people can get off their septic tanks up there on the

hill and and keep the water flowing and maybe have it even flow. So I I don't see the negatives, I see the positives to this one. So, I probably hold a lot of baggage here because I have been through all of these, you know, so I got maybe a little more history and I I've just uh not all of the the seven houses or eight or nine or what I think it's nine. uh you know, they've spoken multiple multiple times and um it it seemed like a really big deal for them to have that change of the cut through. I mean, that that was it from the get-go. And I I saw the neighbors with version 2.0.

They were going, "Hey, I can I can kind of live with that." That's the sense I got. And unfortunately that one didn't get approved. So, uh it's but but my recollection from the the whole start of this thing was that uh you know the number one thing that the neighborhood is defining as the negative effect on the neighborhood is that cutthrough and this kills it for them. So, and again, I I point out the things that are in the the notes that council touched on the neighborhood, the topography, the storm water, the traffic, and the effect on the neighborhood character. It only gets worse with this version, not from 2.0. So, I I I'm I'm a no, but I I understand where you you all are coming from, too. I respect other thoughts here. Um, ready?

Just to answer Commissioner Compass's uh question, uh, the city council ruled on this on July 20th, 2021 one. Uh, it was a 33 vote on annexation with the mayor voting breaking the tie to deny annexation. The according to the minutes of the meeting, the three three council members who voted against annexation simply said that they didn't see how it benefited the city to annex the property. That was the extent of the minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Um

I have one question. Um, Randy, not knowing the real estate law well or maybe not much at all, would the would the the sellers of those seven lots over time had to have disclosed that that road was intended to be connected at some point in time when before they bought their properties.

I don't believe they would have to disclose that. It would be the plats would be available to the public, but it but there was nothing that burdened their lots because of that. Well, the sellers, if if they were aware, would have potentially disclosed that, but on a title commitment, if they went through a title company for their sale, exactly what Eric had on the screen would have been signed off by the buyer of the property on their title commitment, whether they noticed the little asterisks or read into the plat, but it was on the survey when those lots were originally divided. So, it has been on noted on those lots every time they've been sold since they were divided.

So, thank you, Phil. Yeah.

Now, this is really just a plat, but we're saying it should be zoned R3. Function of a plat is to acquire the satisfy the government requirements for access roadways, sidewalks, and and all that sort of thing. And this does that. Now the detriment is some people feel that the cut through creates traffic for them which it does. No way of questioning that. But at some point you have to decide is there a greater benefit knowing that emergency access you know police fire whatever have an access way through versus we're going to set up a gate or a culdeac. I don't know. As a planner, I have to say through streets are more important and you know, I guess is a traffic problem. Call the police. They'll go out through an issue a ticket to slow them down. But I think to create a bottleneck is is really not the solution. I agree with with uh Lynn.

Okay. More discussion. Anything Mark? Anything? That's off to the city, just the planning staff, an effort to try and make sure this isn't conforming with all the requirements needed to cross the tees and dot the eyes for environmental concerns, all the engineering stuff. It makes it much easier knowing that all of those things have been addressed for us for us to look at it from a holistic standpoint. So, thank you for that. Okay, looking for a motion. Lyn, what do we do? You want me to do it? Sure. Go right ahead. All right. It's the women who run the show.

This matter coming before the planning commission on September 9th, 2025. There's a little typo there. 20254. Um to consider S1-25, a request for approval of a five lot preliminary plaque called Heg Estates. The applicant Olsson Engineering owner Eugene P. Heg Jr. Trust. The location 2248 East Stanley Hill Road, Celane, Idaho 83814. Findings of fact. The planning commission finds the following facts A1 through A9 to have been established on a more probable than not basis as shown on record before it and the testimony presented at public at the public hearing. Um these A1 is all the noticing requirements um that have happened prior to this meeting. Um, and the lot size and those sorts of things which we've already been through. Um, and let's see. Uh, most of these we've already went over, so I'm not going to repeat them all. Um, conclusions of law. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the planning commission makes the following conclusions of law. That all of the general preliminary plat requirements have been met as attested to by the city engineer. that the provisions for sidewalks, streets, alleys, rightaways, easements, street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities are adequate. That the proposed plat does comply with all of the subdivision design standards contained in chapter 16.15 and all of the subdivision improvement standards contained in chapter 16.40. before that the lots proposed in the preliminary plat do meet the requirements in the applicable zoning district of R3 if annexed. The planning commission pursuant to the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law have determined that the preliminary plat does comply with the required evaluation criteria

criteria with conditions 1 through 7 which were do you want me to repeat those again that were stated in the previous okay with conditions 1 through 7 and the request shall be approved with conditions with the recommendation I motion or yeah seven seven conditions Correct. Right. The same seven conditions that were in the annexation. Okay. I have a motion by second. McClacken. I have a second by Copus. Roll call, please. Word. Yes. Fleming. Yes. McCracken. Yes.

Copus. Hi. Jamas. Yes. Engles. Uh, I have to say I because it actually meets all the criteria, although I'm against it for the record. Thank you, Miss Cena. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations. Best of luck. Motion to adjurnn. I have a motion to adjurnn. Second. I have a second. All in favor? I I. All oppose. Saludo. 73. Good evening.

It's going to be a run. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]