Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Don't kill me. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to the February 10th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We have roll call, please. Msina

here. Ward here. Jamas here. McCracken here. Fleming here. Engles copus. Can you join me for the pledge, please? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty andice for all. Thank you. And I need approval of the January 13th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, please. I so move. I have a motion by Fleming.

I'll second. I have a second by Jam Jamatus. All in favor? I I Okay. Uh public comment. If anybody wants to speak on any items other than what's on our agenda tonight, come on up. Okay, staff comment. Hillary. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Good evening.

Just a few updates for you. So, we didn't receive any public hearing items, so we will not have a meeting in March. We are working on doing that joint educational workshop. So, we'll get you more details as that progresses. And then also wanted to mention and this is of interest particularly to any of the developers or the applicants that have been submitting for these public hearing items and other things. There is a scam happening statewide. It's been happening in other jurisdictions where scammers will scrub the websites and look for applicants information and send them fake invoices for public hearing items and other things. So, we have posted a scam alert and we've also on our newest uh packet, we've redacted that information just to try and hopefully help allay that. So, that's happening. Um, another thing the city has been watching closely is this legislative session. There is a short-term rental bill that is moving rapidly through the house. We expect there will be a hearing this Thursday. That one is House Bill 583 and it would strip all local control and remove even the best practices, the registration and the good neighbor policy which is very unfortunate. So the city has taken a position that we oppose that. Commissioner Fleming wrote in response, we've had some community members also and if any of you are interested, I can get you more details. There is a competing bill that actually is uh supportive of local control and would allow for the registration process and having a responsible party named and whatnot. So that has not been introduced yet, but that's Senate Bill 1263 and we hope that will be introduced in the Senate soon. There will be more to come, I'm sure. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, commissioner comments. No, we're all good. All right, we're going to jump into our public hearing. The first um item is applicant is Michael and Norman Razer. Uh locations 3620 North Futinland Lane, a proposed zone change from um MH8 to R17. Sean's going to give us his presentation.

All right. Thank you, chairman, county commissioners. Good evening. So, we got a little bit of a new setup here. So, if I struggle a bit as I'm moving through my slides, it's because I'm seeing something a little bit different than what's up there. So, bear with me as I I move through this. Okay. So, um owner applicant, uh Michael and Norma Racer. Uh they they are the the owner and the applicant. Um however, at the last minute, I have found out that they are unable to attend tonight, but Fred Harris will stand in as in their place. he dropped off the application and is familiar with the property. So, wanted to point that out. Um, the let's see get this. All right. So, there is a zone change request ZC 126. The subject property is shown here. Uh the request is from MH8 which is mobile home at 8 units per gross acre to R17 which is residential at 17 units per gross acre. And that is for a property that is just a little bit larger than half an acre. And so here is zoomed in. You can see Futland Lane, Laugh Lane Lane to the north. It is an interior lot without an alley. And as you travel up Fruitland Lane, Futland Lane dead ends into the um FredMyer complex with the the retail up to the north. So some background information, the subject property is located on the east side of Futland Lane, west of US 95 south of Laugh Lane Lane prior to West Basenko where Fred Meyer complex exists. Currently the property is vacant. has a pullbehind trailer camper that appears to be sitting on the parcel which is unoccupied. Prior to this, there was a single family

home with accessory structures on the lot. Um, which is why there's an associated address with the property. It was demoed in 2023. So, the subject property is adjacent to a multitude of housing types in the area. There are single family mobile manufactured real property homes to the north and the east and the west. R12 pocket housing R17 multifamily west on the opposite side of Futland Lane. Uh the number of the local streets and accessways in the area are private. Uh they include Clay Lane, Link Lane, Mariah Loop, Lake City Lane, as well as PJ Lane, North Addy Lane, and West Max Loop. uh and their offshoots Gunner Court and Baron Court. So there are a number of private streets in the area and to the northwest there is a mini storage facility. So I wanted to also point out that the applicant's proposed project idea is to provide nine workforce housing units on the site as a multifamily project. However, it's not tied directly to this zone change request. If the subject site is if the subject site is appro approved to be changed to R17, then any of the permitted uses in R17 would be allowed at on this site. And that's later in my staff report. I'll go over what those uses by right are. So, in addition as well to the background information, our prior zone change requests in the area. And as you can see here, uh, pretty much every one of them has been approved. There was one at 3,400 Fruitland Lane back in 1999 that expired. However, it did come back in 2004 and was approved. Uh, some of

these do overlap. And then this column right here represents what those requests were for. So any zone change that comes forward has four findings that must be made. This is a list of those. I wanted to point out the planning commission shall base its findings on the statement of facts which can be found on pages four and five of your staff report and must take in consideration the full staff report, applicant presentation, public testimony, and all other evidence received at the hearing. So these materials will establish the procedural compliance, site condition, zoning and neighborhood context, comprehensive plan alignment, utility facility availability and potential impacts. So first up is finding D1 that this proposal is or is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan policies. This is a citywide that's interesting. So my pointer does not point, but it does up here. So anyways, you can see where the subject property um off to the left where it says subject property points to in the city context as well as the compact neighborhood um place type that the comp plan refers to. So place types represent the form of future development as envisioned by the residents of Celane. These place types provide the policy level guidance that will inform the city's development ordinances. Each place type corresponds to multiple zoning districts that will provide a high level of detail and regulatory guidance on items such as height, lot size, setbacks, adjacencies, and allowed uses. So, this is the compact neighborhood and as you can see, the com the compatible zoning uh that this place type does allow is R17, which is what the request is tonight. So, here is a

zoomed in version of that. So you can see down at the neighborhood level what the makeup of those place types are. Uh currently this is the compact neighborhood have an urban neighborhood in the darker yellow color. Some of these may or may not exist now. That's just what the plan foresees as the future because currently this area right here is a um oh what is it? A mini store. So the darker purple color is a retail center corridor. And then the orange is a mixeduse low and then the blue is a civic use. That is actually the city's water department. So moving on to the next element of the comprehensive plan is transportation. So there's three maps that are shown here. The first one is existing and planned bicycle network. Uh you know this is in an older area of Celane. some of those things were um coming about and non-existent. Um some exist now. Uh it's kind of a patchwork out there to be honest um for the bicycle network. Oh, sorry. We're moving on. The the next one here with kind of the lighter bluish turquoise color are the walking paths or sidewalks. And once again, there are areas that do have them and there are areas that do not. And then last but not least is the city link roots. And you can see that it falls under that is route C and it's approximately in the bottom third and between the two north south roots. Last but not least is the policy framework. And so these are the curated policies that staff has chosen. Attached

to your staff report, you will find all of them. Feel free to pick and choose as you see fit, but these were the ones that staff thought applied to the property. And so I always like to point out that I'd like to thank the people that took time out tonight to show up and be well informed, responsive, and involved in community discussions. So community and identity goal three is Celane will strive to be livable for median and below income levels including young families, workingclass, low-income and fixed income households. The objective there 3.1 is to support efforts that preserve existing housing stock and provide opportunities for new affordable and workforce housing. Under growth and development, there are two goals there. uh develop a mix of land uses throughout the city that balance housing and employment while preserving qualities that make Celane a great place to live. And GD1.1 achieve a balance of housing product types and price points including affordable housing to meet city needs. Goal GD2 ensure appropriate high-quality infrastructure to accommodate community needs and future growth. We'll discuss those um under staff comments in a moment. and GD2.1 which is the objective is to ensure appropriate highquality infrastructure to accommodate growth and redevelopment. Last but not least is health and safety to continue to provide exceptional police, fire and emergency services with the objective of enhancing regional cooperation to provide fast reliable emergency services. So this finding B2 moving on to the second one that the public facilities and utilities are or are not available and adequate for the proposed use. So these are the comments from our departments. Chris Bosley is up first for both storm water and streets. uh subject. Suffice it to say that the storm water must be handled on the site that is

reviewed at the time of permit and that the street improvements will also be reviewed at the time of permit to decide uh where curb gutter sidewalk and storm water swelles would be handled. Uh for for water, Glenn, he provided information on that. There's a 12-in water mane on Futland, which is a large water line. That's a big water line actually with a 3/4 inch service to the to the service to the subject property sewer. So, Larry Parsons who's retired now. I'd like to thank Larry for all his hard years of work for the for the city. But uh as far as sewer goes is that the site is uh that the wastewater department has both the willingness and the capacity to serve this property. And fire department says that they do not have comments. They just wanted to point out that when you have side setbacks of 10 foot between buildings with a height of 45 ft that there's an increase of risk of fire exposure between the buildings. All right, catch up here. So finding B3, this is the third of the four findings is that the physical characteristics of the site do or do not make it suitable for the request of this at this time. So the subject property, like I said, is on the west side of US 95. Uh if you look back at the background information that I that I wrote, it's very similar to that. The site's flat and vacant. Um, there's no topographical constraints to the property. Um, there's some photos that I'll go through right now so you can take a look because photos always paint a much better picture than than I can with words. So, this is across the street from Clay Lane. This is looking east towards the subject property, which you can see the edges of, as well as

that uh pullbehind trailer that's in the middle there. And this is the subject property looking north from the corner, excuse me, of Futland Lane towards Laugh Lane Lane to the north. And the subject property is pretty much starts near the edge of where that post is, where the fence is, and runs to the north near where those mobile homes are. And then this picture is from the rear of the property looking towards Clay Lane across Fruitland. And this is interior. And then looking back towards the rear fence that separates the property to the east. All right. And now last but not least is finding B4 is that the proposal would or would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood with regards to traffic, neighborhood character, and or existing land uses. So catch up here for a second. So Chris Booseley again, our city engineer, he weighed in on the traffic aspect of this request. Uh he has stated that zone changes in and of themselves do not create traffic, but it is the buildings and the people that live in them that do. So his uh land use code 221 which he reviewed estimates that if nine units are built of family low-rise apartments that it would generate 59 trips per day. And I wanted to point this out because this is something that that I had learned um that that is not 59 trips from the subject property. That's 59 trips total for those units. Just so everybody is aware moving forward. This is an an important factor to take into account. So let's say one of the people that live in these units, they decide to go to Fred Meyer. That's one trip. They need gas. That's a second

trip. So it's not 59 trips to and from this property. That is 59 trips total that these people would make throughout a a typical day on average. And then during the AM peak hour would be five and the six and uh six occurring during the the peak PM hour and he says that Futland Lane has the available capacity to accommodate additional traffic. So moving on to neighborhood neighborhood character. So the area along North Futland Lane displays a transitioning suburban residential character common to the vicinity positioned west of US 95. This portion of Futland Lane is a transitional zone between more compact urban amenities featuring a varied a varied mix of housing types that reflect incremental development over many decades. So overall, the neighborhood character is defined by its compatibility with a range of uses, both owned and leased, modest lot sizes, formal and informal street layouts, and a blend of housing forms that combine affordability and practicality over uniform architectural style. The area supports a sense of an established working-class neighborhood in proximity to commercial amenities. And as part of that is also the general land use pattern. Um this is our land use map. And I wish my pointer would work help a lot. We'll figure that out for next time. Okay. So uh the subject property is currently vacant. That's what that color represents. A mobile home park surrounding that. Commercial in the red, single family in the yellow, multifamily in the kind of brownish orange color. civic um in the in the blue

and that used to be agriculture but now that's the city's or that's that is more um homes across there and so commercial to the north as well and then the zoning map as you can see much of the area is zoned MH8 which is mobile home at 8 units per gross acre across the street where these zone changes had happened that I talked about earlier is R12 and R17 And then uh flanked on either side of US 95 when you come across cross street you'll find C17 which is our commercial zoning that it represents also an R17 residential standard as well as a mixeduse zone. All right. Looking for the fourth. Did I read that? Where's Yes. making sure I'm being thorough. New new layout with our slides. Okay. So, this is a description of MH8 and what the code says. Eight units per gross acre. These are the principal uh uses that are allowed in MH8 by right. and I will not read those all into the record. And then as well as R17 which is a medium highdensity residential district that allows a little bit more uses. Similarly though it does allow uh residential uses as well. The slide that I wanted to focus on a little bit um and this is in regards to a feedback that I received from Commissioner Engles is you know currently it's zoned MH8 and what does that mean as far as density goes and what are they requesting? So in an MH8 zone if you were to just provide either a single family home or a mobile home and you wanted to get the most density out of it the current way that it exists you could subdivide that. uh each one of those lots would have to have a min

minimum of 50 foot frontage and 5,500 square f feet. So in this case it would be a maximum of two lots even though it is a very large deep piece of property because of the limitation of frontage it would limit the number of lots that could be created. MH8 allows a maximum height of 19 ft unless the house is stick built which is real property and then it allows for 32 ft height. There is another option by special use permit which allows a minimum lot size of 3150. However, that is almost always done in a form where it's single ownership and you would lease the quote unquote lots although it's one large parcel and that would be about that would be approximately 11 units per acre which would allow a total of seven mobile home sites with a maximum height of 19 ft. So the request tonight for R17 which are multifamily multif family is three units attached or more is 2500 square ft per unit or 17 units per gross acre which would allow a maximum of nine units and the maximum height for R17 is 45 ft. So with that I'll wrap up my report. There are no conditions that were proposed for this request of MH8 to R17. So the decision point for planning commission is that they will need to consider this request. I'd make findings to recommend that the city council does or does not adopt the R17 zoning. And that concludes my staff report and presentation. I'll stand for questions.

Questions? Go ahead, Phil. Yeah. Thank you, Sean. Can I on one of the exhibits there and it's page 18 on what we have it shows all colorcoded and it shows is um C17 I think it was court ordered at I believe it's the north west corner northeast corner of the property but where the actual subject property is and everything around it within that quadrant it's all colored turquoise does that mean it's all MH8 Okay. So, let me pull this back up. It looks like for land use that would be civic, the turquoise color. Are you talking about on the land use pattern or on the zoning map?

The zoning map. The zoning map. Okay. Zoning map. Everything north of the red, which is also part of that kind of a it's a super block if you will because there not a lot of cross streets that go out to US 95 due to limitations of access is MHA. Okay. And that's the way it was across the street as well prior to the zone changes.

This property is really small. I know that's a problem with it. But I'm really reluctant to give up any MHA. It's one of the few affordable zone zoning districts we have in Coupney County or any place for that matter because so many of the mobile homes are being purch purchased as uh by financial interests and so on making them less than affordable houses. If uh looking at what we have here, I know they're asking for R17, but directly to the west is R12 and below that is R17. I almost kind of feel like and I know the the area. familiar with it, but I almost feel like we're creating a spot zone on this side by putting R17 there rather than an R12 or, you know, even possibly an R8, but I have no problem with R12. I'm just little concerned about R17. Okay.

And does R12, and I was going to ask the same question, does R12 then allow them 12, six units? No. R12 as a single lot would only allow a maximum of two units. Two because of the frontages again. Um well it would it would allow a maximum of two lots and two units on each lot. So we used to have what was you know pocket housing which would allow some landlocked lots with tracks to get to them and which could increase some of that density. That was repealed a number of years ago. So now our code reads that you can only have a maximum of two units on any R12 lot. So, if this was three acres, you could only have two, a duplex or two single families or a single family and an ADU.

And that R12 across the street, I drove by it because I go to Fred Meyers and uh the car wash. Um that's two buildings, four units. So, it's because of the length of that that lot that they could pack that in. Yeah. Then that was that was pocket housing from what I remember. It's been a long a long time, but it does the the road through there, which is a private street, Clay Lane, does meander from one side, so the units are on Yep. one side, swaps over because the that access road drops across to the other side.

Okay. U Chris is not here. And um we know that coming down the pipeline is the reconfiguration of Apple Way and Highway 95. Futland from uh what was going to be the doughnut place, but I can't remember the name of the state. It's now a coffee house, is going to be a turnoff so that you can get on to Apple Way um off of 95. You're not going to be able to go up over and down. So, you're going to go into Futland. Do we see, and it's a reverse thinking, but it almost makes Futland a throughway for if I'm going for Fred Meyers, I'm not going to get on the freeway and have to go back on a Frootland. I'm coming down Futland and um even if I'm coming over from Kathleen, I'm either going down Futland or I'm going down Howard. Um did did you and Chris talk about any thoughts with that being the road that it is that it's a single road, no left turns, you know, no consideration? because I'm worried about what's going to happen down at Futland when all that traffic which wants to go, you know, downwards um avoids that intersection.

Right. Um Chris did not mention anything come into place. This being this far north of of I I just think there is going to be an aon. I I can see it. Traffic patterns will change. Oh yeah, I can I can tell you that those sidewalks are going to be valuable eventually in curbs. Okay. just just a consideration. I had a question while you have that map up. Um the upper left teal square, those are storage units, but it's still zoned M8. M8. Yeah. Um that's what our zoning map represents that they've been there a long time.

I know they've been there a long time. So I was kind of curious this particular one. I mean, since it can't really be subdivided, I guess it's going to be a rental product is what they're considering for affordable housing that I'm not sure there was no mention if they would attempt to condominiumize the the units or otherwise they wouldn't be able to really be individually owned, I wouldn't think. Unless they were condo, unless they were condo. Yeah, condo platted. Okay. Um, yeah, I was surprised. And then the use below on the triangle or I mean the teal square below on the left there are I guess this might be a little north of it. There's some habitat housing in there too down further.

And is that also south MH8? That's further south on what is the Well, it's where Kathleen makes the night or neither on the northand side. Yeah, I guess I was surprised to see that it was all still zoned. MH8 because not all of it's in that use currently. So this is a fairly zoomed in so it it doesn't show ner. Yeah, but I think there's only only that block on the right is the ones that are currently mobile homes. The rest have been kind of re rebuilt or

for the most part. There's a little bit here and there to the south, but further south. Mhm. But further south. Yeah. So, it just seemed like the map might be a little I guess if that's what the zoning is, it it's what it is. But it seems not concurrent with the use.

Yeah. It depends on when those existed and you know, city could have annexed it with a zoning that they wanted to see a use in in the future and made nonconformity hoping that they would get additional housing in the future. I don't know what the background of that one is in particular, but those are that's one reason why something might not match the zoning and be non-conform. So if this was zoned um R17 and they conformed with the current uses allowed in R17 unless it was or I I mean I don't know if it was cont there be a reason they would have to come back to us or they would just go about whatever they are planning on building

if city council decides to allow the zone change moving forward without conditions they would not have to come back. Okay, Mr. chair. Uh, spot zoning was brought up and I would like to address it.

Uh, address that. Uh, there is an Idaho Supreme Court case that says, um, permitting a use of a parcel inconsistent with the use permitted in the rest of the district is invalid if it is not in accordance with the comp plan. Uh since the comp plan does indicate that R17 is a permissible zone in this area, then it would not be in conflict with the comp plan. And Mr. Chairman, may I also clarify the Habitat for Humanity projects R17 flanked by MH8 and as you go further south, there's a bunch of ones where it's MH8, R17, R17, MH8. So it's

there's been kind of a consistent pattern of transition along there. Okay, that's what I I mean to me I was thinking it is similar to that product that is just a little bit below on the map. So, and I just want to mention I think the the uh owners are indicating that they'd like to do workforce housing. I don't know that we can hold their feet to the fire on that. It'll be whatever they can build and whatever they can put out to the market. I don't know that we can insist that they do workforce housing. Is that am I correct? The only way you could do that would be recommending conditional zoning and council would have to make that determination. Yeah, it's the neighborhood. It's what drives it. So, okay. Thank you. Question.

Just as I looked at the the history of the transition of this area over the last 20 years, it it seems like it's going towards higher density towards a 17 designation either commercial or residential. So, while I appreciate the thought of a little less density, um, and as I drove there, drove through there a few times in the last week, um, I I just think that's where it's going and and I think it's an appropriate zone. I think so. Zone request. Okay, let's hear what the client has to say. Thanks, Chris.

Thank you. Fred, come on up. Fred, just state your name, the city you live in, then I'll swear you in. Uh, Fred Harris. Um, you saw me swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Help you got Yes. Go right ahead, Fred. Thank you. Actually I just for questions I thank Sean and thank you but uh I have no more further input than what you've stated and I understand why your question. Okay. Okay.

All right. Thanks. Thank you for coming. That's it. All right. You're the only one on the signup sheet. So thank you. Um close testimony. I'm going to close public testimony on this and bring it to the council uh for the to the commissioner for a recommendation and um do some findings. A motion. Any comments? A motion. Go ahead. Who wants to do it? She's ready to move.

I'll do it. Um, this matter having come before the planning and zoning commission on February 10th, 2026, considered ZC1-26, a request for zone change from MH8 to R17 on a parcel measuring 0.522 acres. The applicant, Michael and Norma Rezer. The location 3620 North Futland Drive, Celane, Idaho. The planning commission finds that the following facts A1 through A11 have been established on a more probable than not basis as shown on the record before it in a testimony presented tonight at the public hearing. Um I do want to highlight the items that A7 um the planning and zoning commission identified the following comprehensive plan goals and objectives as being applicable to this matter. Um I'm just going to point out a couple. uh objective CI 3.1 supports the efforts to preserve existing housing stock and provide opportunities for new affordable and workforce housing and GD 1.1 achieve a balance of housing product types at price points including affordable housing to meet city needs. Um, and then I just also want to point out that the city departments have um identified that there would need to be frontage improvements including curb, gutter, and sidewalk and storm water swailes um to be handled at the time of construction, but there weren't any um limitations to this parcel. Um based on the foregoing findings of fact, the planning commission makes the following conclusions of law. This proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive plan policies. public facilities and utilities are available and adequate to for the proposed use. The physical characteristics of the site make a suitable um it's suitable for the request and the proposal would not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood character and or with regard to traffic traffic neighborhood character and or existing land uses. The planning and zoning commission pursuant

to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law has determined that the request for zone change does comply with the required evaluation criteria and recommends that the city council does adopt the R17 zoning. Okay, I have a motion by McCracken. Commissioner McCracken need a second? I'll second. I have a second by Commissioner Fleming. Any further discussion? One comment if we could. Yeah, I really don't have a problem with this zoning. it would I know the area what's going on. I have a problem with the fact that the application says this will be affordable housing and we have no way of guaranteeing that

and you know I don't know how you do that. uh if they were here and commit to voluntarily give a covenant or something that would be helpful the applicant to do that but that's the only reservation I have is that you know it's probably a proper use but if it's not affordable we're just putting more units in a place where they don't really help a whole lot because people can't afford half million dollar house or a $562,000 one as was published in today's paper. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you.

I think if even if we were to add a condition, we don't have a solid definition of what an affordable unit is because it's driven by the market. So I I mean Hillary could maybe help me. We wanted it to be deed restricted. Yeah. So the options we've discussed in the past would be the conditional zoning and you could do in conjunction with a development agreement. That would be a recommendation to council, but then they would have to determine what that is based on the 80% whereas 80 to 100% area median income and deed restricted over how many years. So, but I don't think they've identified what how do you their development is going to look like at this point. So, and I think the city council will see the minutes too depending on how the

commission decides to to vote on this. I mean, I think we can encourage them to do an affordable product. I do think the neighborhood is dictating an affordable product um for what the market would support if it were for sale at least um and or for rent probably for that matter, right? Yeah. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. Um we can just have roll call on this, please. McCracken, yes. Jamas, yes. Fleming, yes. Ward. Yes. Miss Cena.

Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Uh, next is um PUD-3-21M.1 amendment to Mahogany Lane Plan unit development. And also the same um also part of that is S-5-21M.1 a reply of Mahogany Lane subdivision. Uh the applicant is the owner is Barewater LLC in Hayden and the applicant is Place Landscape Architect in Spokane and Hillary is going to give us an overview.

Okay, great. Good evening, commissioners. So, yes, I am here to present this item. Uh, it's two-part request. It has been before the commission before. So, this was in 2021. It was a two-part with a plan, unit development, and a subdivision. So, they're here requesting some modifications this evening. So, we have Rob Bloom, who is the applicant owner, requesting this, and then Scott Hislop will be representing him doing the presentation following my presentation. So the applicant Bear Waterfront LLC and as you mentioned the consultants location is here as noted on the screen. So this is right in the area by Bel Reef and Riverstone and Tilford Place 3.6 acres and uh all legal notices have been met. There are two decision points before you this evening. So, the first is the amendment of the planned unit development, which would modify the tracks, slightly reduce the open space, create two new residential lots, and change the design of the Dolores depot. And I'll walk through all of that for you, as will the applicants representative. And then the replat is really just replplatting a tract into those two residential lots and modifying the the open space tract slightly. So, first here is the closer view of the property location. You can see that this is straddled by Bel Reeve Lane, which is the primary access to the majority of the project, and then Tilford Lane is where the Dolores Depot, which is the commercial space would be accessed, and then BB Boulevard. So, some background. So, as I mentioned, this project came before you in 2021. It was approved with 32 conditions of approval. And then there have been a few interpretation requests and an subdivision extension that have come

before this commission. So in April of 2022, there was a request to clarify the height and secondstory stepback of some of the accessory dwelling units. So that was an interpretation that was approved. It also clarified the heights of some of those accessory dwelling units just based on the topography and proximity and that some of them were functioning more like primary dwelling units. So that was approved in March of 2023. They requested a subdivision extension just to give them more time to do some of those improvements before the final plat. And then in November 2024, there was an interpretation request clarifying the 5-ft extensions of the seconds story roofs and the decks that would be allowed in the front yard setback on lots 2, three, and four. So that was also approved. And then most recently, they went the request went to city council to modify some of the timing of the conditions just to make sure they were in compliance. So that was approved and those conditions are included in your your packet this evening. So those conditions have been agreed to by the applicant

and the the March 2023 extension for the subdiv the subdivision happened within that extension period, right? They meant that it was they it has been platted. So it has been platted. Yeah. So this is just a request to replplat the Okay. Final plat.

So this is kind of an overview of what they are requesting. So for Dolores Depot and I guess I should back up for you and for the public. So when a planned unit development project comes before you, you get to look at the design aspects of it as well, right? So you get to look at the building elevations and what what they want it to look like. And so the Dolores Depot had a certain look that was approved and they're asking to change the design this evening. And then there are some changes to the layout of that as well, including the open space which has the patio and some of the parking and vehicular circulation. then the applicant will speak to that a little bit more detailed than I will. But so that's the part of that that's accessed off Tilford Lane. As I mentioned, tract A is being changed um from 15,827 ft down to 13,487. And then um they're kind of shifting the open space. They've moved a pedestrian seating area to make it actually function better. It's going to be along the trail. And then tract C has the shifting of the open space. So that's how that's working. You'll see it on the exhibits, which might be a little easier to read. And then tract D, which was a parking area that was really just kind of overflow common area parking for their residents and guests. That was on U Bill Reeve Lane. And that was really just for this project. They decided in consultation with the Bel Reeve Homeowners Association that that was unnecessary because each of the homes is meeting their required parking. There's already the the larger parking areas within Bel Reeve off Believe Lane. And this project is providing that parking that was agreed to initially that will help with kind of the public overflow for users of the trail system. So that'll be up off along Tilford Lane. And then here are the approved deviations. So I won't go into detail, but just again with the plan unit

development, they can ask for deviations to the front setbacks, all the different side rear setbacks, the heights. There's things that can be requested. So these were the changes that were made for the commercial structure, the principal structures on the lots 2 through 4, which are single family homes, the lots 5 through 11. Some of these are a little unusual too because Bel Lane as it goes into this project. So part of the project's outside of their gate. So there's now two gates on Bell Ree Lane.

So the g the second gate um there's some homes outside of that. Then there's a gate and then beyond that is really it's more of a private drive and so the lots straddle what would normally be a road and so the setbacks were measured a little differently. And then also clarifying the heights um because it's shoreline. the ADUs. There was some clarification on that for the accessory dwelling units for the riverfront lots and then the other ADUs on the opposite side of the street. It allowed for the private gate. So, they requested that up front. So, that was approved and then the lot widths were also clarified. So, there are um seven findings for the plan development. So, I'll walk through each of these. So, these are the first four and these are the last three. And so the planning commission shall base its facts findings on the facts, the staff report, applicant presentation, any of the public testimony you hear this evening, and any other evidence received. So the first finding is finding B1 that this proposal is or is not in in conformance with the comprehensive plan policies. Uh similar to the presentation you saw from Sean, this is the map that's in our comprehensive plan. And this area is planned development. This project was actually initially approved under the old comprehensive plan, but it fits well under this one as well because we do have this place type that's planned developments. It's specifically for any of these projects approved as a planned unit development. So, here is the project zoomed in a little bit closer. As mentioned, this is place type is planned development. It's surrounded by planned development. Here are the key characteristics. They are places and locations that have completed the plan unit development application process and have agreed to a determined set of complimentary land uses and may have determined phasing and development plan.

And then some of these other features they would customize. So the building design, scale, transportation, etc. These are the three transportation maps from the comprehensive plan. So looking at the bicycle network, the walking network and the transit. So this site actually is located by all of those features, especially being right along the Centennial Trail that provides the the biking network. There's also the facilities along BB and Bel Reeve and Tilford and the transit network. There's the transit system that runs right through Riverstone. Comprehensive plan goals and objectives. So this is the procured list from staff. So there are a number of goals from our current conference of plan that apply and so the first one is under community and identity. So maintaining a high quality of life for residents and businesses that make it a great place to live and the associated objective with that. The environment and recreation goal applies talking about the natural environment and shoreline development as well as the goal related to diverse recreation options. We have some growth and development ones talking about a mix of land uses that balance housing and employment. And then there are a number of objectives underneath that. We have the goal related to the high quality infrastructure with those supporting objectives. Multimmodal transportation system is goal GD3. And then we have goal GD4 protect the visual and historic qualities of C lane. And then the jobs and economy the last ones. So finding B2 that the design and planning of the site is or is not compatible with the location setting and existing uses on adjacent properties. So this slide shows you the land use map side by side with the zoning map. So the property itself is a mix of single

family and vacant. The vacant is where they will be doing the Dolores Depot, the commercial space, and some of the lots um where they're planning to change the tract into lots is also vacant. On the right is the zoning map. So, it's zoned R17 PUB. So, that's the 17 units per acre with the planned unit development. And then this is their amended exhibit. And so, this is the tract that would be changing from parking into the two new lots. And then this is the Dolores depot with the slight change in the configuration. This trail is a Centennial Trail. They've already done the realignment which was required with the project and they will be doing these improvements that were outside of the project but they committed to that as part of the project conditions. So these are kind of the midway all the nice enhancements along the Centennial Trail. So, a closer view of that approved track D that was parking just for the project as mentioned. And then here would be the two residential lots they're proposing. That would be with the replot. That would be Mahogany Lane first edition. And then that would be lots one and two block two. A closer up view of what was approved for the Dolores depot. And then now the new configuration for 2026. and the the illustrations showing what the original design was and what they are proposing at this point for the design and then for the two new residential lots. These are the conceptual designs for those homes. Finding B2, the design and planning of the site is or is not compatible with location setting and existing uses on adjacent properties. Continuing with that is showing some site photos. So you can see this is the area the kind of the toe of the slope. Centennial trail is up here beyond that and these are some homes in Tilford Place and this is

looking toward the hotel here be lane and then the site where the Dolores depot would be located. That's in the right view. These are some images of the Dolores depot property. So again this is off of BB Boulevard and Tilford Lane. This particularly these two photos are off of BB Boulevard showing where that site is and the Centennial Trail realignment kind of that stem wall that's part of the the project. Here's another image on the left showing the realigned trail. The parking lot is for Bel Reeve. It's one of those commercial parking lots. And then on the right is the old Centennial Trail crossing. So the applicant has agreed to remove that as part of the project so that there's not the confusion because we have the new one and we have the old one still that will be removed once the project is finalized. Here is um images of tract C location the expanded open space looking toward Mahogany Lane and Centennial Trail connection and then some images of what's in the area. So just this is a riverfront house. This is as you go down BB Boulevard straight into Bel Reeve that's at the end and then another image of the trail. Some other images within Bel Reeve. So just kind of the context surrounding uses and on to finding B3. The proposal is or is not compatible with natural features of the site and adjoining properties. So this property is relatively flat within the developable areas. There are grade changes as noted kind of between the properties along Bel Reef and then what's up along Tilford. So there's a little bit of a slope there between the lots and the Centennial Trail. This the request this evening does not change any of that. So those are the conditions that were approved before. Finding before that the location, design and size of the proposal are such that

the development will or will not be adequately served by existing public facilities and services. So comment here from our city engineer on traffic. So he reviewed this one in relation to the change and just said it's the subject properties boarded primarily by Believe Lane, Tilford and BB which are local residential streets with only BB Boulevard being a public street. Traffic from the proposed residential development is estimated to generate a minimal change in peak hour trips compared to what has been previously approved. Two additional residential lots are estimated to generate approximately 19 trips per day. And we also have some updated comments from water and fire. So for water, there was comment that any additional main extensions and or fire hydrants and services will be of the responsibility of the developer at their expense and any additional services will have cap fees due at the time of building permit. and from fire. Um they provided comments saying that the fire department access must be present to within 150 feet of the furthest point of any commercial building. Fire hydrant needs and placement will be consistent with currently adopted international fire code at the time of permitting. And they wanted to make sure that the Centennial Trail as that's reconstructed and that part has already been done. So I think it meets all this um just needs to be able to be that secondary access and be capable of holding the weight of the fire vehicles finding B5 open space. So this proposal does or not does not provide adequate private common open space as determined by the commission. No less than 10% of gross land area free of buildings, streets, driveways or parking areas. Common open space shall be accessible to all users of the development and usable for open space and recreational purposes. Of note that the code does not require open space be usable by the public but this is available for the public. So this is uh a slide just showing what

the original was. So the project was originally approved with 13.92%. They're asking for a slight decrease. It would still be over that required minimum. And this is kind of the breakdown the table showing how that would be in terms of the gross development area, open space with the areas that are along the trail and kind of the enhanced areas and then the Dolores depot are the areas um at the bottom talking about the plaza and entertainment areas. This is the illustration that's the bigger scale showing the open space areas in the green and then on the right along BB would be that open space areas as part of the depot. Here's the close-up view as noted. And this shows those two lots on the bottom, the approved versus the proposed. And you can see right along the trail realignment, kind of on the the bottom slide. Can't show you the arrow, but you can see that the green area grew. So that's along the trail realignment. Dolores Depot, same as the slide you saw before where the slight change in configuration. And on to findings B6 and B7. There are no changes from your previous approval. So just noted that here. I won't go through each of those. There are concurrent findings required because this is also a replat to allow for the additional lots and the change to the tract. So I'll walk you through those. So this is an illustration showing that replat. As noted, the two lots would be created out of the existing tract. they would meet all the PUD approved deviations. So the 4,500 square foot lots with the 90 foot frontage that would be met for each of those lots. So that's consistent. And this would be, as I mentioned, it would be Mahogany Lane first edition, a replat of tracks A and D, converting D to two residential lots and reducing track A.

So there are four required findings for subdivision, and I'll walk through each of those for you. So, first is finding B1 that all of the general plat requirements have or have not been attested to by the city engineer. And so, again, these are the illustrations here and the zoomed in version. As attested to to by our city engineer, Chris Booseley, the plat exhibit submitted for consideration does contain all of the required plat elements. Finding B2 that the provisions for sidewalks, streets, alleys, rights of way, easements, street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and utilities are or are not adequate. And city staff has reviewed this and has indicated there are adequate services and facilities available. And as noted, there are some updated comments related to traffic, water, and fire. There are also the 12 recommended conditions which actually already approved conditions um to ensure compliance as well as the original 32 finding B3 that the proposed plot does or does not comply with all of the subdivision design standards contained in the code and all of the subdivision improvement standards. So per engineering and planning review for the purposes of this submitt the requirements for both of those code sections have been met. I need before that the lots proposed in the plat do or do not meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district and as noted since this was approved as a plan unit development those um I guess it's already been met right so they've they've come up with what are their requirements for minimum lot sizes setbacks all of that and that is has been met in this plat so approved deviations were done in 2021 there's no changes the two lots would meet that for the lot size and frontages So, as noted, there are 12 conditions included this evening. The applicant agree to those with city council and then there are the original 32. So,

those would all apply. The commission has the ability if you need to add any additional conditions, you may do so and just make sure that's part of your findings. But these are the conditions and I'm happy to go through any of those if you wanted to see them or had questions. Can I have to clarify cuz we have I'm trying to read through our um heights. Yes. On those two additional lots. Yes. Can you just for everybody I think it might be good the height um limit and the step back second story step back requirements for those two new lots. Okay. See, I might need to just go back to the other side. Might be the fastest way.

Is that following the ADU height limit or the I know it would be for the principal dwelling principal structure. I'm just not finding it. Maybe I'm missing it. Let's go. 32 ft, I think. Here we go. I guess lot 13 cuz they would be new lots. So, I guess which ones are they? I guess just apply to it would be the same as lots two through four and the applicant can clarify that if that's wrong but it would just be kind of a continuation of those 2 through 4. Yep. The heights. So we don't have a height on that page, but we do on 5 through 11 of 32,

right? So 32 feet is what's allowed. So the reason they the other ones I had to clarify those were shoreline. This is the north side of the street. So it's secondary waterfront. It doesn't apply to the the shoreline limitations. So the 32 ft. So 32 ft would be the height of those. And is there a second story step back step back? Um these are not ADUs. So these are just single family homes. So they would be allowed to do those same the decks and the roof encroachment as the other ones, but they wouldn't have they wouldn't have to meet that second story step back than an accessory dwelling unit. They would not have to meet.

Correct. Yeah. Does that help clarify that?

Um, yeah. Let me go back. We were just about there with the Okay, so these are the last of those 12 conditions. As mentioned, the other the original 32 conditions still apply unless they've been superseded or if they've already completed them. And the two decision points before you this evening are the request to approve the amendment to the planned unit development and the replat of the Mahogany Lane subdivision. With that, I would stand for any questions. I have one question. Um, on Tilford Lane, we have the now public parking that's pulling off. Yes.

Is that then dedicated to the city and maintained by the city going forward? There's an easement with that. It's a little tricky. Tilford Lane is private, so the city does not own that. and that's part of the Riverstone Master Association and some other things. So, same thing with Dellores. There will be requirement for that to be accessible to the public because it'll be within kind of be outside of some of that area and then on the Dolores depot as well that'll be okay. So, requirement for that to be available for the public. Okay. So, it's Riverstone. It falls onto their maintenance for Tilford Lane itself, striping, etc. All that stuff, right?

Okay. Okay. So for the lots four, well 4 3 2 13 and 12. They're not necessarily the way those are numbered on there, but for those four homes, their parking is only in the garage and in front of the garage. Correct. Yes. There's no street parking or anything near them. I I'm not I don't believe Bel Ree Lane does allow for the on street parking for those owners within there, not for the the greater public, but yeah, I think I I mean I remember there being a parade home there last year and I don't think there was any street parking. It's a little limiting up there.

Do we know where the gate is that they built that we approved? I was going to ask the same question. Where is that for this project or for Bel Reeve? For this project? This project. Yes. Is it right at the end of it's right okay where see on the image here actually let's go to this next one you can see right kind of where this I guess it kind of looks like a pan or whatever so it's at the end before it kind of flares out so the home is after the left are gated and the ones everything outside of kind of on the north side of Bel Reeve Lane those ones are outside of the gated area so they'll be within the Bel gated area but they'll be outside of Mahogany Lane. Mahogany Lane one. Correct.

Okay. Okay. Phil, go ahead. Yeah, Hillary, if you could please. Couple a lot of moving parts here, but not much is really changing my opinion despite the fact there are 20 zoning hearings listed over the years. If I ask a couple of questions on page 19 where lots 12 and 13 are being created, it says track D is to be removed. What was the intended purpose of track D? Track D was that common area parking just for Mahogany Lane, right? Okay. And basically now it's just becoming two 500 foot lots. Is that

correct? Single family lots. So that I guess it is confusing because on the replat those numbers are different because now it'll be block two lots one and two. But yes, for purposes of kind of the PUD submitt they showed those as 12 and the Loris depot that's really just a modification of the building design. Correct. Parking everything is all there and was the original approval. Correct. It is. They're actually, I believe, enlarging some of the parking and they're just kind of shifting a little bit of kind of what was the open space and then moving the plaza a little bit. So, I'll let them. All right. The trail the centennial trail that is not being interrupted by this or any place that it would be. It's being relocated to accommodated. Correct.

Correct. Yes. when you get towards lodge 12 and 13 now it may not even be affected but is there anything here that obstructs access to the baywalk or the riverwalk this would not and in fact actually that would have been a good let me see if one of these illustrations shows that with the open space that was approved before there are connections that go between the trail and onto Bel Lane okay so those remain

and so the public can continue to go that way. The people that live along Believe Lane can go up to the trail on those access points. So, those were not going to be interrupted. You can actually see on this slide here on the top was what was approved and they both kind of those the vertical points in between three and four and on the right side of lot two and then on the bottom those still remain. So, they'll still be those connection points. So, no interruption to the the bell reef. Do is there anything that shows I know the trail sits higher right there. Is there anything that shows the height of the homes relative to the trail? Like how

if those would block views or I mean I I guess I'm a little disappointed to to cram in two more houses and lose I mean there really isn't a lot of open space to be had and I know it was parking but that also feels needed as well. Maybe not required. See, I don't have any place will have a cross-section. The applicant team might I have the ones showing, but this one doesn't really show the trail up behind it, but you can see a little bit of how the slope is. If you kind of look at the top image on the the left side of that, you can see the the trail is kind of up above that. That might be a good question for the applicant.

Yeah. To address a little bit, Hillary. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then these ones show I guess you can kind of see if you zoom back that's one of the existing homes. Yeah. And so that's the trail behind it if that helps. Okay. I got a quick question for Okay. Sure. With all this before and I remember when it came before us we had the parking on Tilford Lane and stuff. Summarize my question with the change in parking. Was there a requirement for how many spaces should be on the prior approval? And is there anything that requires how many spaces there should be now? Um

for the just want to kind of depot specifically clear in my head that we're not losing space or are we gaining space. We're giving two more lots for two more residential uh projects which they can which is a sellable project. We're taking a little open space away but not a lot. We still have open space and uh accessibility to the boardwalk. Um, so I'm just trying to get clear on with the shift of all this stuff and the parking shifting if you can answer.

I don't they're not reducing it. In fact, I think they're increasing it for the Dolores depot. I didn't see anything in the package. I don't see the numbers relating to any numbers saw it except for open space. Right. I know when we review the plan something I can ask the applicant. I'll ask them if they don't want to address that. Sure. When we did I'll just clarify this. When we did review the original plans for Dolores Depot, we made sure that it was going to work, that the parking lot sizes and the drive aisles and all of that would work, the ADA spaces. So, we did review it at that time, but we didn't lock it in with a code requirement unless someone asked to deviate. Okay. All right. That was the only question I had. There's more questions for Hillary.

Um, let's leave it. in the Dolores depot. Are there any different I mean the buildings are significantly different in style? But it looks like on, you know, there was a couple different businesses in the original design and this one I it's hard to tell. Um it feels like it's a maybe less expensive building to build. Um

but are the uses of that building changing, I guess, for what it's offering? My understanding and we'll let the applicant clarify that is that um with the original design concept that allowed for I think it was up to seven residential units in the upper level and then it was going to be the commercial at the lower level. Sounds like the current proposal for this new design is just commercial. Okay. That would also reduce parking. But we'll have to make sure that that was not noted in the you know the application and so I didn't put that in the analysis. Yeah. I guess I was just curious how it might change the needs of the parking for the for the use of the building. So that would certainly if it's just commercial and not a mix. Okay. So we can let them clarify that.

I I do I I'm still a little confused and I'm sure it's just me of what changed between the approved project that had 12 parking spaces. They must have needed the 12 parking spaces for something. What's changed between then and now when they're going to occupy put two two more lots in residential homes where the where the people that they needed the 12 parking spaces going to park? It's very narrow in that area that as we all know

they did not need those parking before I guess from a code perspective. So they meet the parking requirements for each of the homes within the project by providing the two or more off- streetet parking spaces. A lot of the homes within the gated portion have provided way more than is required by code. So they probably realize that for all the occupants and visitors, they can exceed the code requirements, but I'd have to let the applicant speak to why they initially wanted parking and now they feel that they don't need that. It's really tight in there now. Um they're only there for six months a year at the most. Another question. Good. Um what are these all public parking spaces that are going to be developed up on on Tilford

on Tilford? Those would be for public and then there would be some additional within the Dolores depot and then some of the Dolores depot is just for their project but I don't know if how they'll restrict that. And I think someone asked the question how how are how's the public going to get over that burm to get through this project to get down to the river to go down. There are two stairways that are I see some ter I see two walkways between lot four and three there's stairs and between lot correct and then the trail is in the open space Centennial Trail kind of comes down at a slope so people could also but isn't but isn't it there just a big burm between where the parking space right so you're going to have to just trek over that burm

um you wouldn't so those are more for kind of pedestrians that want to access the Centennial Trail or go down to the brie boardwalk. If you're parking up along Tilford, you'd probably just be getting onto I would imagine mostly most likely the Centennial Trail from that point. It wouldn't unless you're going down to the boardwalk. Or if you're going to the commercial area, you'd either park in the the depot's parking lot or along Tilford. And maybe the applicant can address a little bit of that for you, Chris. How I know you weren't here when this originally happened. And I know this is confusing now just to look at it compared to what it was before. Before was a

not similar, but it was more of a this is what we try to do at that point. And now they're adding or changing and that's why I asked my question about you know right putting two more residential lots in and changing parking and a little open space and the commercial building or Dolores depot. It changed somewhat. Well, I think Chris's point is important, too, that are we are we reducing the access to the public boardwalk by making it harder to get to andor if the commercial spaces are designated with signage only for commercial or, you know, are people not going to feel welcome to walk down to that boardwalk?

It's going to be Yeah. And that's a question we can certainly ask the applicant regarding Dolores Depot and their parking cuz that'll be related to commercial parking based on the uses that they want to put in there. And then up by Chilford Lane or where the other parking is, my understanding that's going to be public parking and how you get from that to the walkway to the boardwalk and all that. There's got to be some sort of some access and I would think it's not quite defined. If I may clarify, the parking along Tilford Lane and the access points down, that's not changing at all. And the parking that was on Believe that's now proposed to be two lots was never open for the public. That was not. Okay.

So, I just want to clarify that. So, nothing has changed from the public interface. The boardwalk or the trail. There is a slight change to the Dolores depot parking where they're taking some of the parking stalls off Tilford and into the project would actually make it more functional probably for the patrons of that business. But there's still a lot of the the parking is going to be along Tilford Lane. That'll be for the public. Okay. And we did work that through with parks and recreation department and Centennial Trail Foundation and others to make sure that that parking could work. We listened to the residents and made sure we could pull it off so that you could access it from either direction. Initially, it was at a diagonal. If you remember those discussions as part of the hearing, so

it's really been kind of designed with that intent. And the parks department, I think, will be helping make sure it's clear of snow and all of that.

Uh Hillary, go one more. The Roundhouse Plaza, was that original or is that something new now? That was something that was approved in 2021, but again, it was outside of the project. So, this is something that Rob Bloom agreed to do as part of the Centennial Trail Foundation's kind of their big vision for this kind of cool midway station that reflected kind of the railroad history and adding landscaping and things like that. So, it was it's tied to with the conditions, but it was not part of the project. It's not included in the open space, but it was a nice gesture to to get us where we need to be with enhancing that section of the trail. Yeah, cuz that looks like it allows more accessibility to a lot of the area than I remember from the last.

It does. And um there was a crosswalk designed to help get the Tilford Lane residents over to the trail because the Tilford Lane currently is lacking some pedestrian facilities. So, they have to go all the way out. Yeah. So, this was designed to help make that a safer Okay. Crossing. So that was all with kind of the original project and the negotiations. Great. Okay. All right. Let's see what the place has to say. Welcome.

We'll get some information. We have Scott Hista. Thank you. Scott, just state your name and city you live in and I'll swear you. Good evening. My name is Scott Hlup. I live at Liberty Lake, Washington, but work in uh Hayden, Idaho at 2936 West Dakota Avenue. Great. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, nothing but this truth. So, I help you guard. I do. Go ahead, Scott. Thank you.

Thank you. And good evening, commissioners. As I said, my name is Scott Hlop and uh I am here on behalf of uh Bear Waterfront uh and it is an affiliate of Stancraft. Um I have to make sure I clip this correctly. In my my slides here, I have a lot of the findings and all of those things that Patterson went through. And I think to save everyone time because we all have seen them, I'm going to kind of skip through some of those. They're here. I can answer questions on them later if people would like. Uh but hearing the questions that were uh asked of Miss Patterson, I think might be most helpful to everybody here if I just run through. So uh and get to that map and we can answer some of those questions. So again, Bare Waterfront, Eric Headland Design, Olsson Engineering, Place Landscaping, those are all part of our team. They were there in 2021 and they're here again. This is probably the the slide that I think everyone uh can look at and I can answer questions from the commissioners and we'll skip through all of the hey findings there here findings there. At the end I'm going to ask you to approve all of them. So I'll get that out of the way right away. But uh this drawing or this this slide is is probably the most important. So some of the questions I heard I'll just kind of go through them. If I miss any, please just ask me and I'll I'll answer them. Uh, parking at the depot. Are we adding parking or not adding parking? Um, I don't know if we have a a pointer.

It unfortunately it's dead. Presentation road. I don't think it lets us zoom. So, yeah. So, I'm just going to describe through words what I'm talking about. Uh, the depot on the far right hand side. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just going to test this and see if maybe Oh, it's cool. Okay. I guess you could maybe maybe do Can use it. Yeah, maybe you can do that. There's like a zoom function. I'll just Yeah, I'll zoom it out. And how do you zoom out? Just touch this little

Okay, so on the far right hand side, one can see where it says Dolores Depot. Uh, and previously we had a different building designed. It had a different footprint. Um, things are expensive. We changed the design uh to make it more affordable so that we can actually pay to have somebody go in and a commercial business go in down there. Uh we in doing that we also changed the parking and so one can look uh above the the box that has Dolores depot. All of that is new parking that was not on the previous the previous PUD. Um there was some parking that came off of Tilford Lane uh cut into and carved into that came onto city property there and uh we decided that it made more sense for Tilford as he got next to the intersection to take parking away from intersection. right? Let's have them come into the parking lot, not have people backing out or pulling into uh the parking spaces off at Tilford. Instead, we'll build it uh and that'll be additional public parking. Uh so, the parking modifications we did for the Delores Depot are adding net parking spaces uh for the public, not taking away. Okay. Track D. So, continue with the parking concept. Track D is down over now where we have the hash marks. We have the hash marks at an angle. That's track C. Right next to that is tract D. Track D in the initial PUD was a parking lot. That parking lot was private. And one of the questions was I think chairman asked this question. What's changed? Uh why is there no uh seven parking spots needed there anymore in track D? Well, in working with the HOA at Bel Reeve, um they don't see a need for them. We don't see a need for them. better use for that property uh is two residential homes that that we can put there. Um Bel Reeve Lane, uh one can park on the street and

at the parade of homes, yes, it was tight thankfully because a lot of people came to look. It was a nice home. Uh it's a nice neighborhood. The but during the day, parking on the street is allowed. So, Bel Reeve Lane is is a is a private lane that people in Bel Reeve live on and you can park on the street during the day, not at night. Okay. So, visitors come So, not overnight, excuse me. So, visitors come to visit the home's waterfront side or visitors come to visit the homes not waterfront side. Uh they can park on the street and visit the property and then when they leave, they take their car and they leave. Parking overnight is now resolved. there's no parking overnight. The homes on lots 12 and 13, they will have sufficient parking in the garage and in front of the home, not needing to use the street. Uh so again, the net effect is positive public parking at the depot building because the parking we're removing was not open to public period. It was private. Okay. There was question uh on the height of the buildings. Um, I'm not going to jump back to that one particular uh picture that was in staff report, but if you one can think back to the the building that's there, we saw that that shed roof with a trail behind it. Um, the trail hits about the floor plate. So, there's about 12 feet between uh trail and roof, right? So, the second story is hitting there. So, it's like if you're standing on the trail, it's like looking at a singlestory home. So, we're not exceeding height. Uh there's also we've also trimmed some of the trees in there. They were pretty overgrown. Uh and but we trimmed some of those to let some light onto the trail, but there's so between trail and the river is trees tracked a the common area space that the HOA for Mahogany Lane takes care of.

Then there will be a singlestory home field, the second story of the home uh that's on the side. Then there's going to be uh Bel Reeve Lane and then you have the multiplestory homes that front the river. So visually to the river, it's going to be difficult to see past the homes on the river and then you'll have a single story home that's between trail and the road. Um access points, that's another question that came up. Access points are staying the same. We're not modifying access points. Uh one can see next to lot 12 uh that is a concrete staircase. We're putting in a concrete staircase to get trail access down and then within Bel Reeve that PUD has access points for public all along the way. Leip and so on and so forth. Um also the the people who live in Bel Reeve can walk to Bel Reeve Lane and take one of those two concrete staircases up to the trail. Uh it does slope as we reoriented the trail as it winds down. One might recall the trail used to go straight across where the now the parking is uh north of the Dolores depot. So we reorientated the trail bringing it down and bringing it away from Toeford Lane there. Um, and so it slopes down and right now where the uh trail is south of Dolores Depot, we have a a a stem wall that is there supporting it. So, one walks along the trail and there's a stem wall to one's left or right depending if they're going east or west. Then we'll have the Dolores depot uh access then to the river and for the public. We bring them down the trail. they can get to BB land and go across to Leip or the the condos that are there or they can hit the other access points within Bel Reeve. Uh so there people won't be climbing over any sort of uh dirt. Instead, we have those two access points and then otherwise it's going to go into the natural area.

Most people are going to follow the trail and come off and and go through either BB lane or one of the staircases addressing uh the depot modification. Looking at this site, um the the depot was a two-story building, multiple tenants on a commercial use on the main floor and three condo units above. Now it is uh multiple commercial uses on the main floor and a commercial use on the upstairs. Uh so there's no more residential uses going in there. Uh just the commercial uses. um the uses that we had anticipated are actively pursuing us. So what we thought was happening in 2021 is happening on the commercial side uh for tenant use and it's going to be something that that uh people will use in the neighborhood, go to on a regular basis. Uh it's their great uses. Well, one of them we have on our our map is uh a restaurant. So, Flying Goat is is coming in and we'll be we'll be there and have food and beverage and all that kind of stuff. Um, and the others we're still working on. I do want to uh I think commissioner maybe or chairman you maybe you brought this up that uh roundhouse that is a concrete park. It's not ours. It's outside of the project as Miss Patterson said. Um but we're giving it to the city. So it it does it's a spot where people can come off the trail, they can hang out, they can they can be, they can do whatever. Uh but it's it's a park we're giving. So it's it's public use and access. Um as one can see there, it does connect right with that staircase going down towards uh Bel Reef Lane. Um so I think uh those are the questions I heard. I'm happy to if there's other questions I'm happy to answer those too.

Yeah, I guess at this point I want to just clarify this because we've had some discussion with legal. Let the presenter finish his presentation and then we can ask questions or can we ask questions now since he's asked ask questions. The uh interruption had to do with public comment. Okay. Uh, I I think there is I'd have to look at the rule, but it would be better to let them finish their presentation before asking questions. Thank you for that. Perfect. Okay. So, let's just hold our questions, write them down, and we'll let them finish. Round up.

All right. Again, at the beginning of my presentation, I did identify uh in my slides, I do ident uh address all of the findings and the request. And I do request um based on staff reporting and what we have in here that uh all of the findings be affirmed and that the amendment to the PUD be have a recommendation for approval. I believe we this was also in staff but those are the two differences. The approved in of Dolores one can see there there's multi- stories with residential units above. Uh the proposed is singlestory uh with a little bit of secondary office space above. The feel again is going back to the heritage and the history of the train. And uh we believe that the proposed 2026 Dolores depot also has a very nice train feel uh that that ties back to the history of our area. I do want to point out uh there is the uh on finding 7 the perpetual maintenance there is a homeowners association for mahogany lane uh it is in place it is functioning there is a management group it is collecting fees and it is taking care of snow removal it is taking care of uh landscape maintenance uh and it will be monitoring and making sure that all the storm water systems private street, the landscaping, the walking trails that are within the PUD are taken care of and and maintained. Again, the the summary of the findings um all of the boxes have been checked uh and there's not a lot of change, but

those changes that are there fall squarely within uh the rules, the code, and the requirements. subdivision approval. Similarly, uh there are four findings and I do request that the commission make a recommendation for approval because they also have all been met. Without walking through each particular one as Miss Patterson did a good job doing that, I'll just walk through these here quickly. It's a replat. Taking that, we already talked about it, taking the the parking lot and turning it into removing the parking lot and adding two residential lots. Design and improvement standards. As M. Patterson identified and questions were asked and answered by Patterson. There are no changes to the uh standards for the buildings and the design or the height and we do comply with the zoning. It is a PUD area. This is a PUD. All of those things are applicable. There have been a couple um public comments that were made uh in writing. I'd like to address some of those just to make sure that we're we're uh letting people know we hear and we're responding. Um there are nine comments that were sub submitted. There are four of them, two and two that are somewhat similar. I'll just address those, not each individually, but but as they go. So, one comment is uh it's being overbuilt. Another comment is we don't need more housing here. Uh two additional homes are not necessary and uh the uh there already enough homes in the area and the amendment should not

proceed. And uh I hear that the project however is below the zoning density. So there are fewer homes than allowed. And the idea with these particular homes and the way it's laid out in this neighborhood, uh there are people who come on a on a partial yearly basis, there are also people that live there year round. And so, uh the neighborhood itself is one where Coraline residents live uh year round. There are people that come, you know, months out of the year, but at the same time, it's a neighborhood where our residents live. And so overpop populating it, overpacking it too full of of houses is not our desire. Our desire is to have a neighborhood that is enjoyable, walkable, uh close to the riverstone area, can get to the water, can get to food, can get to entertainment, and enjoy. Another comment uh talked about access to riverviews. Um we've addressed that a little bit already today in both question and my answers. Um there were quite a few trees that were overgrown that did prevent people from seeing towards the water and the HOA has cleaned those up and removed some of the dead trees. Um making the trail actually a nicer place to be. Uh but again the height of that trail over the water is such that if there were no homes, one could see it. But the homes that are in Bel Reeve are two stories and one can't see the water anyway. uh the homes that we're asking to add. Uh like I said, we'll have the first floor plate will be at or below the trail level. The second story would be at trail level or above. So looking across the street to the north, one's going to see uh Tilford Place and they're going to see single family homes with that particular height. They could see the park if they could get to it, meaning the park over there in Riverstone. turning back towards the river, they're going to see a single family home uh that's on the other side of a set of trees that we've cleaned up. So, the view is difficult to

say we're taking it away because it really wasn't there. But, we believe that the neighborhood and the way our HOA is taking care of the neighborhood is making it a better place for everybody to enjoy the park and the neighborhood. There was a question of uh well, this wasn't a question, more of a statement. Why is it being why is the amendment being considered? The PUD was already approved. Well, we're following the rules and we want to make sure that that we get approval for the modifications. Uh there are two questions that are similar here. One is uh there's there was some confusion on the the the notice. It was hard for them to read. There was no map included. Um you know, the we're not required to give those out in our notices. We gave all the public notices that were required. we followed the rules. Staff said that um happy to have anybody come here and we'll show the maps and and get we hear what the the question but the actual way to get view of what's going on is to to come here and look or or even call us. There was a question regarding traffic uh construction and safety on Tilford Lane. So traffic during construction and then safety on Tilford Lane. Uh there is or was a condition of approval uh one of the 12 that we've agreed to most recently in in November of 2025 with city council and that's to uh uh make a blinking pedestrian light at the crossing. So that's happening. Those are ordered. They're on their way. Uh take the confusing stripes off of the road. That will happen as well. The ramps that were from the old Centennial Trail and how it crossed diagonally and and matched up. We're taking that ramp out and putting the the curb and sidewalk back in where it's supposed to be. Um construction is uh construction and so there will be trucks, there will be workers. Uh but we'll be as respectful

as we can obviously and responsive uh in in uh making sure that there is access. Um part of what what was also required of us initially in the PUB was to reroute the trail. That's not an insignificant task to take the Centennial Trail, remove the old trail and put a new trail in and we did that. Uh so we are responsive. We are following the rules and we are uh following up on the PUD and and doing what we're excuse me supposed to do there. Um that in itself I think causes a little more safety or creates a more safety for the pedestrians so that the trail is not next to Tilford. Instead the trail comes down and is separated from Tilford and uh has a little bit more room where people can see cars coming. emergency access construction or added homes could limit emergency access. Uh again the go back to that particular map. This one will work just fine. Uh the lower map shows us where Tilford Lane is. Uh where we're asking to put these two additional homes. um that was private anyway.

Uh it's it's not going to interfere with with emergency traffic. That that was private and so it stays private.

Also in in staff report was the comment that there's 19 trips per day created. That's not a a significant amount, especially when it's just the two homes that would be using that the two additional homes. Another comment was it looks like it's built out already. Great point. We're not making a lot of big changes here. We're consistent with what was approved in 2021 and uh the modifications are a simple extension that matches what was agreed to uh approved by city council in 2021. So with that, I'll entertain any questions.

Okay, I've got one question. Let me go first when my voice goes out. Uh Scott, you made a comment on the commercial side of things for Dolores Depot, the parking given what you're you you might build in your tenants you might have and um the I'm looking on our my page 33 here where it says lot one and then there's other parking north of that closer to Tilford Lane. Is that all parking for the commercial? And maybe I misheard you, but you said the public can park in that space as well, but given that it's commercial and we've had other uh areas in that area down there where it's a mixed kind of use of public, commercial, and we hear a few comments on that

for sure. So, can you clarify? Is it all going to be commercial or how are you guys going to distinguish or how can the public distinguish? It's not all just commercial. They can park there if they need to without having some problem down the road. Looking at this map, the the parking on Tilford Lane is public. That's all public. It's it's I mean there could be somebody who wants to go to the depot and they want to park on Tilford Lane. So everything closer to Tilford is all public. That's correct. Yeah. Okay.

Yep. And then uh the parking that we have within our lot is the depot. Um the very nature of how it's pulled in and what's gonna going to be happening there that the most my guess is that most people will will pull in and go to the depot. Yeah. Okay. I just need clarification of that because I know there's and and maybe Hillary can answer this. the the attended uses of the depot given lot one let's say which is right next to the depot the lower portion that parking would be a requirement for whatever the uses are in that building and then up towards Tilford would be not part of that requirement when they come in

correct yeah the the Tilford or I'm sorry any of the parking along Tilford would be for the public they couldn't count that toward the the project and it looks like based on kind of what they're showing here I haven't done that math But it looks like they're the building is shrinking and they're adding more parking. So, okay. They would at a minimum have to meet our parking requirements, but they would exceed it. All right. That's the And those would be double checked before it was platted. Um, no, the platting doesn't include the parking stalls. That would be at the time of building permit for that. Building permit. Okay.

And they're not modifying lot one really. They're just changing kind of the the access location and some of the parking um I think would be within the city. I'm not positive how it shifted a little bit. It may all be entirely within the project boundary.

So lots lot 13 and lot 12 as proposed will actually be platted as Mahogany Lane first edition block 2 lots one and two. So, currently, um, Mahogany Lane First Edition block 2 lot one is listed for sale for 1.95 million with a house on it, although it's not platted yet, but it is currently on the market for sale. Would that I mean, I guess that's assuming we approve it, but I'm sorry.

I feel the the the one home is actually listed on the market lots 12 or 13 are there's nothing on that on this. No, but Mahogany Lane first edition block 2 lot one is currently listed for sale for 1.95 million on the MLS. So, I'm just curious how it's listed before. We're talking about lot number three. No, it's well, it's actually on our on our diagrams. It's lot 13, but the plat the actual legal description is Mahogany Lane first edition block two lot one. I'm not seeing that particular I don't know what that but plat you're referencing to commissioner but that's not

it's on our it's on our plat map but it's actually listed for sale right now as a to be built so interesting I don't yeah I'm not sure city doesn't regulate that but I I don't think you are able to advertise before it's platted but conduct this hold on um yeah Scott maybe we pull up the subdivision the plat map interesting might be one of the other homes that hasn't been built. That's lot two. Might be wrong. It's not under I mean it's listed as a you know to be built home.

Commissioner McCracken. That's the it is listed with that legal the existing lot two. No, it's block block. It is block two lot one. It's not seeing. It's got something wrong. Maybe the listing's wrong. Pull up mys has the flat exhibit. Okay.

Yeah, it's going to be really hard to see the details on this one. Yeah. So, this is Mahogany Lane first edition. God, I can't see that. I don't know if that helps. It's a little blurry. Can you see it? Good read. Referencing block two. Block two. Lot two. Block one. Which one is that one? That's the existing. It's not lot one. It's not. I'm just making sure it's not the one that we are discussing adding.

Two. Lot one. This one right here. This one here. Lot one. Blocks one and two. Block two are part of the track D. So parking lot trash. Block two and block one is Yeah. Maybe come over to the microphone so they can hear you. Sorry.

Yeah. Lot two block one is an existing lot platted under the initial PUD. Lots one and two block two are the ones that we're requesting. So the the home that's for sale on the MLS is lot two block one. The home that was in the parade of homes, it was lot three block one. Okay. And so no, we are not asking to sell something that is not yet platted. So lot two block one is this first one. Is that the one you're no lot two? So the lot two closest to the commissioners is part of tract D we're asking to be created.

Okay. Lot two which is in the middle of the diagram is the existing lot in the PUD. Lot two block one. Lot two block one. Interesting. Stick messed up. lot two block one. Okay, I'm just trying to follow because we have different numbers on ours. Yeah, I apologize

necessarily line up. So, yeah, I guess they're just they just don't match on on here to there. cuz I was trying to track that cuz would those be lot one lots four or three two which correct to the left of those? Yeah, that'd be with the original plat. Okay. And that was lot. So it's the last one available before the ones. Okay, that is correct. Okay. Can I have a

Should we move on? Yeah, I think we're good. Yeah. I just want to make sure that they're because we were reumbering them on the one page. I want to make sure that they're Okay. Okay. Your turn. I have a simple question. I hope on the descending slope from the Centennial Trail down to where it loops in the new grade. Do we have an idea of what that slope to grade is?

Do you have a sense for what that is? Only because I'm on the Centennial Trail up north. A lot of nighttime bicyclists not not paying attention. Headlamp on maybe um visibility. Can we make sure that we illuminate it properly or flag it properly so they know when they're descending down that hill at a break neck speed, nobody can go 15 miles an hour on that trail, it seems. um that we're not going to have some hazardous offroad accidents. Um the orthopedic surgeons would appreciate that around here or not.

But yeah, I think we need to make sure there's lighting on it and that there's warning or some sort of warning on the trails as you're going up and down because we're seeing a lot of transit in that especially in the summer. Yeah. after after the lights go out. So

yeah, the U I'm not sure what the slope is. We built it to spec of what we what we had in our in our approved plans. However, the the depot building is going to be lit, right? So not at midnight maybe, but it's going to be there. So there's as the slope goes down, it goes to grade right in front of the depot. So you there's the the whole length of the depot on the trail that is going to be offset by lighting of the depot building. So the the restaurants and the activity that are happening there will be Okay. Well, I'm sure the bike people will complain if it's not well enough lit um just cuz someone will take a hit. So are the staircases lighted? Yeah, the staircases lit as well. Correct. Yeah, those have some light.

Okay, I think that's it. Got anything? Anybody good? Anyone else? No, no, you I have no more questions. Thanks, Scott. Appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Um I've got Rob Bloom. He is in favor. Doesn't wish to testify. I have Teresa and John Tremble, and they do not wish to testify, but didn't indicate whether in favor or not. I have Buck and Joy Fitzpatrick. They do not wish to testify and they did not indicate whether they're in favor or in opposition. And that is everyone I have signed up. Okay. Well, Scott, you're welcome to come back if you want to say anything else, but there's no need to. I'll close this public comment at this point. Okay. I'm going to close public comment and bring it to the commission for discussion and a motion. Please. Anyone?

I'll make a make a comment. Sure. I wasn't here when this went from a lumber yard to what it is, but it's a beautiful development. I mean, it's gorgeous location, great roadways. Two million dollar homes probably aren't going to impact the community too adversely. I do agree parking is an issue. It has been for a while now. My wife and I'd love to go to Laip or something, but you just can't time it on weekends anymore. It's just too crowded. not enough parking, but it meets the parking requirements and that's all we can review as long as it conforms to the code. Is there enough parking? Probably not any place in this town any longer, but I think it meets all the current code requirements and it's still a beautiful place you people live.

Yeah, I would have to agree with that. I'm familiar with the area. I think the public side of it, parking is going to help regardless of where we put it. It's just going to add more parking in that area, which is getting more popular. Not because they're developing more homes in this particular area. It's just the use of the Centennial Trail. People want to get their vehicles with a bike on there to that Centennial Trail and not have to park further away. So, it's not this section, it's further down as well in Bellere. That's going to be developed more. and but I think any additional parking along that area is a benefit to the public. So, uh I'm um okay with this particular item. Still looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion. Thank you.

Uh introduction. This matter came before the planning and zoning commission on February 10, 2026 to consider PUD 321M.1, a request to approve an amendment to the Mahogany Lane Planned Unit development. The applicant is Olsen Engineering. The owner is Bear Waterfront. The location is 3.6 6 acres located along Bell Reef Lane, BB Boulevard and Tilford Lane, including Mahogany Lane tracks A, B, C, and D and lot 1,570 Tilford Lane. Findings of fact planning and zoning commission finds the following facts A1 through A13 have been established on a more or probable than not basis as shown on the record before it and on the testimony presented. the the property was posted, notified the adjacencies and followed through um all of the guidelines. Then we jump down to um the PUD was previously approved and we are looking at amendments to this current and almost built out PUD. A4 mahogany lane wasn't approved as a PUD under the 2007 comp plan. This PUD amendment request is analyzed under the 2022 2042 comp plan. It does conform to that comp plan as a designated plan unit development place type. The transportation exhibits the comprehensive plans were provided showing the planned and existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks. And this particularly is on the Centennial Trail, one of the most popular things we've built in this city. A6. The planning and zoning commission has identified the following comprehensive plan goals and objectives as being applicable to this matter. Uh in particular to maintain the community friendly welcoming atmosphere in its small town feel to manage shoreline development to address storm water management and improve water quality

which has done. Provide diverse recreational options which this absolutely does. Um and to achieve a balance of housing types. um in within a type bracket uh and the promote mixeduse development and this does do that. We bringing in some more commercial in a unique um point in this location. We increase pedestrian walkability which this trail does every day of every year year. Um and I'm not worried about the visual access that's pushing it. I'm going to eliminate GD1.7. It's a lovely development. So um we've also met the uh the accessible, safe and efficient traffic circulation around it for motorized, bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation. We have uh foster pro business culture. We should remove or add other goals and objectives. Well, I'm going to get rid of uh protect the visual and historic qualities of Gord Lane. That's one that can go away. GD-4, but other than that, I don't have an issue with the rest of the um original plans. Um let's see. Do I need to mention all that? No, we did change A7. We are seeing a transition from the uh Dolores depot from a mixeduse development into a more commercially uh oriented no residential, but we do have the addition of two residential units, which kind of offsets what we had before. So, it's kind of a wash. A8 the subject property is relatively flat with some grade change and I would like to see us make sure we make it a safe grade change for bicycles and humans on foot. Uh A9 the staff from the various departments have reviewed and provided comments concerning the adequacy of provisions and they have um

weighed in and I believe Mr. Bloom has uh agreed to most of to all of those uh conditions. uh A10 the open space in Mahogany Lane would be reduced with this PUD amendment from 13.92% to 12.95% which would exceed our 10% requirement and has been uh a good uh show of faith. A1 the proposed PUD amendment does not affect parking and no deviations were requested from the original project approval. Again, kudos. A12, the homeowners association is established and is in uh in use at this time and will continue through this development. Uh A13, project conditions will ensure compliance with all applicable ordinances and prior agreements. Conclusions of law. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the planning and zoning commission makes the following conclusions of law. The proposal is in conformance with the comp plan goals, objectives, and future land use map type. B2, the design and planning of the site is compatible with the location setting and existing uses on adjacent properties. B3, the proposal is compatible with the natural features of the site and adjoining properties. before the location, design and size of the proposal are such that the development will be adequately served by existing public facilities and services as confirmed by our um city departments and uh their providers. B5. The proposal does provide adequate private common open space as determined by the commission and does exceed the 10% uh necessary gross land you land land area free of buildings, streets, driveways or parking areas. Common open space shall be accessible to all users of the development and usable for open

space and recreational purposes. B6 off streetet parking does provide uh a sufficient parking for users of the development. B7 that the proposal does provide an acceptable method for the perpetual maintenance of all common property via their HOA. uh the planning and zoning in decision um pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law has determined that the requested PUD development does comply with the required evaluation and should be approved the we will include all the project conditions. Do I need to read all these? This is very biblical. Okay. Um sorry. Uh and in finally let me make sure I got it all. all the original conditions which were lengthy up to 31. Um and then I move that we approve the foregoing findings and order um approval of this request.

Thank you. I have a approve um a motion by Commissioner Fleming. Need a second. I'll second the motion. I have a second by Commissioner Zest. Thank you. It's okay. Um, any further discussion?

Um, I guess I I don't love the exchange of the open space for two residential units. I don't I think it is going to feel more high and tight, really dense um on the trail. And I think we keep we there was there was a lot of discussion about the parking when we added that parking. Now they say they don't need it, but I feel like we did have a lot of discussion on why that was needed when it was there. Um, I don't have any problem with the commercial. I think it's a much needed type. We need commercial. I'm kind of glad it's all commercial instead of mixed use, but I don't know if there's any way to approve the commercial without the residential. So, that would be my feedback. I just don't feel like it's a a fair exchange of the open space. Um,

you're on the record. On the record, I guess. Yeah. Well, appreciate your comments. That's why we're all here. Okay. I feel like we keep squeezing in two more lots every time we approve it. But I wasn't here for the beginning. I'm I only been here for the last few, which is the important part. Okay. Can we have roll call? Jamas, yes. Ward, yes. Fleming, yes. McCracken, no. Msina,

yes. Okay, that particular item is approved. I need a motion and findings for the S-5-21 M1. I'll take it. Okay.

Okay. Introduction. This matter came before the planning and zoning commission on February 10th, 2026 to consider S-5-21M1. A request for amendment of a replat of the mahogany lane subdivision. Applicant is Olsson Engineering. The owner is Bear Waterfront. The location is 3.68 acres located along Bell Reeve Lane, BB Boulevard, and Tilford Lane, including Mahogany Lane tracks A, B, C, and D, and lot one, 1570 Tilford Lane. The planning and zoning commissioner fi comm commission finds that the following facts A1 through A7 have been established on a more probable than not basis as shown on the record before and and on the testimony presented to the public hearing. These this hearing was posted it was shared to the neighborhood and the agencies and land owners um as attested by the A3. I'm going to cover A2. We've already talked about that. Mahogany Lane. What we're doing to it all. Uh shall I do that? Shall I read through it all? No. Thank you.

Don't need to.

A3. The tested by the city engineer. The preliminary plan submitted contain all the general plat elements required by the municipal code. A4. The site which is zoned R17PUD consists of 3.6 acres and is in various stages of development. Um I'm going to jump right down to conclusions of law. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the planning and zoning commission makes the following conclusions of law. B1, that all the general plat requirements have been met as attested to by the city engineer. B2 that the provision for sidewalk, streets, alleys, rightways, easements, street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities are adequate. I would like to take a note on that in that I really want to pay attention to life safety and secure night passage along that slope on the descending angle into uh connecting to Centennial Trail. We were getting more and more injuries on that trail. B3 that the proposed plat does comply with all the subdivision design standards contained in chapter 16.15 and that all the subdivision improvement standards contained in chapter 16.40 40 requirements. The lots proposed B before the lots proposed in the plat do meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district. And finally, the decision the planning and zoning commission pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law has determined that the replat does comply with required evaluation criteria and the request request should be approved um with the following conditions that are all listed here. PUD open space, Dolores Depot that we approve the redesign and more commercially focused Dolores depot um all the removal of uh striping etc. warranty bonds it goes on

and the original conditions one through 31. Uh motion to approve the adop to adopt the foregoing findings and or order and approve without prejudice the request. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Fleming. I need a second. Second. I have a second by Commissioner Ward and we can have Oh, further discussion. You have roll call, please. Ward, yes. Jamas, yes. Fleming, yes. McCracken, no. Msina,

yes. Okay. Uh, S--5-21 is approved. Motion to adjurnn. I motion to adjurnn. I have a motion to adjurnn. On a roll second 315. I have a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? We are ajourned. I didn't win hockey, but you know Heat. Heat.