Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Anytime. Okay. All right. So, we'll call to order the planning commission regular session. Can we do a roll call? Liberty Aila here. David Py here. Uh Max here. Matthew Gowardy and Gary Lillard are absent. Excused. Great. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda? There are not. Okay. Can we consider approving the minutes of the May 6, 2025 meeting?

Since I wasn't here, I'm not going to make a motion. I move that we accept the minutes of our May 2020 meeting. I'd second it. All right. All in favor? I I All right. Is anyone here to talk about anything that's not on the agenda? It's not part of the one. Why are you looking it up? It's public comment time.

Um, all right. So, no no public comments that aren't maybe part of the public hearing. Um, so we can go ahead and go to the hearing. All right. So, we will open the public hearing for file number 01-25. Can we have the rules of order? The planning commission will conduct one quasi judicial public hearing tonight to consider a zone change designation file number 01-Z25. Applicants Paul Swagger and Clint Troyer. The hearing will proceed as follows. The chairperson will request the staff report which includes applicable criteria and standards for the issue under consideration in the application. As part of the staff report, the applicant may have the opportunity to address the commission prior to public testimony. The chairperson will then ask for public testimony relating to the application. The chairperson may state a time limit for testimony. If no time limit is announced, testimony will be limited to 3 minutes. All testimony must be directed toward the applicable criteria. Oregon land use law requires that all issues raised by a participant during the hearing must be sufficiently clear and specific to allow the hearing body and other parties an opportunity to respond to those issues. Failure to raise the issues during the hearing may invalidate a future appeal. Though the order of testimony this evening will begin with th that of proponents, those in favor followed by opponents, those opposed and ending with those neutral. An opportunity any participant may request a continuation of the hearing. Any participant may request that the hearing record be kept open for 7 days to submit additional written evidence or testimony for the purpose of responding to new evidence. Unless waved, the applicant has 7 days to submit a written response. The proceedings are being electronically recorded to be converted to written minutes. When testifying, please step to the podium and state your name. Members of the planning commission

may ask questions of the staff or hearing participants if present present at any time. The chairperson will then close the hearing or continue the hearing at a specified time and place. All decisions must be based on findings of fact from the staff report or evidence and testimony received which relate to the criteria of the land use decision. A commissioner must declare any expporte or prehering contact including the person's name and the nature of the discussion as well as any site visitations to the area in question. Commissioners must should declare any personal or financial interest in this matter and may disqualify themselves from participation in this hearing. Does any commissioner wish to make a declaration? Let the record show there are none. Does anyone in the audience wish to challenge the right of any commissioner to hear this matter? And let the record show there are none.

All right. Thank you. Can we get the staff report?

Yeah. And so I'm just going to hit the highlights of of your report, at least the items that I think are important, and then if you want to dive into other stuff. Um, so this is a request to reszone only the areas that are in the light blue of uh the Swagard property and the Troyer property. and combined the total property area of these uh two properties or there's actually three tax lots uh is 43 acres but the blue area amounts to roughly 21 acres out of uh um that combined ownership and uh the maps that I'm going to kind of go through u just kind of identify the conditions of of the site related to topography and wetlands and uh other development constraints. Um, but I think importantly for at least the state's review of the reszone, they generally look at our buildable lands inventory and we have uh [Music] which page. So on page nine of your staff report is uh kind of eight and nine is a summary of what the uh buildable lands inventory has for our next 20 years. And we have roughly a 212 acre surplus of of residential lands in our inventory. And of the uh for this reszone, we're roughly looking at a density of 10 units that we're going to lose through the reszone from the low density residential to the rural residential. And so we're still going to have over a 200 unit surplus in our in our inventory with this reszone. So, I point that out just because there are housing advocates at the state level that pay attention to this and they want to make sure we don't go negative and uh and so I've included that in the staff report and those agencies have uh had the opportunity to review and they typically do get copies

of of our report and they haven't reached out on this reszone which they typically reach out even on our commercial ones. Um and so so let me go through the maps. Did you have a question, Max, on I was just curious what the So, there's two our surplus is 200 in the whole city. Yes. If the zoning stay the same, how many units could you build on this parcel? And if the zoning changes, how many units can you build on this part?

Uh, so roughly what I've estimated on um for this property is is if you had the current R1 zone would support 52 dwelling units and under the uh rural residential zone 42 units. But that's without taking into consideration all of the wetlands and all of the other issues that I'm going to go through. Uh because by the time you take those things into consideration, there's a significantly less number of dwelling units that would physically be supported by the property. Um but uh so anyway, so this first map is the uh um just kind of gives you an illustration of of where the the property is. Um this I've done another map that kind of shows you what the before and after would look like. So all the light blue is now going to be dark green. Uh it does create an island uh for one piece of property that was not included in this reszone that's going to stay the same zoning. Um uh so on this property this this is an illustration of how much potential wetland affects the uh uh the properties as a whole which gives you uh you know really good indication of these are areas that when we do our buildable lands inventory that you would actually subtract those as non-buildable uh portions. Um uh this map gives you uh an idea of the topography. You'll see in the application it talks about percentages of slope like over 26% on average. Um I did some general math. It's kind of hard to read, but on Paul's property it's roughly a 17% average through through portions. Uh you have 25% and greater, you know, just at the base of the Spence Reservoir where the dam is. Um, and then once you get below that, um, and you're looking at a 14% slope on average through this portion. Um, you've got a

17%. Um, Clint, I think, wants to put a house up here in this upper section. Um, but he's got a 17% to get through. And then there's a 14%. And just to give you kind of an indication of of the typical slope that's in the zone is is the properties along 12 Street are roughly about a 2 to 5% slope. So that's the difference that they're dealing with topography wise. Um, which may not affect your house placement as much as it affects where you're going to put infrastructure, where you're going to build roads, and how much space does that uh does that take up as you're dealing with cut and fill to what's it look like there to the north on the ridge?

Um, these ones here. No, just north of that pion up here. Yeah. This is actually steeper. This is probably closer to a 17% slope. And that ridge development.

Yeah. And they they've actually they're an R2 zone. So they're actually uh twice the density of what the R1 zone has in in what the code promotes. And they they got a variance because of topography to actually do something very similar to the RR1 zone at a 2 unit per acre. They've got uh uh 18 units in that in that subdivision where they should have about 40 or 50 units. But um and it's all because topography is uh and how that road had to be structured in order to be able to justify their variance. Uh I think that's my last map. So these are the the key factors that that Paul relied on in his application for uh why the property isn't suitable for the R1 zone that has historically been applied to this property and why the uh the R1 that rural residential zone is is more suitable. The other piece that goes with this uh um that is I think less of a factor for for your consideration but very important to the property owners is they would like to have livestock u uses on these properties and the RR1 zone would support that where the uh the light blue the R1 zone does not. So anyway, so that's what I have to share with you. Do you have any questions of what I presented or is there something that I skipped over that you'd like to hit on?

Just want to check my understanding. I guess I always thought of zoning as limiting how many units you could build on a piece of land, not requiring you to build a certain number of units on a piece of land. Does that make sense? Yes. And am I incorrect? And because it sounds the way you're talking about this change, it sounds more like the issue is whether the owners of land would be forced to build more density or whether they could build less density. Yeah. So, we don't force folks to build at any level,

but we force them to plan at that level. And so it's just the way Oregon law kind of forces us to govern our zoning is we have an obligation to promote and pack people into the city where the county has an obligation to do the opposite is to keep people out of the county. And so it's cuz they're they're preserving farm and forest land and we're you know so so that's just that's just the way organ land use works is is they want to preserve farm and forest and so they want to keep people out of the county in order to preserve that and push everybody into the city. So it kind of forces us to plan for the highest densities possible. And so with that, as we as we do zoning, there's a density assigned to that zone. And then we have a responsibility under Oregon land use law to ensure that ultimately over time that those those zones get built to the density that is targeted for those zones. And so that's what the build of lands inventory is about. And that's where the housing agencies essentially look at our land use, say, are you managing your land use according to working law and properly planning for the densities? And so Paul's aware cuz as he went through and placed his house on his property, he actually did uh a land division to create an extra an extra parcel. And as part of that, he went through a master plan exercise to show uh under the R1 zone, how can I build my house on this property and preserve enough land area around there to still hit the target density that is on there? And it honestly, depending on who looks at it, it's not a very desirable layout. It's it certainly would be desirable for Paul to see his property developed in the way it's master plan, but but it is feasible and and that was the exercise that he went through. But but anyway, to answer your question, we're required to plan for it, but we don't require folks to actually build

it. So, would the land owners be permitted to build at the lower density even with the existing zoning?

They would and and and they have. So they would and they have but as they go to divide their property whether it's a lot line adjustment whether it's a partition is they are required to go through a master plan process in order to show how their property could ultimately be further divided and further developed to hit the density that the zoning requires uh and still support what they want to do today. And so that's the exercise Paul went through. So, he's actually developing to the that rural residential uh standard, but the property is planned for higher density just because the code requires that.

Any other questions over here from the applicant? So, just to refresh my memory, what are those numbers for R1 and RR1? So the uh R1 the let me just go up to the map so that way as I refer to the colors it makes sense. So the the light blue is the R1 that is a 4 to6 unit breaker density. The RR1 is essentially a 2 unit breaker.

All right. Um, do you want to say anything about your application? I don't know if I do. It's okay. You don't have to.

Well, I'd like to. My thing is I just kind of want to preserve I don't know, maybe I should just read what I wrote out here, but um, we got that to more or less kind of preserve the property. Um, not to profit off of it. Um, we like the rural feel that it is instead of Yeah, like you saying, it's an exercise to get through what we want to do. We have a couple of horses We have livestock all around us and it just feels like the responsible thing to do is to bring it back to rural residential because if it's not then it's going to be a four to six units per you know then we're going to essentially move ourselves out in the long term and it just doesn't feel right to have it at that you know medium density. Um I just I feel like it's a way to preserve the land the way it is. That's uh that's my two cents on it. I got I can go in a lot more detail, but that's ultimately what we're trying to do is not build a bunch of houses. Um and that's I think I have support behind me in that. Any questions? I mean I could touch on or is there anything that I'm kind of

I guess I'll ask. So what what will the change in in zoning enable you to do that you wouldn't be permitted to do? My daughter has two horses. Um, we we'll be able to have the horses up there versus have them up there and if a neighbor gets mad at me, they can turn me in. That's really we'll have, you know, that cloud over us all the time. And that's just a stress we don't want. We don't want to break any rules and um we're just trying to do the right thing.

Yeah. So, the one thing that I'm thinking about here is that kind of that piece sticking off to the north that's going to end up putting the RR1 up against the R2, which seems like potential for future problems. Is there a way maybe just to keep I mean, would it be a problem just to have that that that rectangle of northern property stay R1 and the rest of it be R1? I'll speak for Clint on that. I and you might know better than me, but I think that's he does I It seems like he was wanting to develop a little bit of that.

I'll address that. He's in the process of developing a subdivision that's much like the Ridge subdivision. It's a second phase saying Yeah.

Yeah. And it's it's proposed at at that 2 unit per acre at the RR1. And he's going to be coming in at some point in the near future. I'm surprised he's not in here yet, but he's um he's getting close to having his subdivision designed and he'll be asking as part of that for variance. And so I didn't want to get into the details, but he's going to be asking for a variance because he is dealing with uh wetlands on his property, which forces him to change how he deals with the density cuz he has to work around a an intermittent kind of a a pond or wet spot. And uh and then by the time you have and he's got a 100 foot power line that runs through the northern part and then by the time you put the road a 60 foot wide street in there meeting city standards with a turnaround at the end it consumes a lot of land

and that yeah that's another point I want to bring up is the the infrastructure load that is required if you do build that out and what he's having to do to do to keep it at that zone is very costly. Yeah. And it's just hard to fit. It's just hard to fit because of topography. So you have to, you know, you've got a windy road instead of a straight road and uh there's just a lot of extra things that go into that flatter than the rest of the stuff.

Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, so he's asking for the reszone which is going to help because that's going to probably eliminate the variance he's going to have to ask for on the density because otherwise he's planning to uh you know come in with a proposal to uh either you know meet the RR1 zone or ask you for variance to reduce the density because of all of these characteristics with of his property. Yeah. So then the only real difference will end up being horses or no horses. Yeah. Yeah. With its R1 versus R1. Yeah. What are the red dotted segments?

Uh so the red dotted that's actually the city limits and there's a number of little pockets that are in the county urban growth boundary that are surrounded by city limits in this general location. So that's why you kind of see them all over along 12 street. But it's hard to figure out. [Music] So those aren't subject to the city zoning?

No, they are. They're Yeah. So they're in our urban growth boundary. So they have city zones applied to them. Um the benefit of those properties, they can have wells wells and septic systems and uh and their taxes go to the county and the city does not generate revenue off of those based on property taxes anyway. But if it's outside of that yellow boundary heading down towards Gekckler, it it is currently R1. Uh this this is R2 is this piece right here. Okay. But but the sorry the other bits that are Yes. these bits. So as you head 12 street anyway, it's it's R1, but as you head to Gekckler, it's R2. Got it.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that side of Gler still. Yeah. Does anyone here want to give any comment application or speak about it? Well, well, I guess I'm not real sure where it is that that Clint's thinking of building. Is it quite a ways away from the pond? Yeah, it's at the bottom of the panhandle there. Okay. Right by the ridge, the extension of the ridge, kind of where that dip is. I think he wants to be right in this vicinity where the overflow used to run down. Oh, he's building or what he's want to put what he's wanting to put lots lots would be.

Oh, that's this upper section here. It's okay. Kind of behind Barney's house if that Okay. helps. Our concern is my name is Jack Martin. Our concern my concern is the dam and and preservations of that area cuz that's been in there forever. And it's just an earth and dam. And it's an earth and dam. And I I'm we're quite concerned about that issue. I we What's your concern? The dam. There's a dam along the What about the dam? I'm concerned about development below that or anywhere cuz it's not overly stable. We don't think. Probably not.

And there's a lot of wildlife through there. Yeah, there's a lot of elk and deer. elk and deer and eagles and that's my concern. Has fish and wildlife or any part of wildlife been asked about the I need to get names provide testimony. Okay, thank you. Sorry.

No. Uh so fish and wildlife is doesn't have jurisdiction over this area because it's in the city limits and so we don't protect fish and wildlife within the city but uh you know but with that said we do you know I guess manage and protect wetlands and so just to give you let me go to the wetland map just to uh show you this this little piece uh um Clint had delineated ated and wanted this to go away so that he could fill it in and he could build on. And when he went through the process after he had it delineated, working fish and wildlife wanted over $200,000 to do that to make that go away.

Oh, and so he's keeping it. So, and that's that little piece. So, as you start to look at the rest of this, you know, at least I don't think Clint has any intention of of developing anything below the pond. And in fact, he wants to keep all of this as one big piece and he's only looking to develop this lower resection and it's because of the wetland. So I think your concerns of not wanting to see development below you at least with Clint's plans anyway will achieve that. Okay. Clint also has livestock. That's another

Yeah. And so anyway, so from the fish and wild, at least the wildlife standpoint, it'll it'll stay open space and and you know, hopefully uh he has a nice house that when you're looking down the hill and you see it, hopefully it looks nice. So $200,000 that was the cost of mitigation for for just this for replacing or just to make it go away some other Yeah, just to make it go away. Interesting. Yeah. So, as he's like looking at some of this other stuff, I you know, it's expensive. Expensive. The state puts a big price tag on that because they don't want to see it go away.

Well, there's there's lots of animals up there, bird life and and elk and deer, and it would be a shame that the development would ruin their habitat. Yeah. Well, it is on the edge of town, and that is sort of the way town goes, right? It's eventually going to start pushing up against that stuff. We've already I mean, it's why we got deer in town, isn't it? But yeah, at one time there was a proposal to run a a road to tie into Gilcrest. Is that still on the table or below the dam there?

Well, in theory, in theory, but I think the price tag to make, you know, try to get through the wetlands is a nightmare. And so I know our public works department uh does not want to put it where it was planned in the ' 80s, you know, in early 90s. So it's it's planned on a map. So we have it on a transportation plan, but uh I don't anticipate it's ever going to go in in that location that's reflected and and uh um at least not as a road. I I know that there is a desire to run a uh a water mainline from the Second Street area over to 12th Street. and somehow get around this cuz they don't want to go through that either. They have to deal with the wetlands. But but they really need to get water over to 12 street at some point in time to support development. But uh I don't think they've gotten far enough to design to figure out how it's going to get there. Okay. Because there's a lot of hurdles that are, you know, essentially barriers that are cost prohibitive even for our public works folks. All right. Anyone else? All right. Okay. So, commission discussion.

Well, the only thing I see here that bothers me is putting that R1 up against R2. And if there was a way, I mean, it seems like that that little north panhandle piece, if that stayed R1, that would solve that problem. That's that's really the only thing I see here from from my point of view. Is that okay for me to ask a question about that or no?

Um I think we'll discuss we might ask you more specifically. Um, yeah. I'm curious if it if in effect it'll kind of look like that same sort of gradient since the development would have to be pushed down to that lower side even if it meets the standard. Is that right, Mike?

Yeah. So, the the ridge subdivision already had a variance to develop to a lower density. So while well I think the concern is valid as you're looking at you know the color match of the rural residential to the R2. You know in theory I think that's valid but I think in practice what you at least have for the ridge subdivision is you have a much lower density that was actually built when they built that devel. They didn't build it to the R2 density. So the the transition is not really the same. the only the only thing and it's not the density as much as livestock just having livestock people have you know smell flies whatever across their fence if that's going to if that's going to get under their skin.

Yeah. And I question yeah and I don't know I know that they did receive public notice you know had the opportunity to come and there are currently livestock in interface areas like that but we have livestock even within our city limits and other places that Yeah. That's grand public. Yeah. So I don't so I don't know if the impact uh you know for your typical residential development uh somebody who's going to have a small farm or you know small amount of livestock is going to have that level of impact as somebody that's raising cattle on their property. But

well yeah it wouldn't be that. But I mean, if he's proposing a development in there and it's going to be like an extension of the ridge, then yeah, it's probably not going to be livestock's not going to be much of an issue. But then why do the R1? Why not leave an R1? Yeah. Well, and that's that's a choice that you have. You could certainly pull that tax lot out of the res. Um but I just we would get a chance to address that issue when the plan for that development comes to us, right?

Yeah. He he'll be applying for he'll be applying for variance and essentially he's going to be asking for the density that the reszone would provide. So it's um so it's really up to you how you want to deal with that. So we could tonight vote to change to change the zoning basically. I don't know how to describe it, but the line that goes straight across the little pond. this one right here. Yeah. And these are all have separate tax excise that other lot and then address that lot when there's a specific plan for how it's going to be developed. You could you could you you could go the route of supporting a variance instead of the reszone and that would the only difference is is the livestock component and this is going to the city council anyway, right?

Yeah. Yeah. And the livestock component I think depends a lot on what those lots look like, right? If those houses If well I guess a lot the houses are built closer to those houses on ridge and the pasture is further up the canyon. That's a lot different than the vice versa, right? Yeah. I mean he's if he's designing half to 3/4 acre lots is is kind of on average. I mean they're mix match of of lots but they're we're talking livestock. We're really talking horses. We're not really talking cattle, right? I suppose what is included in a livestock? I mean, I doubt anybody's going to raise hogs, but it is possible. No, we don't we don't allow we don't allow that in the city. That's not

right. So, you're pretty much talking chickens, goats, horses, cows, llamas. They're all lumped under. There's some chickens on lots that are less than What? What is it? 10,000 square feet. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's the That's the difference that you'll see in by excluding that is is they'll likely come in and ask for the variance and you'll be looking at essentially the exact same development under a variance just without livestock, you know, and if this is important to him, then uh he can come to city council. Okay. And lobby case included. Yeah.

That would be that would be my recommendation. I'd listen to you guys or anybody else that has thoughts on it. Yeah. Yeah, I guess I am curious about the process because you know we have one applicant here with us the smallest amount of land in in this. Did uh did we receive anything about you know from the other I guess not the other applicant but the other property owner? I did not. He's just bundled in Paul's application as supporting for his entire property included. Yeah, it was lumped in. Mhm.

Yeah. And it doesn't change the application if you vote to remove it. The application will still move forward just like this. it'll just include your recommendation to exclude it so the council can then um weigh that with the property owner if if he attends the council and ask for it to remain included. But uh

yeah, I guess I'm I don't feel as strongly about excluding that parcel only because we're hearing that folks want less development in that area. We have a lot of other um you know, we have a lot of other buildable land. I mean, in most areas of the city, I'm I'm all about more density, but um seems like here, given the topography, the wildlife, it being on the edge, I I feel personally okay with with going forward as it is. But if it's a if you feel strongly about it, I'd also support treating it separately. Well, it is a flatter piece, too. So, it's so the constraints there. The wetland is is a smaller bit and

and the topography is a less of an issue. But is I guess still a little bit of an issue on that one side. I'm fine with excluding it if that's what people prefer. We'll let the city council pass it over. I guess I Yeah, I I'm not I don't feel as strong, but since I'm assigning vote, and it sounds like I might be, um I think that um I would come down on on pushing it to the like I don't see why we would make a decision now when we don't have a specific plan for how the land would be used in front of us. We we would know more when we have the specific plan. Um, and it doesn't seem to does it create any additional like does that make it any harder for a person trying to build housing there? Because that is something

I don't think so because this is just the request that is Yeah. One thing I've learned is separate from the maybe one of the one of the things I've learned in the last year is that it's really hard to build. So I don't like to do things that are going to make it harder for housing just because we need housing. Yeah. Well, I know Clint started his his planning process for subdividing that uh that northern piece before the reszone even became an idea. Okay. And so uh so your decision on the reszone Yeah. I don't think it's going to have any influence on on his planning for moving forward in the subdivision.

Yeah. I mean, even though they didn't come to voice their opinions, those folks on Ridge Road, I feel like deserve as much protection as possible. So, we should at least know whether we're talking about putting cattle, right? You know, what kind of livestock we're talking about on how Yeah, I think um I got I got well, I got a a whole list of all the neighbors. Um as well as verbal confirmation that they're very in support of this move to RR1. Um I emailed that to Mike actually. I didn't realize there was a and I got a verbal from Ror. He's somewhere along the ridge there cuz he got one of the letters. His son electrician was up and said, "Hey, he's all for it."

Um, one of the neighbor So, I got all but one. One is uh they're all supportive, but they didn't weren't all able to show up and some were out of town. I wasn't able to signature, but as far as what I was very blunt with them with what we're trying to do. Um, and some of them were are on the ridge um that got the letter and had full support in this just cuz they don't want to see, you know, a ton of homes done in there. And we're not trying to not build homes and we're just trying to, you know, limit it a little bit. Makes sense. You're Paul. I'm Paul. Okay. But and this doesn't doesn't actually say anything about Troyer on this this signature sheet. Uh he supports it. But no, it says we support the request of Paul Swagger.

Right. Cuz I was I was the one that did the leg work on it. He's working out of town, wasn't he? Did they know about the rest of this? Is it the question? Yes. Yep. It's the one. It's the whole I show them the whole thing. So, it was all the neighbors to the what would be the east and then Verbal and I got Barney on there which is kind of in the middle there. And then I got um Yeah. So, this is Barney's property. Yeah. And then to north is Romer is somewhere in there.

Like I'm going to ask you a strangely worded question. Tell tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about all the periphery of town being built being being zoned lower density and being built and sort of constraining how much space we've got inside town as we do need more housing. Does that make sense? because it seems like all of these all of these what we call them per urban like interface properties are as they're desirable. Let's be real like if you want to live there there's good views. Well, they are and and I haven't got into because I I'm not part of the fire chief Yeah.

component, but there is a whole component of of urban fire interface that, you know, we're not talking about here tonight that probably is a valid element of this reszone because there's a there's a whole movement of trying to minimize development in that I think it's just called the urban interface. Yeah. That wildland urban interface. Yeah. because those are those are homes that are at much higher risk of fire and yeah, you know, you know, so that's, you know, I think that's that's a reason that if we brought the right people in the room, they would do whatever they could to convince you to support a reszone

maybe. Yeah. And maybe even to a density that would even be less than two, you know, cuz they would prefer to see nothing

and uh and just allow folks to have what they have out there and preserve it. uh- because of that fire risk. And so um and it is hillside, we do have we do have erosion and we have so besides fire, we have erosion issues and and other things that as you develop that then you you create more potential for for folks on the downhill side to receive uh you know higher impacts. And so there's there's a number of things to consider um that kind of go with this um you know I just gave you just based on the information that that we know as opposed to you know what theories are that that folks have out there. So are there the number you cited at the outset around the 200 something units?

So if I'm understanding that what you're saying is in the rest of our boundaries There's enough unbuilt space for 200 more housing units. There is enough space for a lot more than 200. That's just at the minimum density. So if it was all built just the minimum, it would be a 200. It would probably be more than that. We have 200 acres of surplus.

So that's the surplus that we have. We have a 300 and some acre need and we have 200 acres of surplus above that. So somebody came along and wanted to build town houses or stuff like the true that true avenue like you know the low the lower end of cost housing of our area that your sense is there's there's not plus of land like that's not the constraining factor. Yeah, there's as far as I'm the constraint is is land that's for sale, but as far as the available land in our jurisdiction,

there's no constraints whatsoever. We we can support pretty much any type of development that that comes to our community assuming somebody's willing to sell their property. That's a whole another conversation. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I think that was why I, you know, and I also am very in support of more housing, but is that the right location for it given the wetlands, the fire risk and the erosion and topography? You know, we're not going to get lowcost housing in that area anyway. You know, given the building costs that would be on that the slopes and everything. Well, I also definitely feel like that we should develop the the reasonable approach is to have the highest density in the core and then have it less and less. And that's kind of what we're doing here. But which is also part of my concern about having this one piece that's sticking in that would then be green surrounded by white and blue or pale blue and dark blue, you know? I mean,

yeah. Do you think that that plot that we're reszoning is significantly different than what's maybe just to the west of it? I think it's the same. So, the reason why the green line or the green transition between the green and the light blue is what it is is that's a 30,000 ft contour.

And so, at whatever point in time the zoning was created, it generally the zoning follows property lines. And for whatever reason, it followed that 3,000 uh foot contour. But I believe it had to do with uh city water and sewer services and city water has water pressure roughly to the 3,000 ft elevation. Once you get above that, we don't have enough pressure to support development. And so I think that's why that transition was there is so that the light blue area in theory would be that higher density that we could support with city services. The darker green is we can't really support. those try to minimize development in those areas. But uh it didn't take into consideration at the time that uh those colors were done. It didn't take into consideration u other factors like wetlands and other topography.

So does that mean that the RR1 you you could have uh a well a residential well? No, you cannot. It has to be city water. Okay. and city sewing. Yeah. Yeah. There's several houses that are in those that have well, but uh but for new development, uh we just wouldn't allow development if it couldn't be served.

What just now we're just all over. Why is that in our interest? Why would we why do we want people to be on our sewer and like if they're willing to dig their own well? because that's what supports your city is is folks having city services and you don't want wells and septics and part of that is preserving the aquifer and there's all kinds of reasons but but within the city is is it's it's our requirement as part of managing urban growth boundary and it's one of the exercises we go through now when we uh when we look at commercial and industrial and we look at different expansion is can you serve that and if the answer is no you can't if we were to go back and have that exercise today. There's a I bet you there's a lot of land in our urban growth boundary that would not be in our urban growth boundary because our answer would be no, we can't serve that. And so as we went through the exercise, we wouldn't be able to bring it in because we can't serve it.

Does any of that change any of your thoughts about that lower property or do you still want to see that come up with? No, I I I'm I'm going to stick if if you guys want to just just uh go with it, then I'll just vote no and we can move on. Um I'm I'm fine with that coming up with an actual plan to it. I mean, if especially if that's going to happen, I don't like create extra paperwork, but if there's some potential concerns, I It looks to me like the only issue is going to be livestock or no livestock. Mhm. and and I just it it bugs me to have have that RR1 bumping up against that R2. Okay. Any other I can make a motion.

Okay. Yeah. If you want to make a motion and we'll Do I have to make it as it's written or can I You can make your own freestyle. You You can freestyle it if you want, but it's helpful if you kind of use the motion. But I think to help you with your motion when it comes to that piece is I would just move to adopt the findings that are in the staff report, you know, with the exception of removing that northern parcel. And that could be could be that generic and I'll fix it from there. I move that we accept the recommendations in the staff report with the amendment that we excise the lot that is close to Ridge Drive. A second. All right. All in favor? I I

All right. So, motion passes and that's what we've got. Thank you guys. But that's just a recommendation to city council. Yep. I have you better start making campaign don.

So, October 8th. October 8th. October 8th at city council. And if you don't mind, if you'll reach out to Clinton, encourage him to show up. He's supposed to be here. He told he texted me two hours ago. Cool. [Laughter]

Thank you guys so much for that. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you all for coming. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you guys. We have other business. I don't see any old business. Is there any city planner comments? Yeah. So, our next meeting is October 14th. Okay. And we have at least three items. Maybe. So anyway, yeah, it would be nice if we had more than a quorum. So we'll show here. I will not be here. Okay, I'll be here. As far as I know, I'll be here. I'll Yeah. So, we'll reach out to our other two commissioners and hopefully they'll be available.

Yeah. But should work. Yeah, that's the only thing that I have. Oh, and then next month he'll probably also have uh our new city manager will probably show and introduce himself. He's probably not going to stay, but he'll at least pop in and introduce himself. He's trying to at least do that with some water permissions. So, at least that way he has started today. Yeah, he's he's been on for I think two weeks now. When does the new fire chief start? What's that? When does the new fire chief start? He's technically here, you know, because he's our deputy fire chief, you know, and so he's officially it'll be I think it's November 1st

is his official you're on your own and our current fire chief is officially retired and so any commission final commission comments. What's this under? Correspondence. Correspondence. Oh, a new binder. Yeah. Oh, you know, just the I had no idea. Advisory Commission. Yeah. Um something from the state.

Yeah. Creating advisory commissions is the ordinance resolutions on that like how many we're supposed to have for planning commission and uh who can live outside city limits inside. I think planning commission has to be all city but uh was it landmarks one in the county. Oh, did you shut it off? I did shut it off. It was glitching. So you can say whatever you want now. You don't have to filter anymore. It's just information. Yeah. Thank you. You want to read it?