Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'd like to welcome you as a planning and zoning commission. We'd like to welcome the public here today. Grateful for the opportunity to meet with you. We're grateful that you took the time to be here. We're going to start this uh planning commission by just following the agenda. Um I've asked member McMillan if he would offer a prayer. After that, we will have the pledge of allegiance.

Father, we thank that we gather together today as a planning commission and as a community and we ask you the heavenly spirit to be with us to help us to collaborate together and make decisions for the welfare of the community. We ask that we can all temper ourselves and act in good faith. We say these things humbly son Jesus Christ. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. I would like to say something. We have a new member of the commission. I'd like to welcome his name is Travis Taylor. We're glad to have him on here with us. So, thank you for being here. Thank you. Um I'm looking for an approval of the agenda. Second. All in favor? I I

Okay. Um there any declarations of conflict between anybody on commission? Anyone have a problem? All right. Um, members of the public, we are now going to go into the public comment portion of our meeting. Um, if you signed up, you're welcome to come up. We'd ask you to make your comments a little bit brief. if you would address your concerns to anything outside of these uh public hearings. You'll have a chance to speak when that happens if you'd like to. But anything else that you'd like to discuss with us, you're more than welcome to come up and address whatever you'd like. Seeing none, we'll move on. Um Jeremy, you want to do number six for us?

Uh good evening, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the planning commission. Welcome to to member Taylor. Uh item number six on the agenda, Mr. Vice Chair, is the wall reszone. Um and just wanted to uh head off any discussion tonight. uh no action is needed. Um staff has been talking with an applicant gaining a clearer understanding of their request and so the request that came out in the notice isn't reflecting kind of their intention and so staff will will uh renotice uh and and identify a f future planning commission meeting date and bring that forward again. Thank you. So, do I need to do anything else?

No action needed. No, no motion. Okay, we don't need a motion on Thank you.

So, item number seven, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, is the Whisper Ridge at Stone Canyon Development Agreement. The packet says the first amendment. Um, the applicant clarified recently that this is the third amendment to that development agreement. And the request for uh tonight, Mr. Vice Chair, is to amend the Whisper Rigid Stone Canyon Development Agreement to remove the requirement for a professional property manager to maintain the common open space as was submitted in your packet tonight. Uh the language of the original development agreement uh constrains them to hire professional management. They wish to manage them manage the property themselves, the HOA property. Um and so the that does require uh an amendment and a legislative action. Um as far as a review as staff conducted a review that consists of the planning staff and the county attorney um finds that this is a pretty uh simple amendment, very minor in scope and and has the following findings, Mr. Vice Chair, from the uh packet that I'll read tonight. Uh the number one that the proposal is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Two, that removing the professional management requirement allows the community to self-manage common areas while reserves are built and maintenance needs are addressed. And three, that the amendment maintains the intent of the development agreement and does not alter approved land use standards, required improvements, or overall development density. Uh the applicant is in the audience tonight. Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, thank you. Thank you. So, this is a public hearing. I'm going to turn to the commission. You guys hear from the

public hearing? Well, that's why I'm asking. You want to do him first or you want to do the public hearing first? Public hearing. Maybe you can address the concern. Okay. All right. We'd like to open this up for public hearing then. Any member of the audience who would like to come up and speak again for a short duration, just get your point across to us. We can't interact with you when you're talking. We'll take notes. We'll find out what your concerns are and we'll try and address them later in the meeting. But we'd just like to hear what you have to say about this if you'd like to comment on them. I move to go into public hearing. Second. All in favor? I

not sure why I'm up here. Uh, could we get you to state your name at the beginning? Andy Andre.

Uh, Mountain Green. Well, we're all Mountain Green, I guess. Uh the Stone Mountain uh development is we've been here for five years and the the people that are supposed to be taking care of the the gate, the entryway and and the pond and that have really been reluctant or non-performing. And uh I I just want to say that I I would I might be an old man, but I'm still good for something and I' I'd be willing to to help out in in in maintaining the the uh the beauty and integrity of the area. And uh I really I we've contacted the people that are supposed to to uh be in charge or be uh taking the doing the maintenance on the on the area. They give us a good story on the phone, but they don't they just don't perform. I think if that's not a very professional way to handle their business and I I'm I'm sure that we can do a better job.

Hi, my name is Bob Woodcock. I'm a resident of Whisper Ridge. have been a resident for about 14 years. We have um been going through a horrendous problem with the property development people. It started out with Henry Walker. Then it went to Oakwood Homes and now it's gone to Greg North. All of these developers performed terribly. they didn't complete the obligations they had under the CCRs or the development agreement. Um I have spent many hours um with many people trying to get the entrance way trying to get the other common areas just you know completed and maintained. It's been it's been awful. We now have the we have the developer has now turned the HOA over to the homeowners. We have a group of very active, attentive um excited people that want to turn this development into a a very nice um common area that we can all you know enjoy. Um, we have hired some subcontractors that are doing a very good job with the landscaping. They'll do a better job with the snow plowing. Um, it's I I'm a real estate attorney by trade and I frankly have never seen a development agreement where the county [clears throat] has been asked to um approve uh the professional management of of an HOA. So it came as quite a surprise when we were going through the materials that you know we were going to amend these things and now we have found

that the the county does have a contractual right to say yay or nay. I would simply encourage you to support this amendment. It'll help the homeowners and and make a much nicer place to live. Would anyone else like to address us? Got a motion. Motion to exit public hearing.

Second. All in favor? I would like to. What do you want to hear from the applicant? That would be great. Um, do I need a motion for We'd like to invite the applicant to come up then address.

I am Bert Schuffer from Whisper Ridge. First thing I want to say is go pack go. Packers out in the back there. Sorry about that. Is there anything you guys want me to address or Well, can you give us kind of a vision of what you're

So, [clears throat] so I do appreciate um some of our residents coming out and talking about how they're willing to help out. And um so like Bob was saying, uh this development's been through some bankruptcies and and recessions and three different developers and none of them have really put the care and attention into the community. And uh we finally got Craig North, yeah, Craig North to turn over the HOA. And immediately we we jumped out and cleaned up a lot of the the garbage and mess and debris that's been in our in our common spaces that had not been taken care of. [clears throat] In that turnover, we found out that there were like $50,000 worth of unpaid bills and uh $2,000 in our reserve when the reserve study called for about 50,000. That's an old reserve study pre Biden inflation. So, we're probably not that good either. So, it's probably going to be worse when we redo that uh reserve study. So, one of the big issues is we've had this management company for 14 plus years and they take their their cut every month and we've been paying them for years and they don't do anything like it's just not up up to snuff. Like they're not doing what needs to be done. Um, so as a measure to battle these bills, unpaid bills, and to build our reserves, we want to self-manage for a time because um I think it's like $4 or $5,000 a year for that management company. And I would love to put that

$45,000 into reserves or actually repairing things that have been needing repair for years. Um [clears throat] so as a community we brought that to our HOA meeting this last year in May and it was approved uh overwhelmingly I think it was like 90% in approval [cough and clears throat] of all residents everyone voted everyone was participating everyone wants to be a part of this we uh at that meeting everyone came and we cleaned up and pitched in and and we've been doing our best to to address these bills. So that extra $4 or $5,000 a year will help us get rid of those bills, build up the reserve, and then I would love nothing more than return to a management company that performs so I don't have to do that. So that's the intent. Do any of the members of the commission have any questions? Thank you.

So, let's have a discussion amongst the planning commission. Does anyone have anything they'd like to discuss between us? appreciate the willingness to to take ownership of the area they live in and and pitch in and maintain it rather than just fall upon a management company. Obviously wasn't performing manner which they wanted to. So appreciate some ownership of the area around them. I think this is the exact opposite of what the county intended when they inserted that language in there was that the residents that actually live there and care about it would have their hands tied not be

I feel like this one's pretty straightforward and simple. recommend approval to the county commission for an amendment to Whisper Ridge at Stone Canyon Development Agreement to remove the requirement for a professional property manager to maintain the common open space with the findings listed in the staff report based on the text listed in exhibit C for the staff report dated January 8, 202. I'll second.

So Debbiey's proposal and Travis's second. All those in favor? I do. I even vote. Okay. Sorry about that. Moving on. Item number eight. staff.

Thank you. Uh this is application number 23.072. Um the uh the applicant has been working with staff and the county attorney for approximately 18 months to uh find a solution for owners that own a portion of phase 9 who want to pull out of the Cottonwood uh development agreement um and have their land reverted to 820. Uh in that discussion uh with that applicant, uh the proposal is to uh pull out a portion of phase 9 and then add in additional land from an adjacent property owner to the east uh on a one to one. The new property owner uh who would be part of the development agreement would be uh putting in additional amenities, trails, uh etc. Um, and it would affect uh phases six and nine, neither of which have have developed yet. Um, instead of me going through and trying to talk about everything that they're they're doing or they're proposing, I'm going to turn it over to the applicant uh who has a presentation. And um, so hopefully that'll answer a lot of the questions that are taking that. We'd like to invite them up to show us the deadline. Okay, my name's Heidi Nettleton. This is Ray Nettleton. And uh we're going to kind of do it together if that's okay. We have a slide deck to present. I'll try and get through it as succinctly and quickly as possible so we can get to uh the questions and concerns that you or the community might have. Um, thank you for your time today and uh for caring.

Um, so we represent the land owners to the east, Morgan County Cottonwoods LLC, which is my um family's land. Um, which is currently not in the Cottonwoods. Um, phase six owners, Eric and Peggy Pier of the Turkey Flabs LLC and Max Wilson. So there's they jointly or they have they own phase 6 A and 6B and then phase nine owners which encompasses Ted Taylor of Mount Green Investments and Mark and Sheila Wilkinson family trust. So um like Josh said we've been working with the uh the the planning group and the deput the county attorney to come to a comprehensive plan and combined plan for the properties. I think um if some of you were here and remember Matt Wilkinson started this and I think came before you once I think it was I think it was back in December of last year or maybe January so it's been a whole year um uh but since then we've kind of gotten a more comprehensive plan that you do okay so the proposed changes to the con development PUD overlay zone and the development velment agreement and the commitments would be um codified in the revised ordinance and the amendment number three to the continent's development agreement. So this is just an overall and we can go back and forth from these maps once you have questions but this is just an overall of the area. The yellow um oh whoops the yellow we got a laser pointer but that didn't seem to work in the work session. Um the yellow is uh is is the cottonwoods development that's mostly been developed. Now we don't represent phase eight. I want to make that clear. Um you'll see a dotted line. If you kind of show that dotted line those that th

that dotted line is the existing boundary line of the Cottonwoods um the Cottonwoods area. So, what we're proposing is the red hatched area is the area that Matt, the Wilkinson Family Trust, wants to remove and the green area is the area that MCC, my family, would replace. So, as Josh says, it's a onetoone. Um, and we've had we have legal descriptions of both of these and they are the they are the same acreage.

Okay. Um so we kind of have to go back and do just a really little brief history on the cottonwoods. Um so gardener development was uh the original developer and proposed a development agreement and concept plans back for the entire area which was36 acres back in 2006. Um that includes that included the cottonwoods pud zone ordinance and the DA with the development agreement. So phases five, six, seven, eight and nine parcels were under purchase options but expired in 2011. Um phases six, eight and nine areas were sold to others and this kind of created the complication that we're we'll come today for. So, the Wilkinson Family Trust, um, part of phase 9, that red hatched area, wished to have their land removed from the Cottonwoods DA zone, and, um, Matt can come up in a bit and talk about that if you'd like to hear from him. [snorts] The property to the east was originally contemplated to be put into the Cottonwood zones, but we decided not to do that. And, you know, 20 plus years have passed, and the land owners are requesting some minor changes um, to the 2005 plan. So these are just the existing concept plans that are in the zone. Um as um they they are concept plans, loose concept plans and it shows open space areas too. We can come back to that if you want to.

No, let's go forward.

Um so our proposed concept plan, this is kind of shows everything. We'll go through this. Um but it shows the area to be removed, the area to be added, um the phases. So you can see phase six is up there, phase 9 is down here, and [clears throat] then the the yellow and the the colors are the uh the trails system that we're proposing. So the key changes are basically two key changes. Well, so one is the boundary line adjustment to the cottonwood overlay zone. So that's what we call the land swap. So [clears throat] that's one. And then two is minor changes to the Cottonwoods at Mountain Green development agreement. So within those changes are amenity commitments, omitting the equestrian center in phase six, adding the flexibility to put some mansion homes in phase six, which are referenced in the DA, and the flexibility to allow some single family lots greater than 8,000 square feet. So the boundary line adjustment areas are like we said, it's 193 acres to remove to be removed, 193 acres to be added. total acreage stays the same. [clears throat] [snorts]

Yeah, I'll just so this so that's a legal description. So, um the owners do not want to be part of the cottonwoods. Um the area would that to be removed would revert back to the underlying zone which is the A20 zone. Um, and then the vast majority, so the vast majority of this area isn't even visible from the cottonwoods or mountain grain. No trails were proposed in the original DA and it's generally steep topography. We have a couple pictures on the next slide. So this is looking east and north north from old mountain highway. And basically if you show that ridge area

but the the ridge line you couldn't see down. This is this is taken like I said from the moment on highway.

Okay. Um the 193 acres to be added um is uh more than 163 acres to be preserved as native open space. We would add up 1.5 miles approximately of trails to that area for use of all cot all residents of the cottonwoods. Um we feel like it's is superior viewhed that's protected. Um so at the southern end there 23 acres on the south end is already in the future land use map as RR1 as kind of pre-entitlements. So we hadn't got to the reszone. We're considering this part of that but we we already had the pre-entitlements in the future land use um for the existing zone which is MU160. one lot is possible on the remaining 170 acres of the 193 added and so the net 24 pre-entitlements already exist on that. Um so we'll comply with the viewshed and the homes um I guess most importantly the homes can be clustered um further protecting that viewshed. So this is looking east and southeast from phase 8. It's hard from reference points, but this is this is our land showing along that that east boundary. Um the amenity commitments. So these are in phases both six and nine. Um one, no park was originally required for phase six, but we will commit to providing a top park and pickle ball pickle ball court for the residents of phase six. Phase 9 will install 1acre pocket park originally required in the area. In addition, phase nine may add a pickle ball court or pool club amenity for phase nine. Um, we'll add over two miles of trails over and above the current plan for phase six and nine. And all

trails will be open to all residents of the word.

Have one question. Keep talking phase n. Can you differentiate when you mean phase n? Okay. So, fa phase nine. Do I want to go? So when I'm considering, do you want to go back to the concept plan? Nope. Do you have the phase 9 that's being removed? So phase 9 is almost like a replace. You're going to have your phase 9.

So we're we're considering phase phase 9 is multiple owners. So phase 9 includes currently includes the Mark and Sheila Wilkinson Family Trust and Ted Taylor um who's here today. But when we do the land swap along the ridge, we'll we consider that still part of phase 9. Does that make sense? Am I where the amenities are going? I mean, you just say phase 9 and then Oh, okay. We can show we can go back on the map and show you. Let's uh

and we can dial into stuff. Yeah. Okay. You can go to the next one. Okay. So omitting the equestrian center in phase six. So in the original DA concept, this is a requirement and we want to remove that development requirement. So there is already an existing equestrian center located in Mountain Green. Um the original or the the owner um sent a letter to the uh previous planner that he didn't care to have another one. Um, we we have some concerns with additional road traffic and the current requirement actually is is no longer possible. If we can dial in to this area right here. So, this is Oh,

go ahead.

All right. How about I might this blue line is the original development agreement and when [clears throat]

uh the developer did the north side ski lakes this this portion right now I did it again sorry this this portion was incorrectly removed from the cottonwood development agreement and added to the uh north side creek. So this little piece right here is this this is where all the barns and the corrals and everything was supposed to go, but it's physically impossible. So the county put us in a position, not the county, maybe the developer put us in position that we had to install this, but the land was removed. So this will help correct that.

So um we'd like the option to put mansion homes in phase six. Um these were included in the original um PUD overlay zone. Um and they're they're called mansion homes in the the in the development agreement in the PUD. And we'd like the option to add um proposing a maximum of 25. So they're town houses that are designed to look like one single home with garages in the rear. um with the open space and setbacks provided in this area uh it has lesser density than a typical townhouse development. Now obviously these are all concept plans we have to come forth each um phase or would have to come forth with a plan to comply with all the requirements. Yeah, the the pickle ball court in Tot Park is envisioned to kind of go in between here on on these uh and then u this isn't shown very well, but it they will be rear loaded. It'll be very classy with the driveway going to the back.

So, um the the density and the open space. So, essentially our plan, we've worked with the the uh the the county planning department about this. We we have an overall average there. So the overall average density was 0.85 uh dwelling units per acre. Our proposed density for phase 6 and phase 9 is 0.58. The development agreement required 40% open space and as the owners of phase six and nine we are committing to greater than 58% um excluding all the lot areas and roads. Um as defined in the revised ordinance uh the open space commitments will be res preserved as agricultural open space, native open space or community open space. Um, we want to make sure we have a bunch of uh supplemental sites, but we want to make sure that we can either ask or apply to join the existing HOA or create our own. Um, so there there's no commitments right now with for them. Um, and this is just an exhibit showing the breakdown of the zoning or of the densities.

So, I'll take over here, honey. So phase 6 a here's the phases the different property owners the serial numbers and then the acres. So if you take the 085 times their their acres you get these lots. So if we were to go with the original densities allowed by the greater zone we would we would have 369 entitlements. We're only asking for the for 253. So this is a absolute cap codified from that area. So no one once approved no one will be able to go in and say oh let's do one more or let's do five more. So that that is the cap. Um just we will note that uh the owners that are coming together these four parcel owners we we do have the ability to trade and and move those 253 round a little bit but a maximum of 10%. So it the numbers might change in an area but the total will never change.

And this is obviously um uh when we do the plats it it's physical constraints landslide areas and that kind of thing. So it could possibly be less but that's um we'd like to allow for single filement lots greater than 8,000 square feet. um uh the revised ordinance would show that the proposed consumpt plan does not show any lots less than 10,000 square feet. This gives us the ability the flexibility to mix in some smaller lots that would require less water um easier to zerocape um and would only increase the open space and decrease density from the current concept plan. So, normally when you're saying you want a smaller lot, you think, oh, it's more more more density. but we're already capping our density. Um so this just gives us a little flexibility if some of your regular lot sizes. Um so closing thoughts before we you know you know questions. Um so the presentation commitments pertain to phase six phase 9 and new phase 9. Um so it's less than the current average density uh additional open space and viewshed protection uh commitments. It adds more trails, two times the original plan, um, to be used by all Cottonwood zone residents. Um, prevents any subsequent development of open space. Um, and like I said, each subdivision would go through the future review recommendations by planning for each um, each plat. Um, and no changes to the dark sky lighting requirements, original protection, or anything like that. Okay. Um, I would like to go back to that map. Let's go back a couple maps. Um, and then if you would like to have, um, Matt Wilkinson

give comments, you can do that right now. Would you want to do that? it. The original developer purchased one through five phases, but he defaulted on the completed purchase, which put uh the county in a compromised position, put us in a compromised position. Now, we have to try to resell those. The land that we're asking to have removed when we came back 18 months ago um [clears throat] was never purchased by the original original developer, but he's been leveraging it for 15 years or whatever. When I when I came originally, um I only wanted to have my land taken out or excuse me, my parents' land taken out. That's all we were looking for. As I was talking with Josh, he says this actually does two things. It still secures the open space and it's actually utilizing open space. The open space the Nettletons are providing actually have the trails that were originally promised to the Cottonwood residents that they've never had access to because because the developer didn't build those trails and he didn't buy it but it was promised. This actually provides to um it provides the residents it actually solves a lot of problems. It looks kind of complicated, but it solves a lot of problems for the county, for us, the Neettletons, and most importantly for the the Cottonwoods residents that originally were promised something. Um, so we did have a work session back in mid November, early November with the um the county council um just to kind of head off any issues that they might see

or have. Um they seemed immenable and didn't really have any notes. Um um but I I think I'm confident in saying we've we've we've been working on this for over a year um going back and forth. Um you know, should we do this part first and then keep coming back to you? But the the consensus and the advice was that we should try and look at this more comprehensively. It's fortunate that we've um come together as some of the remaining you know minus phase eight but uh you know the different uh owners and we've had [cough] several meetings on this working to get development and infrastructure that we need to to move forward kind of development. Do you have any questions for me right now or

do you can you go back? You had the little chart that showed the number of units the proposing like the 253 that one [clears throat] that one. Okay. So, you're the Morgan County Content LLC. That's your face. That's that's my family. Okay. 193 acres with 165 units. No, that would be the maximum. If if you take that 085 and times uh 193, that would be that number. We're we're going we're asking for way less space. What's that? Okay, I'm confused. Is the 19 this 193 is this not the open space?

That is the area being brought into the Cottonwoods development agreement. Open space. So the no it's it's both open space and our 35 lot entitlements combined. You said yeah just on those parcel numbers.

So there's there's more details and in tables and stuff in the ordinance and whatnot but we're based of this 193 I think we're committing to 170 acres of open space. And so the the the 23 acres and we're probably going to do less or it'll be more more open space than that, but we're we're committing and codifying whatever's in that table. There's a table attached. We couldn't attach everything. There's a table attached to the uh um ordinance

that that 165 number that's 165 is the lot count. 165 is what is currently the the dwell dwelling units per acre under the current zone is 165. But we're only reserving 35 35. So what we're saying is we could get 165 just by the pure average. Pure average. I mean the current zones MU160 corre to the proposed to the proposed land swap. So this would then be within the cottonwoods, right? No. And so it would Yeah. It wouldn't still be

So if the staff was done, [clears throat] the entitlements then would be 165, but your planning would be 35. No, we're well, we're only asking for the 35 in is that the overall density because currently it's M1 MU 160. After the land swap though, you take those entitlements. It's MU160, but it's also in the future land use map. So we have that we have 24 in the pre pre-entitlements [laughter] not the whole the whole 193 the 165 is an illustrative number overall density is like 085 right now they're showing that they're proposing a.58 which would be lower density than what the original illustrative number saying 58 would be possible at this but

our intent is to go less yeah it's just illustrative so and actually Josh to clarify the 85. It's actually more density. Yeah, they they went they went conservative on the average. So, but of the 193 acres that they're bringing in, 170 is reserved as open space. Yeah, they're asking for 35 dwelling units in here. 170 open space. And how much is leaving in the bottom half, the south portion? There there's actually a table in the

in the I don't know if you want to pull that up. It it's a little complicated because phase 9 has multiple owners and I don't think it's it I don't know if you're going at phase 9 has to have the exact same amount of open space as the original phase 9 because this does there's a certain amount of open space that has to go throughout the whole Cottonwoods development. And so I I I I don't think you could do a phase 9 original and new phase 9 complete exact swap.

Yeah. And the developer over the years did not put in the major amenities, the equestrian center and the golf course. The golf course in the development agreement language was squirly. It said May. Um so after 20 plus years, it's not going to go in. They don't even own the land. So even if they wanted to, I don't think the owner would be willing to sell it. So there's not going to be a golf course there. There's no trails. So the proposal here is to actually bring meaningful amenities to a development to offset the amenities that were promised but not provided. And if you look at the phases that were developed, it looks like they frontloaded the density into those phases while not developing the phases that had the major amenities in it. I don't know why they did that. I'm not going to comment on that, but that's what it looks like to me from when I look at those maps and and the amount of lots that have been put in already [clears throat] and the remaining lots based on the 877 that are left over to fill out the remaining three phases. So staff has been working with them to to try to solve this kind of conundrum. Um on top of that, there's development issues with phases six and eight. I'm not sure about phase 9, but phase six and eight, their elevations are too high. So the current current water tower that they have won't provide the sufficient water pressure to serve them anyway. And so the one person I know of in the past couple years that has been working to bring a water tank and a reservoir to that area to help provide the water for that is Mr. Appleton. the percent open space needs to maintain that's called out in the development agreement and the PDU overlay. That's not technically correct because they are

amending the development agreement and they are amending the um the uh the PRUD ordinance that's attached to our code and as such uh that can be amended as well and if they're bringing additional amenities that would never have come uh to the Cottonwoods development because the phases are not owned by Mr. gardener. Uh they're owned by other parties and they're bringing additional things like a potential water tank and reservoir to help serve the community. Um then those typically can offset additional density.

But I haven't seen the changes of the calculations for the density as far as the open space% open space. I don't see that as a change in any of the documents. Well, they required 40% and collectively we're providing [clears throat] 60% within our area. We can't control anything that happened in phases one through five or seven. And I thought you had a slide on that that showed how much open space. Yeah, you just have that it's close to what 58%.

Yeah, it was 60% 59 something%. Yeah, there's here's the there's different types of open space. So, in phase six, there's 4.6 that will remain agricultural open space. Phase 9 A, which is kind of the lower part, there'll be 38 acres of agricultural. And phase 9B, which is the very upper part of phase 9, same thing with the the native open space. um 26 acres in phase 6, 20 acres in phase 9A [clears throat] and that's 163. So that 170 I I I said is is we're providing 6.5 in say in agricultural open space and 163 is in native open space. So there's the 170

and then the part so the total is the 260 and then that's how we got the percentage of the 50 58% um open space. So, and then we have the other uh table showing the trails and how we came to the conclusion. Yeah. And then and then by phase, this is how many lineal feet of each type of trails. Um that might change a little bit, but we're guaranteeing 4.7 miles of trails. And I I've got a slide somewhere in here. I don't think we need to go to it, but we're we're more than doubling the amount of public trails for the original. Can we go back to the for that area?

The one of the earlier slides that shows kind of everything on there. I think it's in the beginning. Yeah. And it'll show that this trail and kind of orient yourself a little. Yeah, that one. So, um, again, that this is the space that's being removed. Show the red hatched area. Okay. Yeah, that red hatched area has been removed. And that's the part if if you're familiar with the area that's the area that we showed the photos of the It really drops off right here. You see it's it's flat here and then this is really high contour.

Yeah. So the green area is what we're adding and we're proposing a trail from there to there basically all along that bridge line basically. not I mean not a paved trail but just a nature trail. Um we may have to do a water line there anyway and we could do kind of in conjunction um there. So that's where we get the the the biggest trail thing. And then the other, and Josh mentioned the U, we've planned a [clears throat] a water tower here and a reservoir here. Potentially another reservoir here. Can you go to

But two of those have been through the conditional use permit process and have been approved.

Can you go to the next [clears throat] map? I think there's a better one that shows some of the trails. Well, that's what uh uh go to the next go to that slide you were just talking I guess. Sorry. So, I mean you can see the the trail. Um, and if you guys know where the Cobble Creek Reservoir is right there and you know that view, I should have uh I didn't go through hiking because it takes pictures out um that way. But that's really a I mean I would love to walk that like every evening every morning. But that's that would be the trail all along the the the ridge line there and looking out towards the mountains and and the view that way. I mean, that to me is a far better uh amenity than anything you're gonna get from

of our 30 35 lots there almost all of them are right here very concentrated in this this one area. There's just a a couple home sites here and like two two there and but by and large you know this is all a good view natural outdoors. Yeah, these guys have a nice view and everybody. you go over the amenities that you were proposing again. The slide kind of went through kind of fast. Yeah. Go go go keep going and we'll see. [clears throat]

So, the main the main amenity um is the the the big trail. But in phase six um which is the the north end, we would provide a todd park and a pickle ball court. No park was originally required in phase six before um phase nine will install the 1acre pocket park. I think in the current development agreement it says May. So we're committing to Yes, we will. And that's going to be the lower phase 9 or the upper that's phase 9 a kind of lower part. Yeah.

Um and then in addition phase nine um may add a pickleball court or a pool kind of clubhouse amenity for for phase 9. I know that um the current owner is interested in that. We put we put may because we're not sure that would be all part of you know platting each phase and we haven't got that to that specification yet of course. Where are these amenities codified at? It's in the You mean the existing ones or the ones we're proposing? You're proposing ones. They're in the uh the amendment to the development agreement.

Do those have triggers on them? I mean, obviously time. Yeah, the the other ones they frontloaded all their lots and rear loaded all their amenities. Do you have propos? So, that's a good question. Um, I think, you know, we're just trying to get kind of one step at a time as far as development, but, um, as far as triggers, uh,

it doesn't have to be specific, but are you open to those? Is that part of your plan when 25% of the locks go in, you're going to have x% of the trails or or something like that? Honestly, it's not that specific in there, but I think naturally the the tot park and the pickle ball port park as part of phase uh six will be done with the the town homes there 6A. Um and same thing with I guess the short answer is no. We didn't have we don't put time provision in there, but they would be codified in there. So if somebody did develop, they would have to put that as part of the plat review of the requirements for getting each phase up.

I think that's the key. It's part of the plat review that they'll be installing.

You say naturally, but I think this is what happens naturally without that. [clears throat] Well, I think the key difference is these land owners are signing this development agreement and committing to the amenities on their parcels and that's the difference. This is for staff. Jeremy, the link is bad for the Well, I'm asking my question on the development agreement. Third amendment. It doesn't go to it. I think we are the third amendment, right? Yeah.

Yeah. The link was Oh, the link was there. I'm having my questions. pages in our packet. That first page when you click on the link for the full size

that that is it. Yeah. Hard for me to make a decision. question. I wrote Janet an email. I got a lot of emails today. I emailed you back.

I know you did. I didn't expect that. Thank you. [clears throat] Um, mine was on The total okay the 877 but the development agreement the maximum said 830. Okay. So yes. Yes. So without the golf course the maximum numbers per the original development agreement for the entire project was 8:30. Well no 868 with the golf course. Yes. But then it was 8:30 without without the golf course. Correct. So but we're starting with this 877. Should we not be using the 830 since that's the original development agreement?

Well, so I think that I think we can go we could pick 1,200. I mean because here we're at the point where we can amend it. Um and honestly to me that looks like the original development agreement. It was something that was bargained for with the golf course with the um equestrian center. And so that's what they came up with with that. We are at a whole new animal here. And so I don't think we are bound when we're amending the development agreement to a specific number in the original. See, I can't see the amendment. So I don't know.

Can we get a copy sent to you somehow or It's not terribly long. Do you want to roll through it? Do maybe this will help. Do you guys have um a maximum number for the entire development or do you address it just for phase six and nine? The maximum? We could really only address our land. So, all we can do is promise that we're going to be way under the density of the average uh area in the development agreement, which would probably run a foul to the prior phases that are limited to the 830.

What do you think, Josh? I know the number of developed and entitled lots is somewhere between 450 and 540. Um we were trying to track down that number today. uh if it is 540 then that since they are bringing additional amenities and they're transferring amenities then I would say the 877 should still apply which would give them um 3337 something like that uh which is under the amount that they're they're asking for so so in my calculations worst case I I think they're at 540, but I heard that that it's like 450 470 of entitled lots. So, it even drops even further. So, I don't think what they're proposing would take it above the total allowed number of units at 877. Um, if it does, you are entitled to amend the development agreement if you think that the amenities that they're proposing uh would qualify the the additional lots. So since I don't have figures phase six you're proposing 67 watts or that's kind of what

Jeremy do you want to bring up that supplemental that spreadsheet I put before So what we did here is here's the here's the original phase call outs. This is the counts uh from 2005 that came up to 852. These are kind of the actual phase numbers. There's all sorts of, you know, phase 5A through 5A, whatever. There's a whole bunch of different subphases, but these items here are what was actually recorded. I went through and counted everything in Roseill, everything in Cottonwood Hills, etc. So these these white ones are actuals. Um this this 24 here is I understand Mr. Gardner went through and he he's currently proposing or building 24. So uh town homes in in phase five, but otherwise I think they're done. Basically done. Um Durst Mountain. So the ones in bold, the yellow bold that is people in our group who we represent um that we don't represent is phase eight. So I have my understanding is they don't want to put in the second road. So they're going to be 30 or less. So I plugged in 30 right there. And then again our we're committing or just we got the 111 and the 20. We got four. So technically there's a sliver of Mr. Hayward's property in phase 9. So, we went ahead and plugged in four there. So, we're at 856 um out of the 877. If you were to plug in 55, which was

shown on the original concept plan for phase 8, that I mean, you go and pop that in right now, but will be slightly over, but to the best of our knowledge, they're not going to put 55 ohms in phase 8. And even if they did, again, I would encourage you. We have 24 pre-entitlements with the the Fluma and Zona. So, you could you could you could technically get to that 901 and we'd be way under that.

Um, the other thing I would add is that uh the development agreement specifically states that they can allocate the density to whatever phase that they want those densities to go to. um it's not allocated preliminarily to individual phases. Um there's nothing in the development agreement that does that. So they can allocate the density how they will which is further complicated because of the multiple owners, right? Um and so uh it just kind of complicates things. I just want to make sure phase eight owner is protected. [clears throat] I I think they are. I think because we'd be well even if you plugged in their density.

Yeah. If you plugged in their maximum 55, you'd still be below that, you know, well below 901.

I think this is where kind of the crux of the difficultness that we have with this because we can only speak towards land that we own. Uh we did approach phase eight with us and that's fine. Um but you know that's why we had to go like an overall basis um on units per acre for for our land. Um, and you know what we're proposing is is is under that significant 9B, which is your the upper, you say 20 lots, but then I heard 35.

Yeah. If you take uh 9B, uh Ted Taylor has some of his he wants to have some larger family lots up in phase 7B. I think you have seven and we have I don't know. I think it was 11. Yeah. Well, that gets us to the 20. And phase 9B is is is a a private road, private community, uh privately maintained. Um, and phase 9 is 9A is the kind of the more traditional U like phase seven or something like that. I'd kind of like to hear public comments or go there done questioning.

Can we bring them back up afterwards if we want? Yeah, I think so. That'd be great. Thank you. [clears throat] Can you go into public hearing? Second. All in favor? I.

We'd like to invite the public to come up and share their thoughts with us if they'd be willing. Anyone would like to speak. Uh my name is Neil Jakes. I live in phase 7. Um first moved here about six years ago for temporarily. Fell in love with the place and then built a home and live here permanent. Now um this is super complicated. I don't envy you guys. Um, and you've been working on it 18 months. We've had what 20 minutes or so. Um, that's my biggest comment. I I don't know how things are done here, but it would have been nice to have more information leading up to this meeting to to know what we're looking at. It's really hard to look at these screens from back here. It sounds good, but I don't know. Um, and that's the issue. But we sure would like to have more information about this. That's all. Thank you. Two horsemen. I live in phase two of the Cottonwoods. Been there for 17 years. It appears that phase six and phase 9 amenities are only for residents of phase six and phase 9 according to the slides. Is that true? So those are essentially more private that don't belong to the entire HOA. Does the HOA get any uh or MOA actually um say in the matter discussion comments? Is that part of the plan?

We requested that they do get evening. Bill Coots um with Cottonwoods. I was the president of the master owners association. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but all of the HOAs within the Cottonwoods, they provide a representative that goes up to the higher level of the master owners association. Um, we were approached about having uh phase uh 6, 9, and 8 folks join our MOA. And quite frankly, I'll be honest with you, we did not want them to join. And the primary reason was because we didn't see what advantage it was for them to be a part of the Cottonwoods MOA because of what Hugh Horseman said, which is there's really no benefit for us. They're going to use our roads, our access and all that, but we don't get to use their park. We don't get to use their amenities other than a trail that will be going along uh, you know, along the ridge that was pointed out. So on behalf of the MOA, I would like to say that hey, we would like to have access to the park and to what other whatever amenities they have up in um 9, six, and 8 just like they have access to our amenities uh down in the Cottonwoods now. The amenities that we have to include parks and all those kinds of things. Um the other thing is uh we're changing nine phase 9 from a open space as you have well talked about. It's changing from an open space now to perhaps having homes on it. That's going to change the look of the cottonwood from [clears throat] old highway looking up. You're going to go from open space now

to to having houses. And I think that again is why Mr. horsemen wanted maybe the Cottonwoods MOA and the homeowners of the Cottonwoods to at least have an idea of what's going on here and if you're going to reszone that open space um you know it might be good to get their opinion on that. Thank you very much.

I am the current president of the MOA, the Masters Association. and we just have a few concerns. So, I just wanted to publicly state that we would really like a voice at the table for this. We would love to go through the development agreement and make sure things are being followed. Um, we would just love to give our opinion and hopefully welcome the new phases as we work together. Um the questions I have is there a geohhazard study that's done for the land that they're supposed to trade for the ones that we have now. I don't think that has been done. So that is critical that we know if it's safe to build on. Um what are we trading in that? Um the master plan also they should be submitting um a proposal to us as well that the MOA votes on and decides. So, um, that's a huge thing too that they have not done. Um, yeah, we want to enjoy the pickle ball courts. As current residents, we don't see a good value for what will be added because we're not included. Um, my biggest question is why has the MOA been excluded from the discussions? Especially as property owners, we're shareholders in that open space and we do have a right to know what's going on. Thank you. Oh, I didn't state my name. Jennifer Lance, current president of the MOA. Thank you.

Good evening. Kevin Curts. Uh, I live in phase 4. the I'm presently the HOA president for that phase in the cottonwoods. Uh this has been inferred from the previous speakers, but this has all been rather short notice on the documents and and descriptions of the changes being requested. We just respectfully request additional time before any formal decision is made so that we have a chance to review it, really understand it and have our comments, our public comments uh heard in front of the council. Thank you. Anyone else would like an opportunity?

My name's Heidi Dorius and I may be mistaken here, but we I am um my parents are Mark and Sheila Wilkinson of the trust and they are the owners of phase 9, the open space that um that was never purchased. And so as much as I really appreciate the shareholders that have know and the homeowners that have moved into the Cottonwood's concerns, they aren't actually shareholders in someone else's property and they're not shareholders in the development agreement with the county. And so I do appreciate their concerns of how things may look, but they actually don't have a say. And as they they even admitted that they were approached, they weren't interested. So these guys moved on. How many times did the Nettletons need to approach them to say, "Are you interested now? Now, if we do this, are you interested now?" That's my opinion is that I really appreciate that now they're interested, but they've already done their homework. They've been working on it for a year. They've worked they've worked with the planning commission. They have provided way more benefits than the original DA the amenities. And again, I really appreciate Josh saying they're bringing a water tank, reservoirs, water system to the development that needs it. that's not part of it at this time. There is no one else that's providing that. So what they're providing and proposing is by far the greater by far the greater commitment than a view or using a park which they can address if they if the other sher the um other phases will allow other people to come play. But I really want the planning commission to look at the way bigger picture. It benefits the community on a whole besides just views. That's all.

Last chance. Or do you want to hear from someone else? Second. All in favor?

I um I'll try to address the questions. Um [clears throat] currently the the existing development agreement requires the MOA to record something uh for each phase. It's actually the developer has to record the MOA for each phase binding that phase. And I think if you look at the master um HOA documents, it delineates what phase applies, what property is actually managed by the MOA versus the neighborhood HOAs. And so these two parcels or these two phases are not a part of it. And if there's issues with the amenities in other phases and what people have access to, I think it goes back to the original developer and what he promised the entire development and didn't follow through with.

Thank you. Um so the geohazard is not required at time of development agreement. It's required at time of platting. Um further uh the development agreement currently states that the actual layout of each of the phases isn't decided until the plat. Um so the conceptual drawing is really just that it's conceptual in nature. Uh given the geology, given infrastructure, um and other considerations, uh it typically reduces the number of lots that that can be developed. Um conceptual is typically a vision trying to capture and get the development that as many as they can but realistically uh once they start developing that number starts to go down. Um the shareholders uh unfortunately CCNRs the county doesn't enforce CCNRs. We don't care about CCNRs. Uh we don't write CCNRs. Uh we review them to make sure they meet state statute. They are recorded and adopted. Um and then they are uh enforced by private parties. We we don't do that. So uh the MOA and the HOAs, they are not shareholders uh in uh in these unpurchased lots, undeveloped lots. There have been no um there have been no plats. There's been no geohhazard studies. There's been nothing recorded on those on those parcels. So, at this time, uh, they really don't have, uh, any say in what happens on those parcels. The owners are bringing something forward before the planning commission, the county commission. Uh, the packet and the agenda have been available for, uh, nearly a week. They went out last Friday. Um, and the the information, the data has been available. I think that addressed most of one of them. I can't read the writing. Are you what are you required to how are you required to notice this to to meet state code?

To meet state code, we post the agenda uh on the state website. Um the state requires it 24 hours in advance. We post it at the exact same time that we post the agenda in the packet. The agenda and the packet are posted uh the Friday or the Thursday before the meeting. So there's a full weekend and and several days during the week that these items can be found. Um, those packets are digital or you can call my office and we can email you whatever you need. Uh, the other thing is when we post it to the state website, the packets posted as well. So, if you get notification from the state, you're going to get the packet and if there's issues with the packet, then we can we can help fix that. Uh, broken links or or whatnot. Um, property owners are noticed 10 days in advance minimum. Uh, typically we try to shoot for two weeks. what property owners

uh we noticed everybody within a th00and ft. This this development we went over and above what we needed to do. We noticed everybody within the cottonwoods and everybody within 1,000 ft of the cottonwoods. It was a lot of lot of envelopes, right? Yeah. probably one of the biggest notifications we've sent out since I've been here. Are those public roads in the cottonwoods now?

Uh the codwoods have modified street standards. Some of them are private, some of them are public and the development agreement has those um road elevations built into it. Let me turn it over to all I have. [laughter]

Uh yeah, thank you. Um so I I kept a list here too. So So the bill we did come to you acknowledge that and you guys reject us or didn't probably didn't have enough information to truly analyze what we were proposing at the time. A lot has changed and we appreciate that. What we've said in the in the ordinance and the development agreement is we will approach you guys work constructively to integrate us in there. If if you guys vote uh yay, we're in. We pay our percentage of the keep of the trails. If you vote no, we have the right to uh go on our own. You have my commitment that we will come to you and uh you and we'll we'll try to work constructively to make things work.

Well, I no I and I I appreciate that. One of the things we thought about that we thought about making them open to other people like but the like the uh the pickle ball port park in phase uh six I mean if everyone's trying to use that they're trying to park there we want to avoid people driving and parking in front of other people's property to use the pickle ball court. I hope you can understand that you've got equal top parks. I mean, no one's going to really police it, but uh you know, you know, it it is for the neighbors and and we are committing to detain it unless we come to a different agreement. If if you guys are going to participate in the maintenance of our tot park or or the pocket park on Ted's property, we we would be open to that in discussion, but we don't want people driving from one park to the other when they've got one right next to their neighborhood. um open space going to homes. I don't think that's quite true because phase 9 had 107 homes and phase 98 is only going to have I think is 90 I don't know but it's not much different. So that area that is developed was always in the plan to be developed. So that one's not quite accurate. Um yeah, I think that's it. I mean, it's it's in the it's in the code. We will approach you. We will work constructively to blend in. And if you vote, yay. We're all happy. If not, it's going to look very similar to maybe phase seven or something. Nice homes, good up to keep. That's all going to be in there. I think that's all on the list. We need to go to public hearing.

Oh, we're out of public hearing. Yeah.

So, I'd open it up amongst the commission discuss what they have concern. The front side of of phase 9, the part that's being removed, the red hatched area, 193 acres, reverts to an A20. 20. Nine houses. Nine houses on 193 acres. Is that correct? A maximum of [snorts] Y. No, I think they answered most questions and could understand the intent. And like I [clears throat] said, this was all a part of the same development agreement. That portion of property was in development agreement to begin with, even though it was ownership was not part of what the developer who developed those previous pieces. So once again, it was all in development agreement, all falling into the same standards. myself that the land swap doesn't concern me into a point. Understanding that they're going to be utilizing an area adjacent to what's already been development developed. Seems to continue on the same subdivision style. So, no concerns on my end. Lesser density than what was originally proposed. Uh piece going back into an A20. part of that open space going into a agricultural type open space to me makes sense.

Thank you. No, the question I had was regarding some of the the slopes, but I think that'll be answered later on. So, do you have anything else? My concern is not being able to see the development agreement. It would have been nice if the information [clears throat] was in our packet as far as amenities, densities. So, it was my understanding that the we we've sent this slide deck that was part of the all the information we sent to them. So, it's my understanding that we don't have access

[laughter] No, it's just that the numbers are bouncing all over the place. No, I completely understand. We spent like an hour and a half Well, we spent like a full the full hour with the the work session just going through everything because it's a ton of information. It's a lot of swapping stuff. We took us, you know, a year to wrap our heads around it and get it to um you know, where we are today trying to trying to present it. So, I totally understand that. Um, I'm not against it, but I just don't have enough of the information. It's just Okay. Can we can we get you the information? And by we, I mean planning your planning tomorrow.

Sorry. I I believe the link to the the ordinance change was was included and not the ordinance was but not the development and it it's very very similar. I guess you'd have to take that on trust but most of all the the open space commitments and the trails commitments are in that ordinance. Yeah, I know they're they are for fact they are. Yeah, there's a ton of overlap and they Yeah, should have been done at the same time somehow. I don't know how that works.

The attorney planner on how best to do this amending just the DA just doing the boundary line adjustment. This is these two appropriate I do have a question again that Josh maybe answer in the original development agreement. It says to the extent there are inconsistencies between the con with the concept plan this agreement and the overlay report this agreement and the overlay report shall govern. So shouldn't the overlay report also be amended

um to reflect these changes? So the overlay report while it's recorded it is not the development agreement and it is not uh the PUD ordinance. Um what that is referring to is if there's contradictions between the existing concept plan and the development agreement that the development agreement will control along with the overlay report. So, it's just trying to set out the order of authority for what controls. And so, I think the development agreement and the overlay report shouldn't conflict each other.

If we're making changes to the development agreement, just make those same changes to the um if you want to add that as part of the recommendation, uh we can definitely um do that. As you're saying, the development agreement becomes the bible of it both and no supersedes. Yeah. Agreement at this point unless we make the changes if there's [clears throat] a problem and that's only if there's a problem with the concept plan. So if the concept plan has issues then of the documents the development agreement controls along with the overlay report

which contains concept plans. So, I think some of the amenities were phase specific, but the trails were for everybody in the Cottonwoods. Is that right? That's the one thing that's for everybody. Um, they are proposing uh a possible um pickle ball court in phase 9. Uh that would be something part of the discussion with them. Uh you could mandate that as opposed to a maybe. I back on the trails though, I would think I would think that we'd want to do something to make sure that they get installed proportional. Yeah. In proportion to the to their development

and not end up back in the same situation. Um that's up to you to talk to the applicant about. Um when when they brought that slide forward uh several months ago, I did mention the may probably should be not a it's up to you. I mean, if you want to include in your recommendation the pickle ball courts in phase 9, that was the addition. Any other questions? I'm open to a motion. We want to allow him to address this one more time or

Yeah. No, if you want to address it, I'm more than happy to do that. You got What do you got?

Yeah. I don't I don't think we should be held to the PR overlay as such. It's a It's aund something page document. We're agreeing to dark skies. We're agreeing to the view shed provisions. We're agreeing agreeing to the the cohesive sign requirements. We've got a we've got a concept plan that's subject to uh geotechnical um it's just it's a layer of complication that was probably put in place to prevent something and you know to tie us to that 107 page agreement with all that detail I I don't think is a is reasonable. We will address everything that comes apart uh in the uh in the subdivision review and uh again we're meaningful to it but we don't want to be held to it at the same time.

Again the question to that to Josh would be wouldn't the development agreement either supersede it either way? Well those phases are already bound by the overlay agreement so you can't really opt out. There's a lot of design criteria in the overlay agreement that um are required to be followed. So there's no way to actually opt out of the overlay agreement. Um I think if you want to add in your uh in your recommendation uh the stipulation that they go through and just make the changes in the overlay agreement as well so that they match that is a very good idea.

I still don't know what I will be voting on but that's just me. Do you want to put that in a proposal? [laughter] No, I'm just saying that's my stance right now. Be nice to have some clarification on the actual lot numbers and where they're actually going to be. just feels like they're we've we've heard a lot of numbers bouncing around but nothing consistent.

So I think what you could do is in your recommendation is put a a max cap of total number of lots for phase 9 and six. Um, additionally like the concerns about amenities, you could do put say, hey, with the recommendation that they add some triggers that the amenities need to be built in, you know, after 25% or 50% or something that's negotiated. So, I think any of those concerns you can detail and include in your recommendation. The motion is to approve an amendment to the cottonwoods development agreement. We have not seen

I mean that makes it difficult is what I'm saying. I believe it was included in the packet.

So the packet was available um nearly a week ago. um if we had known that there was a bad link through somebody reading the packet and finding the bad link and letting us know we could have fixed it. Um but we were not aware that the link didn't work. So

additionally, one of the issues that Josh and I have encountered is in some of these old um development [clears throat] agreements, they've been amended several times and they are long, especially when we add in the overlay. So there's like what 185 pages once you add in the overlay. Um and so this amendment amends part of the original development agreement with its other amendments. Um and so you have to read it all as a whole. One of the things that we've kind of been bouncing around is going um to the other developers that are out there and say, "Hey, let's put together one master development agreement that incorporates all the changes and updates it so it's easier for everyone to track. I think in doing that, we might also be able to address some of the density issues between phases. So that's another suggestion. So I I did provide a u comprehensive uh rewrite of the development agreement and I said this section applies to phase six and and and nine and um you know frankly in the existing one there's you're supposed to be able to swim and paddle board in in uh in the Silver Lake But the developer never followed through on that. There's supposed to be a some kind of amenity around there. They didn't do it. So I I don't know how we would go back, get them to agree, get phase 8 to agree on a complete rewrite. We can only address phase six and nine. And I that that is uploaded into civic review. I did my best.

I've slowed the motion for us to make it.

Do we want to add any stipulation on max lots? probably wise in my opinion. Yeah. At the 877 or the 8:30 or the 901 or where we at? [laughter]

Yeah. Uh can I just address the I I we did our best. You're struggling with the numbers. We also struggled with the numbers and we went back and forth trying to get counts from the planning count, you know, the county and doing it doing it ourselves and coming up to the number and that's how we got to that table um for our max lot count. Um I think we're immenable to the triggers that you talked about doing the will instead of may on the other park. Um, I don't know if those could be addressed now or in the with the HOA when each plaque goes on, but um, you know, we can only address what our ownership is and you know, I I can't apologize for previous amenities that weren't weren't built. So uh but we are immenable to um those items and and uh like I said we did the work session and with the with the council and they

[clears throat] um they really didn't have any notes on us. So we'll see when we go back to them

member of the public was able to verify that the link actually does work. Yeah, most of the things that you want to uh so correct me if I'm wrong before I start before I go into motion on this. uh that the overlay app will will coincide and match that of the development agreement that the or how should I

uh the overlay report overlay report okay make sure yeah is yeah it's really make sure I put the right words in uh that the wording change from will from may will on included or presented amenities of pickle ball court for phase n for phase nine and that the maximum density be that of 877 units through the development. Is that where is that the number we're sticking to? They're they're saying less than that, aren't they? Well, but full development because we're so the overall development it all depends on phase eight, which they're not owners of. Okay. So, we can it could be refer to phase eight or the full development. We can only refer to those to phase nine.

Six and nine. Six and nine. Yeah. But the overall development density was established back in 2005 at 877 with amenities and those amenities to leverage the additional density. So they're proposing to bring amenities to offset. So all we could do is with included amenities for phases six and nine be at the I would my recommendation as staff would be that you set it at the 877 that was already allowed. Okay.

Okay. And uh depending on how we want to word triggers of amenities being in place at the time of Homesite developments or lot. How do you want to the proportion of lots? Is that worded enough to That's good. Okay. And what do we want to do there? 50%. Amenities completed at 50% completion of lot development. So the proportion to the development of the lots and proportion would be same percentage for percentage.

So that would Okay. That's what you're [cough] within reason. So I would [laughter] say I would say roughly proportional. I'm going to say proportional. We'll just as that plaque comes out.

All right. I move a a motion for positive recommendation with additional changes. Changes being that the overly report matches that of the development agreement. That the amenities be developed in proportion or roughly proportion to the development of lots. That the overall development density be that of the original 877 units. I move we recommend approval for the to the county commission for the amended amendment to the Cottonwoods development agreement PUD overlay district to configure certain parcels within development as outlined in the staff report based on the text listed in exhibit A of the staff report dated January 2026 with the following corrections or those previously stated.

I'll second. All those in favor? I I was against member sessions. Not that I'm against the proposal. I just don't care. I didn't say it right. You're right. Sorry. Okay. Motion carries. Okay. Let's move on. We're gonna get boring here if you all want to.

Thanks a lot. Sorry. It takes the stress down on me. So I not having people

willing to tackle it. All right. I guess we're going to finish up. If you guys could carry on conversations outside the door, we'd appreciate it. Can we get you to step outside in the hall, please? [cough and clears throat] We're happy to have people here as long as they're quiet.

Uh staff business and questions. Uh the only thing that I have is we'll be setting up uh the uh training open meeting uh training with Garrett. Uh and then the um Mike Newton and Matt Wilson uh also wanted to be a part of that training and to go over some of duties and responsibilities, things like that. Um, we're probably going to set that up for the first or second meeting in February. Um, since we're already noticing for the next next meeting. Um, but other than that, uh, we can keep you informed of conferences that are coming up if you would like to do some of your additional training that way. Uh, we do have money in in our in our budget to do that. We're also looking probably at bringing back Craig Call at some point. I heard he was really good. Um, and I I have a lot of respect for that that man. So, um, other than that, I don't I don't have anything else. Uh, if you have questions for me, I I'm willing to answer those.

Oh, you're welcome. Uh, it's been a long haul and I would just like it off my plate to be honest. Thank you. Thanks, Josh. Thank you. All right. I open to Approval of the planning commission minutes. Motion and I'll second. Okay, there we go. All in favor? I I motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second.