Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

agenda as presented as outlined. All those in favor, say yes. I have a question.

Would it make more sense to do the presentations prior to the public hearing? I mean, it looks like we have . We do.

They are.

All in favor of approving the agenda as presented, please say yes.

Yes.

Motion passes. This is the first time I use this, so everyone who's watching at home, I don't think you're aware. I have never done that before. Okay, point two, declaration of conflict of interest. This is where you declare bankruptcy. We're here for that. Okay, none. Seeing none, move to the next one. Approval of the minutes for June 23rd, 2026.

Motion to approve the minutes for June 23rd, 2026.

It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Approval of the minutes for June 23rd, 2026. All in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes.

for public meeting public hearings Before I get into presentations regarding projects for discussion tonight I would like to yield time to the city attorney for some some sort of training and clarification Yeah, so my name is Dalton Suneo and I'm the Tremont City attorney You've asked me to come and just talk about a few things and then participate in today's meeting

A few of the things I'd like to discuss. You know your role, but we're gonna talk a little bit about the role of the Planning Commission in the city, what you do and the important work that you do in advising the city council in land use decisions, right? That's some important work that you do. And truly, the city council relies deeply on you because you're able to dive in a little bit deeper into the land use applications and make a recommendation as to how the city should or should not proceed with respect to a particular issue. And so I just want to talk about, or I guess impress upon you the important work that you do and that the city council by statute must consider your input when a land use decision comes before them in making that decision. And the first thing that I'm going to just talk about is your role as an advisor to the city council. You're appointed by the city council to be an advisor to them on land use decisions. And so in a lot of ways, you're an extension of the city council in that you're advising them how they should proceed, how they should view applications. And in doing that, you are an outward facing public body of the city council. And so in your role, we follow specific guidelines and rules with respect to how that works. For example, all of your meetings are public, open meetings. So you do all your deliberations in public so that the public can see what goes on. And so if needed, the city council, right, all of them are here today. So they might have a question on what was talked about in city council in the planning commission meeting. If they so desire, they could go back and review those minutes, review those recordings and see what was discussed in the planning commission to help inform them and make a very good decision with respect to how the city should proceed on any application. So the first thing that I would say is that this isn't an open meeting and public meeting training, but deliberations should be open in public. So text messaging between planning commissioners while a meeting is proceeding is probably is not an appropriate thing to do. You just talk openly about that or any communication between planning commissioners that's not open in the meeting is not permitted. You can't text each other while you're on the dais or talk about those things while you're deliberating. The other thing I'd like to talk about is in your deliberation to maintain decorum and respect for both the public and for your fellow commissioners. You're volunteering your time to be here, and the public's here to express their views and wants. And everybody wants what's best in their view for what the city is. in your deliberations to show the utmost respect to both your fellow commissioners and to the public. Because you are, again, an extension of the city. You represent the city in your duties. And so, for example, if I get up and say my outlandish view from your perspective, and you roll your eyes at a citizen that's not very thoughtful and respectful of what my perspective as a resident is, and everyone's entitled to their opinion, you may disagree with that. And that's perfectly fine, and that's an important part of politics or the work in government, right? And I think a lot of us see Washington politics and it's not respectful at all. And when we bring Washington politics to the local government, just like Washington, things stop when we can't be collaborative, when we can't be respectful and so that's that's one thing that i wanted to talk about and ultimately again you're representing this you're not we're facing body representing the city and so the city is is striving to have the utmost respect of the citizens and of the people in the surrounding area and when we have proper decorum and respect within our planning commission meetings it's more productive and helpful for both the city and for you And ultimately, lack of decorum could lead to direct expulsion from the meeting. This includes members of the public, right? Members of the public also need to maintain certain decorum, and if they can't seem to do that, then expulsion from the meeting is appropriate and criminal charges can be brought if somebody impedes the public meeting. And so as the chair, you have the ability to say, hey, if you can't comport with the decorum of the planning commission, then you can be asked be removed from the chamber and the meeting can proceed. And so that's kind of what I wanted to talk about. We'll do more in-depth training on Open Meetings Act another day. So we'll talk more about that. But for now, we just wanted to put a plug for respect and decorum and open dialogue and collaboration on the Planning Commission. And again, for various reasons, but again, the Planning Commission is an extension of the city council, and I understand the city council wants to have the best face forward possible to the citizens of Tremont.

So, thank you. Thank you. All right. Question. I'm going to ask that question, actually. Yeah. Say somebody's starting to get belligerent, how do we handle that?

Yeah, so the first thing you do, The first thing you do is just instruct them to maintain the decorum and call a meeting back to order if somebody's being belligerent. But if they continue to disobey the orders of the chair, you just need to contact the police department and have them be removed from the chamber. I've seen that, but I also am a criminal prosecutor for various cities that are represented. It's a classifying misdemeanor, and I see those where somebody gets up and is yelling and is unable to, the meeting can't proceed as long as they're in the chamber and they can be by and large if you instruct them to maintain decorum people are able to cooler heads prevail and you'll be able to proceed but ultimately if it is out of hand then the police can be called and they can be escorted from the chamber okay any questions any other questions pretty good

Mr. Chair, item 4A is the Cloverfields Phase 3 and 4 overlay. It is application number 26.018. The applicant, Mr. Keith Russell, is available in the audience tonight, Mr. Chair, and comes in conjunction as one of the two property owners, the other being Mr. Russell Thornley. The location is approximately at the termini of both 110 south and 900 west in the city. The date of the application is May 19th of 2026 and is identified by the parcel numbers in your packet tonight. The current zone for both properties is R110 currently. The general plan designation, which again to clarify, comes from the future land use map of the 2023 integrated land use plan. The designation from that map is existing residential to remain. The acreage is 3.94 acres combined for both properties and the request is for the adoption of the clover field space three and four overland. For approximately 25 homes, Mr. Chair, the plan, one thing back to general plan designation or future land use map amendment, it doesn't exactly specify on on existing residential to remain, besides just the phrase in that text. The request would allow for a higher density in this area. We're in an interesting junction where the PUD overlay tool was repealed. The PUD overlay originally came as a successor to the single family residential transition overlay, SFRTO, abbreviated in our code. The SFRTO comes from Chapter 1.16, which contains all of the City's adopted overlays. The SFRTO type or overlay type pertains to a particular development, the Envision Estates that is currently being developed and is applicable to Chapters 1.16.235 through 1.16.255. In that code, it mentions that the SFRTO zone or overlay was meant to be duplicated at that time. Again, since the PD overlay tool came approximately in 2024 to be the intended method to bring overlays forward. So we kind of just have tools kind of replacing each other in that manner where This applicant, and again, the date of the application was May 19th of 2026, prior to the PUD overlay code being revealed. So the reason the PUD overlay is being mentioned tonight is that they didn't meet the minimum acreage for chapter 1.33 previously revealed. And so this is a pretty peculiar situation where we're asking to bring an overlay, or the applicant is asking to bring an overlay into existence. And this would be contained in, eventually, in chapter 1.16. Staff wanting to work with the applicant just saw this kind of between a rock and a hard place where, no, we haven't adopted an overlay like this in years. And again, the PUD overlay tool was revealed, so we're in a little bit of a limbo on what exactly to do with these overlay types. And so we just didn't qualify them because of Anchorage. Anchorage, Anchorage. So we couldn't have suggested that to them. It wasn't working right. So some questions for consideration amongst the planning commission tonight. Is this request consistent with the purpose of the SFRTO overlay? Is it consistent with the city's zoning framework? Should the city establish a clearer process before approving additional overlay requests? Otherwise, Mr. Chair, I yield the room and end my time. Thank you. a good time.

Yeah, if the applicants want to make a few comments, that would be great. I guess we should probably invite both of them up, or both of the applicants, I guess.

Am I good to say he represents both our applications? I'll look at him every once in a while. If he comes up, then you'll all know I didn't represent him properly. Keith Russell, nice to see you again. I've been here a couple of times. So the staff asked me to prepare a little narrative of what we're doing. I did submit that, and I believe you probably have that. So I don't want to say things you're not feeling. Maybe it's best for me to just ask if you have any questions. But I think in the findings from, even though it's a little bit of a unique situation, I think in the findings from the staff, I agree with what they've been saying. And one of the things that I've thought all along is that one of the reasons I approached this property with this kind of look is the overlay zone allows for the transition between just a regular size lot and the R110 to become a little smaller and get a little higher density, but it does not step into the high density zone. And I think it's appropriate in this case because of the surrounding commercial zone in the area. So it kind of transitions the commercial zone to a little bit more residential zone. It wouldn't be a high-density zone, but maybe a low to medium density. And then the next zone would be the low density. um so we've been looking at this for quite a while and uh i think um one of the main things that the city wanted was the thoroughfare that introduced the roads to go away and we worked to make that happen so i don't know i i don't want to

more you with more things to already know i'm just willing to answer any questions if you have any so i guess the question i guess in my mind so we're they're proposing it as an overlay that's already allowed under the code um i thought a previous meeting about the transition i thought we narrowed down but that was never really a zone that was like a previous project it was

But after further reading the code, it said that it can be duplicated in it. And so then, discussing it with Dalton, we decided to proceed to be able to duplicate it for this project.

Okay, so that's the underlying code we're using with the overlay, essentially? Yeah. Yeah, I think we've hashed this thing out a lot.

Yeah, I think we have. And I'm fine, I mean, I love the fact that you guys work together.

made my little planning commission brain so happy and again recognition of how much time and running on plans has been spent on this project so far we just looked at the code worked with the applicant tried to find a way forward this is what's thoughtful so i have a question what decision do we need to make today a recommendation to adopt the overlay.

Okay, so it's just adopting the overlay to be able to do this?

Correct. To the city council, yeah. To clarify, the plot drawings that came, was it the end of April or sometime in March, will go to the DRC for approval, the approval. The initial or the one with the adjusted? No, this overlay, if approved, would set the framework where we could go use a plot with bonus density. take that to the DRC for approval. So it almost went carpet for the horse. We're open to questions.

All right, thank you.

Any other discussion? I've got a question for Jeremy. On your general plan and zoning analysis, second paragraph, The last two lines, can you kind of explain that to me? Approval of property-specific overlays on the outside of the establishment may create uncertainty regarding the predictability and consistency of the future of some of your cities.

What do you expand on that? Do you want overlays to be adopted in this manner? That's your question. Do you want to set precedents?

Can I answer? The way that Tremont was adopting the PUD overlay made it so that we could standardize the zoning type so that there weren't individual overlays adopted. And so what we're doing right now is we're taking an overlay and adopting it without a standard mechanism such as the PC zone or the PUD overlay. And so it's just a general planning principle. This is allowed, but it's just what the city wants to do standard. And that's what he's bringing out in the report. Did that answer your question? I think so.

Okay.

Did that answer your question? Yes.

Okay.

I move a motion to close the staff presentation and discussion and open public hearing.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that we close the staff presentation and discussion and open public hearing. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Motion passes at 5.50. He liked that too much. Okay, public hearing for the Cloverfields phase three and four overlay. Welcome to come to the podium and state your name in three minutes. And second, did we close the public hearing? Those in favor, say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes. I'll just do an imaginary one so I don't get nervous. Oh, you can do it. It's here. I don't know. Otherwise, I would just keep going. So I'm assuming that's a motion for closing the public hearing. Opening consideration decision that will say that that passes.

Okay. Yeah.

All right. Any other consideration.

Okay.

Though, let's see. It's all accepted motion that we send a recommendation to city council. Send a recommendation to city council on this.

I move that we move forward with a positive recommendation of the City Council for the adoption of the Cloverfields Phase 3 and 4 overlay application number 26.018 based on the findings listed in the staff report dated July 28, 2026. It's been moved.

Is there a second? And seconded. That we recommend a motion for positive recommendation of the City Council for this venture. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed?

motion passes yeah good job by 52 all right for me for you on tonight's agenda is the heritage country beauty over application 26.017 the applicant is Brody Calder who is in the audience tonight representing Harrison of the intersection of 6400 West and 10,000 North and across from the southeast of the intersection of 6800 West and 10,000 North. So two separate and disjointed parcels identified in your meeting packet tonight. The zoning is as follows for the southwestern parcel is R18 and for the northeastern parcel is R110. Hopefully for ease of discussion, and I wrote this in my report that perhaps you could follow parcel A being the southwestern parcel and parcel B being northeast. I hope that helps the discussion. The acreage combined is 73.67 acres. I should go back and mention the general plan designation is the single family residential designation, parentheses, low density. So the request is for adoption of the Heritage Country PUD overlay. Chapter 1.33, even though recently repealed, is being invoked tonight on account of the applicant having submitted their application on May 18, 2026, prior to the repeal of the chapter. So as outlined, it asks for a master plan, it asks for addendum plans, the open space plan, parking plan, It asks for elevations, architecture, sorts of things. So those submittal requirements having been satisfied are included in the packet tonight, including a development agreement as well, going along with this one, and referencing 496 total units across 11 phases. The data is contained within the master plan, but I wanted to just break it down a little bit as follows. There are single-family lots. There are townhome lots featuring no garages. There are townhome lots which are alley-loaded and townhomes which are front-loaded with garages. And the total breakdown between the southwestern parcel B is 202 units. The northeastern parcel B, I should have said parcel A, Southwestern and the Northeastern parcel B features 294 total units, totaling the 496 aforementioned units. Mr. Chair, I yield the rest of my presentation to Zach Watcott. I hope I pronounced your name right. He is the MPI South District Head and has supplementary information from the discussion from the MPI meeting on July, was that 22nd, last week? It was a Wednesday, so.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Good evening, Zach Watcott, just mentioned representing the Tremont South District from MPI. So as part of the process through this, the neighborhood different discussions between the builder and then the state traffic coordinator through all of this. The citizens of the area have concerns between the high density in the rural area on the outskirts of town with the infrastructure. There's been historical concerns with the drainage and utilities being able to properly service that area historically. We recognize that there can be plans to try and mitigate that, a reasonable path for we feel like a citizens in the area that won't be a significant impact to that area and it's rural and our agriculture applications within that larger area out there the it's been zoned but a level that we feel is what we understand is going to grow and that the r18 r110 allows for quarter acre plus nice homes over that we feel that's that's reasonable for somebody wanting to come and develop in that area when they get into the high density housing it drives a significant amount of homes into a relatively smart small access area parcel b is limited on one side to the railroad tracks and other developments to the west side so they all have to exit out of the thousand the development on the parcel a um per the flat plan has been issued that's the one the southeast by iowa stream there's only one exit out to iowa string and the rest of them also go out to thousand more so this 492 homes you'll have 994 92 cars say two per household coming out to that thousand north back and forth on that holiday structure or facility to handle that. Nor is the intention of the citizens to have that kind of, they already have a lot of busy traffic on Iowa stream and we're going to be bringing in a lot more traffic. There's plans for a park within this development, which we do appreciate parks and open spaces. This park is located next to Iowa stream and turns into Jeanne Stevens 2.0 with all the cars parking on the outside of the road because it's quick and easy to park out there next to the road, which is a busy road. outside of any type of speed concerns out there, it still is a busy road with traffic coming down at this time. So the citizens would like to express their concerns with this and recommend that it's not something that a citizen would want to see in that area as part of future growth for Piedmont. We appreciate something that's more in line with the current zoning, rather than this overlay.

with a quick handoff to the applicant who has a presentation prepared, Mr. Brody Calder.

Awesome. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to let me present today.

I didn't catch your name.

What was your name? Zach. Zach. Sorry, I didn't mean to give you the name. No, I appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate everybody coming tonight, first and foremost. I know we've had a lot of meetings, and a lot of people probably don't know you very well now, especially with the community and whatnot. And I live here in the community, so it's something that I hope to hear, is this project's been one It's been a lot of stress and worries of mine and just trying to figure out how to make things work on it. With that said, I thought I'd take just a minute, just take a second to express where we've come from, why we're where we're at, and how this has come to be. The reason I begin to do that is just because we've had a lot of new faces come about. I've gone from the beginning of this project from Sean Warnke. all the way to Lindsay. And so we've had different managers to different planning zoners that I've been with and different council members as well that may have not heard and seen. And I know some of you have been in a lot of our meetings and know what's going on. We've got a couple here that may not know what's going on. So I thought I'd just take a second just to break it down. And so back in the end of 23, we purchased these properties. that was discussed here tonight and the current your current plans with the property were currently unzoned out in the county and we were going to make do a storage unit facility out there with our plans with this we purchased the property and in doing so we didn't realize one of the key components from the county was that if your property was within a mile of the current city Sean said, Hey, you know what? We really want your property. It's part of our plan, but we do not have storage units. And so we really want you to come in and do this single family at the R 110.

And so he and I talked for quite a head length.

I said, well, Hey, we've got a lot of infrastructure that's gotta happen here. You know, how do we make this work? And so we kind of came up with a game plan of, well, we could do the the train tracks and then single-family over on the other side where you would park in the middle. So we talked through that. As we looked at it, the cost of infrastructure was just a little too much for us to handle to be able to make numbers penciled for us because of where the infrastructure is at. So as we decided as a team, we looked at it and they needed a regional facility. And so we actually looked at purchasing another piece of property to make it so the numbers could be penciled. And so in doing so, we purchased this other piece to Southeast the Southwest piece and trying to make numbers work. And so we came together, Sean left and built a base in New City in a driven time. And we sat down, we discussed what we can do there. And that's when they said, hey, we need to annex this whole area. And this is all our future growth to go through all this. And so that's been hard work from three departments And everybody has all been involved for meetings on end. We were asked, okay, well, this is what we need to do. And I feel for them and their situations that they're in. And so in regards to this, we looked at the plan and they said, well, what dream zone would you want? And so we came in with the RM8, was what we requested at the annexation request. And at that annexation request, we had an annexation agreement that we had put in place and said, hey, we'll pay for all these things if you give us R and H. And so we went through this, we went through the whole thing, and everybody was there as well. And the citizens did not want R and H. And so we came back and said, hey, you know what, we'll go forward with R8, R1H, you know, go forward with the PD and work things out. So I think there may have been some misunderstandings of how all of that happens. And so when we talked to certain residents and some of the city council, we talked about, hey, we'll do town homes right in front of the cement plant and single family behind it. And so this is kind of where we're coming up to today. So I just wanted to kind of give you a brief history of where things have been and how we're at. Now, when we did the whole annexation, you know, partials were going to R1, R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-20. And so there was other zonings out there to make it so that you have denser areas out there and less dense areas out there. And so my partials are the most dense two pieces, but in doing so through our annexation and then getting that to our presentation, that was still allowed for a plan for the new annex properties to be able to have the services there. So that's kind of where we're at today to discuss the PEDY coming and asking for the TUD and to work with the city. And in all this, I just wanted to mention, that's before I jump in, that we're willing to work with the city and with residents. We want to take feedback and hopefully you understand that when we take the feedback in, we try to figure out ways to solve things. And so as I've met in our DRC meetings and gone through things, we've been willing to work with the city and we're trying to make things work positive with everybody around. And so I'll perfect you. pulled it up from here on top of it. Thank you so much. I kind of talked briefly about these items here. So what we're proposing here today is they've mentioned there's 496 units and there's two parks that are involved here. We're gonna go through those here in great detail. We need to go to that next slide. Thank you. All right, so right here we have our Heritage Country Southwest property. So right here runs iowa stream is running this way right here and then this 10 000 north is right here and you go to submit mine right there in discussions with the parks and rec and with the engineer with chris brenkel which have been great to work with we identified this park here as the best place for a big regional park so if you know jenny stevens park you're very aware of jenny stevens this is almost identical to the same size as jenny stevens they're in need of apartments of sufficient sizes for future growth that's currently happening in the parked rooms and capacity here. So when we talked to them, the biggest concern was parking. So we actually added on more parking here so that they could have that available in there. So you can kind of see that. I think you, someone requested to talk about the parking.

So there are quite a few stalls here that have made it.

We extended this out double from what, you know, needed so that we had ample parking there and so we wanted to pull it off they didn't have concerns about iowa stream which was rather concerned and so we did talk about you know potentially fencing this off here so that we could keep things in on that side there and so the reason why this also came to this area was because of the slopage of the property and how everything kind of settles and slopes down this way so You want to go to that next slide there. This parcel here is our northeast parcel. And as we kind of configured this one, this one would have a couple of playgrounds in it. The other one would have a playground as well. This is just more for places where people would come and gather and a couple of pavilions. on this part so this one's really unique up in the right hand corner here and i know christine's working through this but there is a trail that's on this here coming on on this side so it can connect through just past the railroad tracks and continue more to go into the city to be able to make it connecting through so there's actually a good trailway we do have here a trailway here that is open in the event that freedom farms would like to connect through to there that's up to them the facilities there at the park, too, if they would like to pursue that. Any questions on – and just real quick on these housing types. We'll actually go down to that next slide. I'll go in this here. So currently, as our current code allows, we could go up to 7.35 units per acre.

We're currently at 6.7 units. A lot of that is driven by

just as we've looked at the project, it just didn't make sense to push more density in there as we've worked at it. Currently, without the PUD overlay, we could have up to 360 units on the property. So there is 134 unit differential with the PUD overlay versus what we can do right now with our current zoning. So we have, okay. I just want people to understand that and know that that is the differential there. And then one thing that I thought was we get a lot of talk about this being high density, which in our area, we think it is high density, but in reality, this is still considered low density in the terms of developing. Sorry, just for the break. Considering anything under 8 units is considered low density. High density is considered anything over 12 units and between 12 and 8. why the PUD was there and why it's on these partials with the R1A and R110. So you guys can see the reasoning as to probably why Bill Covey or Jeff Zavall, they had, I don't know who all put it together, Sean, at the time, had kind of figured out these low density numbers. So go ahead and go down.

Sorry. Feel free to interrupt me at any time. Yeah, sorry. Okay, so side note. According to our traffic, like, future classification, there could potentially be, that would be a major item binder arterial intersection at the Iowa String and whatever this is. Yeah. And we have on there for, like, a traffic circle. Is there enough room with your plan that if we end up, if Iowa String gets...

So we have taken out quite a big chunk.

Okay.

And so I think our setback was... but we did take out a big chunk for this. It looked like it. Go back and do this one here. Yeah, so we had slid this down and over, and you can see we've slid it back here where our corner is versus where the road is. But in the event that we look at it and we need to make more adjustments, then we're open to doing that. I just didn't know if that was the key. So when I talked to them, because this is the main corridor coming in, and they wanted that to go a lot wider. sorry people are getting upset with this but this plan is to push over into this side pretty heavily to make this happen for future but that is a main corridor for the future code okay okay great question um okay um so when we did talk about those two parks there the first one is the 9.83 acres the other one's 3.67 acres there are going to be a couple playgrounds in each one and then there's pavilions in there for people who want to come use those facilities. And then the other one had three big fields for lacrosse. That's what the city had identified was their major need right now. They could use it for lacrosse and soccer. And so that was what they had requested. So if anybody wants changes, talk to them. We're open to whatever you guys want to know. all right um one thing that this pud allows for in our proposal is that as many of you are aware and i was very keenly aware a lot of us were probably saying having issues in 2017 when there were some major floods that happened here just things happened and there was a lot of flooding that took place and a lot of that drives from not being able to get the water up and down to the flat river and places to go and so in doing so We were talking to Chris right now. He was very adamant. He just said, hey, you know what? We could do retention on site, but I would prefer to have a detention to go to the lab. And we could grab all of the area around here. And we're not just using the tidal lines at this point. We're using a real line that's set and fixed just to go out to the lab. And so there is a lot of infrastructure that has to go in here. And so this would allow for all of this whole area So in the event that you have another 2017 event, hopefully we don't, but this would allow for that water to be pre-pushed to the Millat River where it needs to go. How?

Where would that be?

So it actually would go all the way down Iowa Stream to where the church is, and then shoot all the way to Millat. And is that like right? Not like a canal, but like... It's a full-on pipe, yeah. That's what I was trying to figure out. Like putting a canal in, or what's the deal here? No, we'll have to go under the canal, over the canal, go all the way down. We've talked to Chris, and my engineer has talked to Jim Flynn at Hanson's, and so he's retired, so I'm trying to figure that out now. But we're going all the way to Mladen, and we'll be going out there. And you're paying for that? That is a part of this development agreement. So all of this is encumbered with this whole project. So this whole project is in the hopes of making this happen. So let's go down here to the, some of the members of the free farms, not everyone, I know, but there are some that are having specific issues for, probably not this year, but years prior, when the water comes up. And so this allows for them to tie on to the sewer, and just for . I think there's three or four of them that have had issues. I don't know all of them. Some don't, some do. And so this allows for that to be able to help them.

If we bring sewer to those residents, do they have to connect in? Because if they're in the city limits, don't they have to be on sewer?

That is a question that's above my pay grade.

You can ask.

Jeremy.

I would have to consult our phone and look at that.

if there's city water connection you have to connect to it but like are we going to require all these residents to do that it's up to the council go ahead you'll get a chance you're doing great thank you so this this obviously allows for the new infrastructure allows for the world to happen on the west side of the freeway where right now times they're kind of handcuffed because of those these two reserves they're annexed into an area we're annexed into an area that doesn't have any services and so we're going to talk through that here in just a second but this allows for that to happen um we talked to the walking trail how would it happen there and then 10 000 north we are improving the whole 10 000 north so um that would be agreed that was a part of our agreement was in the developer agreement it talks about leaving iowa stream undone on our side and we'd improve the whole 10 000 north and identify the costs and kind of figure out a solution if we ever pay another way and whatnot so just making it so it was fair to the city center um i moved the townhomes i didn't talk through that you go to the next one there um okay this one here i wanted to just take a couple minutes here just kind as to why we prefer to go this route rather than going down the single-family route of the bigger lots. And it is dealing with affordability. To be honest with you, we actually make more money if we actually go down the route of the other home, the little route. But that's not what's available to sell. As we're aware, we have a major issue with inflation that's happened, and pay is not kept up with inflation. You're short. And with those issues we are where we are with current housing challenges and so we're trying to get into ballparks where we have three different townhome products that we put on here so we have three different abilities to help people get into a house and to be able to afford a home and so we're hitting the no car garage no garage town homes they'll price in that 230 to 265 range and then you've got the two car alley loaded that will bump up into that and then the two-car front loader pushes that. And so that's the low-end model of making affordability happen.

Some of the things that the median household income, this is household income, is 84,000.

So you have to think a lot of people have two people working jobs, and that's the average household income that's in the county right now. And so to make people be able to afford and be able to live We don't want our kids all leaving town because they can't afford it here. We've got to be able to have places for them to live. The other portion is we'd have smaller single-family lots, and these are priced in that $350 to $475 range. So these are an opportunity to actually get into a single-family home in that next step up. So we're allowing that to happen with this P&D. It allows for this to happen without ever stuck at those bigger price points, pretty much more than like $475 up to $575, and those are going to be they are moving, and it's because we're moving in Florida right now. Many of you are going to say we're moving to Florida, so I'll put it in the next one. One of the things that I was really excited to see and to find out was there's a new house building that's just passed, board name or two, that allows, if you have a PUD that is like such for this, for the housing type that we're in need of, because there's over 100,000 people that are in need of these type of units right now, they are willing to have $100 million that they just put aside that the cities can come in and they can actually grab those funds that they can find in place and they have a project in place to help with the infrastructure. So if the city is short, say i.e. Seward, which was in your packets today, which was a question about Seward. When we first started this project, we talked to Paul Holdren. Paul actually sent me a report and said, So we're trying to find resolutions. We're willing to work with the city on however we can do to figure out solutions so that we can have capacity here in this version. And we take that risk coming in on this whole project. until the cold building permits. So we go through all of this infrastructure and we're kind of at the mercy of hoping that they're soon available. So just in that regard, there is funding that is available there. We'll come down here. This one here. Oh, okay. So when we started this annexation, This key point here, I just wanted to share with you that the annexation was planning on us bringing and delivering these utilities. That was the plan of the city. If we don't do the PUD, then we're not bringing those utilities down for the area. And so that burden will then fall on the city. So just so you are aware, that burden will then fall on the city to figure out a solution to be able to bring the utilities down. And this is the state code that requires every city to maintain an annexation policy addressing how it will extend municipal services infrastructure into the areas it annexes. So unfortunately, the pre-annexation agreement didn't get signed because we didn't get the zoning. So now we're kind of in this limbo state of, is our plan gonna go forward or is the city gonna be responsible? We don't go forward with PEDs. So we just have to work something out. And we're here. We want to work it out with the city. I don't want to feel like pressure or anything there, but I just want you guys to know that we are here. We want to work with the city. And as the residents come forward, as they talk tonight, you know, if there's things that they want to address and talk through, we're more than happy to listen and try and figure out solutions to make everybody to know what's happened. That'll be coincident for everybody here. And then I think we've gone through my items as well.

Did you ever get consulting services from anybody that would have possibly been working for the city on the side?

No. Okay, cool.

Thank you for that presentation. Anything else from Jeremy? Christine?

I do have a question for the developer, if that's okay. When is the detention, what phases are going into? So that's something that I would like to know as we proceed forward. And I'd also like to know that the detail to inform the the commission that the details of the of the development agreement have not been all hashed out and that's something that we will be working on as we move forward with this process um and i think that that's i think that's all i have with your concerns prior to well the reason that we repealed the pud we're still dealing with the effects of having one are those We've worked with the PD. They've done a good application with the PD, and we're going through on the right course. That's all in order. That's fine. It's the concerns of matching the development agreement with, like, that's something that we're still working out with the developer and with our attorney and staff. So I just want the Planning Commission to know that the development agreement we have in our packet is not complete yet. That's just what I wanted to say.

And the staff report contains not only an initial review from planning staff for C&I, but also contains engineer, fire department, parks, rec, and it contains a few reviews. The city engineer did management, public works. So it does contain their observations Hopefully the staff report represents a snapshot of this project at this point and all the iterations it's been through. Also a lot of time spent on this one. We felt that without further ado that this should come before the Planning Commission for a record.

We'll make a motion to close the staff presentation.

It's been moved. Close that. And seconded. It's been moved and seconded that we close the staff presentation and commission discussion and open the public hearing for Heritage Country PDB overlay. Those in favor say yes. Yes.

Opposed? Motion passes. At 624. All right.

Public hearing is open. You may come to the podium and we can hear your thoughts. If you have three minutes, please say your name.

I'm Cindy Shipley, and I have some questions about Iowa String. Since Procter & Gamble has come in, we've had so many big sand lights coming up that road, and my understanding is that those trucks are going to continue right up through that neighborhood. And I think it's up to the city to say maybe that's not a good idea to have the huge semis riding up right through the middle of all that. And if you're going to put a roundabout in there, trucks, big semis don't do well in roundabouts, do they? And so that's something for the city to really consider. If that's something you have a way to talk to the county about and change what's going on, it would be lovely if the trucks could go somewhere else.

Hello, I'm Jamie Crowther. I live on the Iowa stream as well, and I appreciate your time. I just wanted just a couple talking points or thoughts. My request and ask is that you reject the P&E overlay as proposed and keep the designated zoning that it is right now, R1A and R110. I think it's important to give homebuyers options. So right now it seems to be this is higher density housing than what's in that area right now. According to the integrated land use plan, higher density housing makes more sense in the city. I can see you're adding a walking trail from his comments, but that walking trail, if you go down there, where's the ending point? It looks like the railroad tracks, a cement plant, irrigated field, or Iowa stream. You know, it doesn't seem like there's really, it's kind of a distance from the city center. And why not give some home buyers options, like some bigger lots? Like the lots that are south of Equal Dairy, east of JC's Diner, those are bigger lots. And instead of having these PDA overlays with more intense dense housing, let's give some people some options. I think that it's important to look at the city's observations, that their concerns with fire access. This area lies south of the freeway. It's not the best location for higher density. My ask is that we keep that south of the freeway a more rural residential feel that matches the area. Keep the current occupancy as it is. The developer took a risk by buying unzoned county land when he bought it. And no matter what was said before any of the changes with previous city members, I think we can, you know, they're under no obligation to, you know, honor those. So my ask is, as a resident in that area, is to abandon or reject the PUD overlay and keep the current zoning as it is, the R1-8 and the R1-10. I appreciate your time, and as you vote, if it is in favor, I would ask maybe as a courtesy to us that are here, why do you vote in favor of that? But my request would be to reject it and keep the zoning as it is. And I appreciate your time. I know this is voluntary, and I really appreciate you listening, so thank you.

Good evening. My name is Krista Spraycar and I also live on Iowa String. I just have a few thoughts I want to share with you tonight. Thank you for letting us speak and represent all of us in Fremont Farms and along Iowa String. I don't know how many of you have ever been down Iowa String in the morning or in the evening. But as others have commented, sometimes it's almost impossible to get out of our driveway and it's dang right scary. I personally have an 18 year old son that scares me every morning when he tries to get out of my driveway. Adding additional vehicles down this road is only gonna make that worse. Not to mention, how is it gonna impact with our police adding this many more citizens down there? When we moved down here, We chose this neighborhood for what it was and what it offered to our families. In changing this zoning, it kind of changes that whole area. It's no longer going to be welcoming for our horses, our cows, our pigs. Rapid growth out spaces, city services, police, fire, staffing, We ask that you guys do deny this and yeah, that's kind of what I have to say. Sorry, Rody.

name is Lane Wilding and I don't live in this area but I live up on the hill and I do have a concern a couple of concerns I've looked at the staff report in in attachment L are several things that staff talks about that they say this current plan does not meet and I've not heard any statements about proposal on how to meet it or how they're going to go forward to meet it until they come up with a plan on how to meet what the staff is saying they don't need. I'm not sure how you can actually approve this until we come up with a plan on how we're going to do that. Another concern I have would be the property values. If you look at the legislative guide, it talks about item 1k that it will protect the property values. As you increase the density in the area, I'm not sure that that's going to increase the property value for the current homeowners. It might cause a bit of a challenge and might reduce their property values. And so I think you can consider that being what that's part of the outline here as to what we're currently allowed. I would recommend you keep the current zoning and work with the developer and try to figure out a way to get the sewer and so on. and make that happen. I know that the residents, I don't know if they'd be excited to change, exchange their property and stuff like that for increased parks and having the parks. I know that's what Tremont City wants is the parks, but if the residents don't want the parks and they're willing to forego the parks relative to keeping the density lower, they might be willing to do that. But we've not heard any discussion about the exchanges of what's being proposed versus what the residents want and are they willing to give up those changes? So thank you.

My name is Ashley Anderson. I had no intention of commenting, so I'm not very prepared. But I guess I was wondering if I could see more clarification on, if there's going to be a roundabout at that intersection of Iowa String and that road, my home is right in front of that roundabout. So would I get an exit to go to my home or the neighbors? I also know that in that driveway, there is an older septic tank from my grandparents that built there before. known about that either but um yes i'm i'm just concerned about the roundabout right in front of my home can i ask clarification on that also you had made the point of like it was going to come over substantially into that area and then you said sorry so i'm just wondering how far over like what's the plan that's what the plan comes for it's going to be a wider road so i don't know what that looks like

That's not the city plan. It's not about the city plan. It's what they want. Okay.

So I don't know if there's anyone that can speak to that here. It's not even what we want. It just is what is projected for the future. That's what's projected for the future in that area.

And this is more of a common collection period that can be addressed later on.

Yeah, we can talk about that as a group and gather more information.

Okay. All right. Well, I would also like it to be as is stated by my um my neighbors we'd love it to be lower density and um but we understand that there's growth it's a great place that that would be my wish

it is a good thing depending on some of the non-meetings where we don't have separation of the public comment with the it just becomes a everybody's talking and like i have no idea what's going on so appreciate your patience with the structure of the meeting i'm max messerly i uh also live on iowa street right next to the cement plant

there's a cement plant on that corner with um iowa stream and what's it 10 30 000 north there's also another trucking business on the other end right where it looks like a plan um it's going to exit so just it's a lot going on in that road already i know there's going to be improvements but there is another business on the other end so it's just something i've been talking about My name's Courtney Wood, and I guess I have a question as far as the infrastructure goes going into this development.

In the annexation agreement or development agreement, is the developer responsible without reimbursement for the utilities, or is the city reimbursing for those utilities once they're in place and the city takes them over. In the case that they are reversing the developer once they are in place, drilling numbers become a moot point as far as making things pencil.

And I guess I just want clarification

if the city is actually, in the end, paying for all the improvements. It's not the developer who's doing that. It's something to consider. I know they say that they try and pencil it out, so to speak, but if the city's reimbursing for all those utilities, then that becomes an avenue for excessive growth, I guess.

So I would recommend denying the

Not solely on that, but a lot of other things that have been stated also.

Thank you.

Zach, welcome back here again. One thing I wanted to kind of highlight is maybe the precedence with allowing the zoning in that area would establish for future developments out on the southwest side of the town. This is just the start of the annexation zone that's planned for out there in that area. A lot of the future land use does say there's a section of industrial and low density, but what does the precedent set with having this development with that density established there? And then for reference, kind of on some of that density is look at some of the other recent developments maybe in the town with the visionary across from the hospital. we're already seeing what kind of high density there's housing there with those lots a lot of these lots that are here are even smaller than what they have there so it will be a very high dense area i appreciate brody laying out the math though for how many units per acre and that that's great but it doesn't really address what that is for those areas where there are close together for strips of town homes and for the access and out of it thank you

I motion that we close the public hearing for Heritage County Community Overland. And open the consideration decision process for deliberation and motion and vote.

It's been moved that we close the public hearing and the deliberation decision is accepted. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say yes. Yes. I personally have a lot of issues that I feel like aren't being met in this situation. Maybe we can discuss them.

I have to say that I'm sad at the amount of money that has been put into this process already. I'm personally a little bit frustrated with what's happened previous because I feel like it could have saved a lot of money with the people that really don't see this going in. I don't think it meets what we're asking as far as so many of the things that the code wanting, and I'm really worried about infrastructure costs that will be put on the city regardless of whether it's built in. So.

What have you got?

What are your thoughts? Well, I guess I have a bunch of questions. So correct me if I'm wrong, so the PUD is vested, correct? So he's vested on both properties on the PUD. It said in the report that one of the zones maybe was zoned and maybe it wasn't. How are we treating that exactly?

Yeah, the report was written more than a week ago, and we met with the applicant on Monday. We had it cleared out. There's two separate annexations at two separate times that establish two separate zones. The R110 remains, and we can reflect the zoning map to show that.

Let me clarify that, Jeremy. We've got clarification on that. We are still looking for the R110 zoning. It was presented to the Planning Commission. And the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the first annexation to have R110 at the same time as it was annexed. When it was brought and deliberated at the City Council, they did not discuss zoning in that meeting. And they annexed it without accepting the zoning. And so when we present this forward, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Delvin, but when we present this to the City Council, we would have to actually establish the zonings and the PUD at the same time. It's two separate legislative items, but at the same time. So we would still take the recommendation from the Planning Commission that we gave and present it at the same time when we take it to the City Council. And so that was just something we were trying to do with our due diligence. The way it came about is, We have never had a zoning map on that. Jones & Associates has never given that as that partial zone. We just figured it was a clerical error. And as we were looking into that clerical error, we noticed that it was never deliberated and never passed by ordinance that there was a zone there. So it was annexed and then and then it wasn't assigned a zoning at annexation, so when we apply the PUD overlay, we would also apply the zoning at the same time, but the Planning Commission has already recommended that zoning, and that's the zoning we would present with the City Council. Does that answer your question?

I think so. I'm just trying to get it real clear. So the PUD is vested, the zoning annexations are complete, right right and technically the application date was may 18th is that so technically he has what a year to complete the pud ordinance isn't that based on what we do i don't know if we have the stipulation on that i'm not aware of that yeah no if he gets the overlay we'll take the application as long as it takes to bring it forward and so so there's no time limit i guess is what i'm asking normally there's a year from the application date you know I'm just wondering I would have to check for code that's usually subdivision when they have an application as for the price for the few days it's not it's not specified in the PD overlay there's a timeline on that application entitlements are approved and adopted by ordinance it's never to expire but so I guess based on that then as far as the actual PD so really there's no question of whether we're approving the can't deny MFD meets the code.

No, a PUD is a separate legislative application. So you do have the ability to request to promote it for a proposal of approval or denial. So the PUD is a separate, in the code it says it's a separate legislative action that's applied to the underlying zoning. And so that would, it would still require a legislative decision to apply the PUD to the base zone.

but that's just based on chapter 1.33, right? I mean, if he meets the code, then we have to approve it.

No, chapter 1.33 states that it is a legislative decision and that the council may or may not approve the application. It's in the first paragraph. So, or not the first, it's in the introduction.

Does that answer your question? I think so. Okay, thanks.

Can I sign those? Okay. So according to the Tremont master, uh, transportation master plan for 2025, um, it does have on there that Tremont and the developer will have to pay for a roundabout if we put that in there. And since there isn't a lot of other developments going in right there, that roundabout, if, I mean, looking at it from, if we get these extra 400 houses or whatever, it's going to increase our, the roadway there, right? We're going to need to make improvements to that roadway.

Currently, I'm not seeing any roundabout plans from our engineer, and the engineer is going to take, based on what the needs are and the traffic study is, independent of what the master plan says. So I have not seen the roundabout in the plans for this development, but I will look into that. So even if they're not in the plans for the development, Tremont would be responsible for that roadway improvements.

Does that make sense? Yes. We're already going to be, if this developer is already planning on putting in a big pipe for the drainage and these other things, doesn't it make more sense to do that at the same time that you're doing roads? Like if you're doing sewer, we're getting sewer out there. Why not improve the road now?

In the development agreement, they are actually not making improvements onto Iowa streams. The improvements were all being made on 1001. And so I'm not sure where the roundabout fits into that, because that is one area that I haven't researched. I will have to look into that and see where that roundabout goes. I'm imagining it's on the corner of 1000 North and Iowa Street. Yeah, and that's just based on like projected, you know, whatever. So if that is the case, then we would have to write in the development agreement who is responsible for that, because the development agreement, from what I've read so far, the developer is forfeiting and not making any improvements on iostream because they are making all of the improvements on 1000 more and so does that does i don't know where that would fall on on if it's if they're doing a roundabout i'm not there but i haven't seen any plans for a roundabout but are people actually in and out of their houses they have to but then where do they go like they go they have to go east or west yeah so like that wet

That West Road, I don't even know what the road is, but not Iowa Street.

Iowa Street is the West. The East would be that.

East, thank you, whatever that one is, by the railroad. Yeah, yeah. Is that road even, like, is Tremont after this going to have to spend money developing that road if the developer doesn't do it? That would be up to the city.

Yeah, the city would have to do that.

I think maybe my question is as well, because Iowa Street, like, Where does ownership of roads begin and end when annexation occurs? Like, does it transfer hands from county to city?

No, not to the development stage. They would exact their portion of the road that they have to dedicate to the city and make the improvements necessary. On both sides of the road? No, only on their side, traditionally.

So the issue on Iowa Street is when the annex is in the road, the annex is . I'm more than happy to answer questions. But when we annex this in, this side of the road, it's only annexed half the road, and so.

So the city only bought half the road.

Yeah, so I guess that's the challenge we're running into is realistically. That's part of that. See, that so sucks because of the other. Yeah, because of these other parcels.

Well, it might come straight down here, but the plan is to come over here further.

But that's not annexed yet?

That's not annexed yet, because there's other parts that are going to have to stick up. And at that time, the partial signals will come in. So I'm just telling Bert that.

No, we just want to make sure that we understand.

And then so in exchange for it, to develop this off, they said, well, don't develop this off. We'd rather have you develop it in front of here and over here.

So who maintains the road?

The city.

For the county.

That's in the city limits. Iowa.

Iowa's going to go to or down here part of the city.

That's something I'll have to ask. That's a good question.

County or city limits. Probably. Because that will require county approval to do any work on that road. It will require a lot.

So while you're here, and you may not know and they may not know and we might have to look into this, you were talking about the new house bill that passed about giving us potential money for the affordable housing priorities. And my issue is with this kind of idea is that we think it's an idea and then nobody goes and gets it. and so i you know it's um i don't know if it would be on us to get in or you would definitely help out but it has to show a project that's going forward that can help and then it would be infrastructural so in essence capacity for sewer capacity or water capacity those all in line saying hey we can't do this project without these things improvements being made and sort of defending

Just for affordable development, or is that for a long-term use?

I also feel like that stuff usually takes years, if we're going to be honest.

But that is something to look at. If Tremont City is going to have to pay for those road improvements, that could be something that we look at of, well, if we get the funding from the state for this, then we could approve this for the PUD to be able to have those things. So the city isn't liable for it. So we're not approving the PUD and saying, oh yeah, we're going to have to do this. And then the city is liable for the rest when nothing else comes in. Like the checklist of

If we get this, then we can get this. Yeah. I was just made aware of this just this week. So I did not know of that option. So I haven't had time to research it yet.

And it does look like on the master plan, the roundabout at Iowa String and Rocket Road would be by 2034. So the other roundabout wouldn't be for a while. It would be after that. But that's kind of what they're looking at. But I just part of Rocket Road and Iowa String. intersections of that street one of them so that it's only one intersection no i don't know i'm just saying that's that's the next part of it but i just wouldn't want if we put in all of these houses to have to then make more improvements on the same end

And the truth of it is, the reality of it is that they're all going to happen when they can happen.

Contractors and, yeah. This is more like a 10-year. The reality is, and I need to talk to these guys about it, is this is not something that's happening overnight because you have absorption, right? And we're not growing as fast as we can absorb these in.

So there's absorption that happens here, and you have to look at all the horses' timing and turning.

So we anticipate this 10-year. But the other portion, we are allowed to have up to 360 units where this one is 486. And so we are willing to work with the residents of the city.

But we feel like the PUD is the better option to build things so it's more helpful for the whole area in the whole. So if we need to work some other regions out, we can. I just want to help you clarify that we feel like that's our best option.

And in regards to Mr. Wood,

have made some questions and we're still working through what's going to be paid for by the developer and where it's going to be helped out in the states we're still working through the development agreement we have a final answer when you say phases 10 to 15 years would roads be first and then there's just kind of a phase at a time right so that's what's in the development agreement that talks about like hey we'll start with this

So it's on your map here. That was what the NPI was for. You're welcome to.

Oh, well, I don't feel like we should be part of the conversation back there. And if some of this discussion like getting recorded. Just want to make sure this part of this discussion, I didn't feel like sitting in the audience. I was appropriate to speak up as part of this. So I wanted to make sure if the citizens had a voice as well with the developer in this deliberation and discussions for concerns about the roundabout and transportation plan as to what it looks like. Somebody took just a copy and paste and did a, roundabouts across the whole plan almost looks like so there's plans out there in 2034 that that's you're not going on the tree kind of what we're talking here what is the impact of this on what's going to be in there today now piece that made this opportunity to develop it as we talked there's the ownership situation there that needs to be resolved also the impact fees are the costs voting across the cost but is there also reimbursement through the impact fees is he really on the hook for it all

that's all supposed to be part of that development agreement work through understood but it's it's not just him putting in that may not give you some type of rebate so yeah that's part of that discussion i think good good discussion points uh quickly who is on the development review committee department heads uh including parks and rec uh public works our contracted city engineer planning staff at the city administrator

The city council member is not. No, it's an administrative body.

The DRC is an administrative body, but the development agreement will originate from the planning department office, and we will be seeking input from the department heads and be running it by Dalton, and then the developer will run it by their attorney and see if they like it, and then we present it as a package to the city council. Was that where your question was going?

Through after this meeting. We're still hashing out for the city.

This is a really important discussion. And let's say a PUD is approved. Code is adopted in the overlay section of the tree monster code. And that guides forevermore this project and can be amended subsequently by legislative action, that sort of thing. But when this comes to plat, staff will have clear guidelines adopted by code and can review plots accordingly. Adopted by code. Correct. That's what's going to happen as a result of the survey.

One of the things that's important to highlight is anything that does get put in reality has to follow through code. So if the code is flawed, that's what we need to address. Sure. And that's where this differs from a standard reason. Right. And I'm not saying it, but just for everybody's understanding in the same room. If you don't like, I don't know, the road width of the situation, then the current road that's there somewhere follows code. And that's part of the problem. So if that is a concern, then we should address that code before we do i'm assuming what we're doing right here to fix those concerns is that correct because then it requires upon adoption to this then it requires a developer to follow that code right so procedurally the concerns that we have as a city we should address in the code prior to

adopting adopting any overlays or any amendments or zoning not necessarily okay because the issue is all these projects are so unique we can't change the code that's the whole purpose of the pud and the overlay and the development agreement sure so the vision is they come in and prepare for every doorknob and every window obviously well but this is talking about infrastructure and city see you know we're supposed to maintain

roads or sidewalks or whatever sure then then those are the codes that we need to either say goodbye or we need to widen it here so like when it comes to the question about random amounts on it on iowa stream like that's what i'm saying the county

account like we have to in my mind procedurally that's what i'm saying and so i'm trying to make sense of how do we how do we address issues while meeting needs just like she said earlier we got to update the development agreement to include all of the details in the development agreement that will follow the property even if it sells it because so the way the the way it works is as of may 18th whatever the code was on that day whatever the code is we even if we changed it it doesn't apply to him because so and that's where he's coming from where it says we're kind of hamstrung not necessarily in a sense with the code and all the things required except in the case where we demand from the development agreement that it changes and that's the whole purpose of the pud is basically to come in and say okay hey we'll we'll give you some flexibility yeah yeah essentially we'll give you flexibility but we're demanding things in there that we can't demand of him otherwise yeah that's what he's saying is if we don't if we don't approve which includes the pipe the drainage the lift station the parks i mean it's way more intense than that i i yeah it even has like all the architectural standards and all the stuff in there that he has to make it look nicer than would otherwise be required because we can't require it in a single family neighborhood to do that

we can't require them to put in parks and put in all of this infrastructure either and you can't require anybody who just goes in and meets bare minimum zoning code to do anything like because we don't think they can ask for a permit based on the r110 zone they're not coming to a rezone meeting they're not asking for anything different they're just doing what's coming dry and they could they could put siding on a

make sure exactly deciding on an outhouse and they we'd have to accept it if it middle requirements but point when it comes to infrastructure the city can require what they need for that infrastructure so if they need a sewer treatment even if the zoning yeah they have to provide for their own they have to provide the sidewalk they have to provide the infrastructure for their development so the list station may not be a regional list station it might just be a lift station that is adequate for their development, but they would be required to pay for that. So if they need drainage for their development, then they are required to put in the size of pipe for their development, but the city can't extract from them a bigger pipe.

So that's where... That's where the reimbursable thing comes from? If we say, hey, you're already putting in a 10 size pipe, let's put in a 12 size pipe and we'll pay for that extra

amount that you wouldn't have paid for. Exactly, but as the council, I would like the commission to know also that is the case, but if density is used as the bargaining chip, that shouldn't be used as the bargaining chip because if the city's already reimbursing them for the F size, then it doesn't matter what you zone it as because the infrastructure will come either way. So that's kind of where the representation needs to be more heard that if there's the reimbursement, then the reimbursement will happen whatever mechanism that the developer and the city seems appropriate.

Are we even in the conversation when it comes to the reimbursement? No.

Yeah, it's part of it. So it's addressing the agreement. And the agreement specifically addresses your concern already too. So the agreement says that he has to pay for everything related to his project, period, roads, even his section of the lift station. And he'll be reimbursed for other regional facility improvements that are larger, but he'll only be reimbursed with monies from his project impact fees, period. So essentially the city would never reimburse him if he doesn't build it out. Because it has to be only reimbursed from impact fees from inside his project period.

True, but the impact fees are also used for future development. And so our public works department has a desire, he's trying to get $11 million for our super treatment plant, which Bernie did bring up. So we have capacity for those residents. So if you take those impact fees, and you reimburse them, you are taking away from the general fund to be able to update our sewer treatment plant. So there's going to be some negotiations that we have to work out with the current staff and the current status of our sewer treatment plant.

We should correct that, though, that he wouldn't take away any money because the money would just never be created if development didn't happen.

the money he wouldn't be taking away from the fund the fund would still be there it just wouldn't add to it if they don't build then there's no impact fees getting yeah correct but if they build when the city collects the impact fees then we would get those impact fees for it so if he just builds to his standard it does an upside then there's no need to reimburse right right yeah but it wouldn't take away from the fund it just wouldn't happen yeah that's true that's right it's not going to reduce and in fact the vision is all of these units are going to continue to pay in to help be able to but but if you do reimburse the impact fees you're adding population and stress to the system with without those impact fees going to the the future upgrades to our current treatment plant well how much are how much how what is the timeline of the impact fees when you build them right but as far as

So you're saying that six years – the mayor – I'm going to – The mayor has said it from the background. So we're saying six years, that initial impact fee is meant to carry the load of maintenance for that?

You have to use the impact fee within six years. I think that that's probably what he wants.

Then that's not what I was – I'm saying that the amortization schedule, how long does that impact fee intend to sustain the maintenance of that particular thing?

I don't have the answer to that. It's a calculation based on...

It's an impact fee study, right?

Yeah.

But what I'm saying is it is important because if we're saying that the whole project is 15 years long, then the initial impact fees that he's doing on the very first phase of the project but but they're also for that project so it's not going to like you can't like put the money from phase one over here to phase 11 because it's 10 years later we're already operating in phase one so houses are sold maintenance is happening and so for that phase are are the are the fees enough splicing hairs here

where we're talking about reimbursing portions of impact fees like these numbers matter well that's why it would never it would never matter because he's paying for everything up front so that's the whole vision of this what is everything for each phase at a time or he's paying for everything it's all paid for yes he's paying for everything up front unless we don't approve it if we don't approve it then the city is going to have to pay to get utilities to his project to my understanding that's not what our engineer said that's what the state code says

10 to 401.5 state because because we're not you annexed our property and now you're required and that makes sense to me because you're following the zone why does that work with we have areas of town where there's people that have been there for a while are still on septic but there's no opportunity for services for them and they they could come after the city request but if they have septic they're already liability and that's the issue out there so so

That is something that I would like to deliberate more and be able to find more clarity on that. On which part? On whether or not, how long the time frame is for the city to actually get utilities out to the residents.

They have to do a plan and establish plans in five years and then figure out how to go forward. Within nine years? They have to decide. The plan has to be there.

the five-year plan is and then i think they have a delivery period i don't know the exact time and i do know we do have a future annexation plan that probably should outline that i have not delved into that so i need to look at our what our future organization plan is because all those details are contained in the future but if you go back so in my mind i'm not sure if this is clear but so if brody's putting in how many units was it again

So he's putting in 496. Let's say the city wants him to put in a sewer facility for 1,000 homes, right? He's got to pay for it all up front, and then he'll be reimbursed with those 496 impact fees until he's reimbursed. But the other 504 homes will still have to pay impact. I mean, the city is still going to get all that money eventually. It's just upfront reimbursing, and odds are they'll even get more money because of the projects that the city will have to pay for. They can increase the impact fee portion of the sewer portion to be able to reimburse on the 504 homes that eventually hook on when they do. Is that one correction that I'm just asking?

Because we're saying he has to pay for his portion. No, he has to pay for all of it. Well, but assuming we're introducing reimbursement, the part that's reimbursed is for the extra yes not for his exactly so he's paying everything for is this correct so so he's still paying for all of the impact fees that we as citizens would expect it to pay for the portion of i'm saying we're going off of this philosophy here this this conversation where he's he's paying for a lift station that services 500 additional homes than what he's planning to build. That's where we started our mind game here.

Do you know what the numbers actually are?

be out there with those zones that are out there could have gone eventually but uh and there's just we're still in negotiation if the city's going to pick right up front or they're going to you know that's we still have not died no into the development agreement so like to say who's paying for what or when it's really tough because we've actually not gone through this right well i'm just kind of sitting here saying you know before we commit to one side or the other it's just saying hey we're willing to work with the city and try to figure things out but we have to know if it's a pd even that option

Yeah, and really what I'm trying to illustrate is an educational example for folks like me who haven't obviously understood this part about where impact fees are collected and where they're spent and how it works in the example that we're talking about. If, for example, you are paying for a lift station that's going to service 1,000 people you are reimbursed only for the portion that is yet to be developed. That's the question. That's what the agreement says. And assuming this public meeting is recorded and we have this information out there, that could be included in the development agreement regardless. No, it's in the development agreement already. That's what I pulled it from.

I guess what I mean. Because we said it wasn't signed. It's not signed, but it's proposed. The development agreement was attached to our thing.

That's the development agreement draft.

Yes, but it's in the draft. That's the way it's written in the draft. Okay, perfect. But it's actually more than that. So the whole vision of this PUD vision was we said, hey, we want to plan, because really the number of units is somewhat irrelevant. just because it's eventually going to develop out anyway. We can do it like Tremont style, where we put in 20 homes here and 30 homes there, and we don't get any parks, and we don't get any of these cool things that could be done on a grand scale. So the vision of the PUD is to say, hey, you've got a 73-acre piece, and he's going to dedicate 18% of that piece to parks, and then he's going to approve those parks, all of the money developed from this project only. So that was the whole vision. So the city doesn't have to pay for any of this stuff. He's paying for all of it upfront, all the infrastructure, all the parks, all the improvements to get there and to service the project, including the outfall line. It looks like you've got a drain line going to the river, correct? So, I mean, ultimately all of this is ultimately on him and we're basically saying, Hey, we'll give you a little bit of density. If you provide a genie Stevens park, plus the three and a half acre park, which looked like it had some, I don't know. But so, I mean, you know, incredible things that if we put all that on the city, that's exactly why no parks have been built in 25 years.

But it's not the direction we really want the city to go with all that, how that fits within the master plan and that development in that area. Great, we're getting all the benefits from it. Absolutely. Because you set this precedent for those numbers. Well, it does, but it doesn't, because if you look at that long term use plan, it's got industrial construction and then much of Logan,

It's like a road going straight through this development area. Future and future.

So I calculated, so the R18, which is R18, is technically 5.44 units per acre. And essentially he's averaging 6.73. So it's not like we're giving him, like River's Edge is 30 units per acre.

I mean, this is 6.77. Aspen Ridges is 10.

You know, I mean, these generally on average, especially if you consider the 13 and a half acres of parks, I mean, this is generally still lower overall than you might get in a traditional single family residential environment. I mean, we're not that far off in the grand scheme of things.

But the vision, just another clarification question, because I find this very important. When you say paying for everything up front, paying in chunks and phases?

Yes, it's in phases.

So certain things have to happen in phases. Because you also have to sell and get revenue. That's why everything is kind of done through phases.

And I think the first part, which was the one part I did, was phase six. Phase seven.

Sorry, I can't remember. I have a question on staff. Can I ask a question? As we're putting together the development agreement and going over the phases, that is a very important thing. It was brought up at the NPI meeting that the park would be used as a retention pond until they were able to phase and get that drainage in. And so that's something that I would like to know as we dive through this, what are the phases and the priorities that we need to put with that because there could be some concerns from residents that that retention pond and putting in all those houses there

when is that coming in and when is it going to be a detention pond and that's something yeah we have that retention pod in there and that retention pond is actually big enough that they can facilitate the whole project in a hole and uh we've been with chris right home through it with my engineer so we discussed that whole meeting there until we had enough people there in essence for that infrastructure

So the phase, at what point will that, the park transition from a retention pond to a park? The same phase when it goes to detentions. They all have the same phase. And what phase is that? I believe you said seven.

That's what it said in the agreement, was seven and 11, technically one park with seven, one park with 11.

Do you know which one? Okay, I'll look at it.

Yeah, the park is seven. Phase one is, oh my gosh. Yeah, we started with Southwest and East,

flows that way. So we started .

so i went through and i compared out like does he meet the pud uh he's got a five acre minimum he's got mixed housing types i mean that's my favorite part of this is this is not just one type i mean there's all sorts of types all sorts of flavors all sorts of affordability ranges to my knowledge the part in the report about the density higher in one project than the other the chapter specifically addresses that that can be averaged over the entire PUD. So that's irrelevant, you know, in my mind, because I mean, he's doing one PUD and it's overlaid and the density can go so he can stack it, you know, put more density here. So he has an 18 acre park, 13 acre park, you know what I mean? So he's doing a master plan. He's doing common architectural themes. He's got a single development entity. He's got no more than six units maximum.

He's got 18% of his project is parks.

The parking, I mean, in my opinion, I think he needs to add the quarter for the guest parking. Just looking at it, it looks like there are only two parking stalls per unit, and technically it's two and a quarter for the code. Well, I would probably put that in the development agreement, just that it'd be two and a quarter, just so we have some visitor parking. Also, one note, I noticed in the development agreement, the parcel numbers are switched, like they're incorrectly written. in the 001 and the 0016 yeah that was that was um when the development agreement is the 001 both of the numbers are swaps yeah the number the numbers are swapped in section whatever it was i wrote down it's in the the reimbursement section for the list station it's it has the partial numbers in there but they're correct um the landscaping and the streets i mean he's got a tree plan he's got all that really the only thing in my mind that we need to finalize and i don't know how to do that here but is we need to get the units the types the density the parks all that stuff in the development agreement and get that development agreement through to make sure you know we're going to hold him to the parks and if anything i would recommend that we put a bond together for the parks at some point so in the event he doesn't develop it you know that we still get the park as a city you know i guess it's the vision it's like um that's the the trigger in my mind is like if he bonds for the park up front he's going to be vested to develop it out because he has to pay for the parking way kind of in here that's yeah that's a good point as you do your discussions

If there's anything you want in the development agreement, make sure that's known so that we know that when we're putting together that development agreement. I agree with Michael. What do we need in this development agreement? Let's make sure that's very clear here so when staff and I start putting in pen and paper, we have what you see needing to be in the development agreement. For example, the roundabout that was talked about earlier, Well, if that's a concern that the commission has, then we can try to address that in the development agreement and impact fees.

And it is kind of a negotiation because, right, do you have to pay for an upgrade and collect that later?

So kind of give a preference on where that needs to go to would be really helpful. At this point, I just want to jump in and see if there's any legal questions with respect to the PUD overlaid. and its application in this instance and whether or not, if you have any legal questions on that.

I have a legal question about it. So the way that the staff report is written implies that the general plan is a requirement per chapter 1.33, like it has to be exact, like on the general plan. But when I read it, it says the general plan is an advisory, more of a direction. and the chapter 1.33 is the actual regulatory code. So my question is, is that true or not? Because the way the staff has framed the actual report is kind of like, you know, like it's more like they're basing all of these things on the general plan. The general plan is more of an advisory, not a strict regimen. Does that make sense?

So you're not bound by the general plan, but the general plan is there right so so certainly just the city count on your recommendation the city council can do what it wants it can go with the general plan or it can go against the general plan it's not bound by the general plan we might make a general plan yeah but i think as a general rule trying to follow the general plan is good practice because that's why we have it you know when we're trying i mean the general plan is a vision of the city like this is where we're going to put this this is where we're going to put this to make it all cohesive And when you don't follow the general plan, it throws a wrench in it. I mean, for example, infrastructure improvements are often tailored to what the general plan indicates. So if the general plan indicates high or higher density in a certain area, Public Works and others can plan in advance to say, okay, we're intending to have additional improvements over here. Therefore, we're gonna need the Public Works infrastructure to come up with that, right? I think as practicality, following the general plan is by far better because you can plan the city. But by no means are the city bound by the general plan because it is somewhat of an advisory or no, I wouldn't say- It's not legally- It's not binding, right? I think it specifically says it's advisory. Well, yeah, and I guess when I say it's advisory in the sense of you don't have to do it, but to cause a cohesive plan, you follow the general plan. I mean, I don't know who was here when you did the general plan, but those are extensive and a lot of work for planning commissions to do with general plans. And so when you're considering items that run across the general plan, generally the planning commission's like, no way, because you put a lot of work into that, and that's how that looks. But you're not valid by it. And then...

The general plan is what, 2002?

i want to say that's right so none of us none of us were here yeah and the general plan was put into place and the general plan didn't know about interest rates or the park or any of these things that would be you know it didn't contemplate any of that i don't know i've had the conversations where it's like well it's kind of updated in general times but that's also again a huge undertaking the last plan that we took the staff report off of was in 2023. that's good and so not only here

So, and staff will always bring the reports to reflect the general plan. It's not, it's advisory only, we know that as staff.

And then to basically the second part of your question, the PD is entirely discretionary to the city council. So the city council has discretion on whether or not to adopt the PD overlay or not. And so in your role, you also have discretion to make the recommendation to approve or deny or approve with modifications based on what you determine in this meeting or subsequent meeting. But I guess I just want to say, for example, I don't know what you want to do, but if you say what's proven with conditions, that would be helpful. Or with modifications, that would be helpful in negotiating the development agreement, particularly with infrastructure updates, parks, those types of things.

And then we can go with it to the city council.

Is it better for us to approve it with those things or to ask to come back? with those changes before we approve it?

I would just say depending on the extent of the changes. So if it's like scrap the whole thing, we're starting from the beginning, I wouldn't recommend approving it with changes because they're going to just rewrite the book. But if you're going to make slight or modest modifications to the application, which really those changes are, again, recommendations to the city council, then you could go your way on that.

on the planning commission has achieved its intended goal to really uncover every stone discuss the necessary topics have good discussion that staff couldn't have taken the time to come up with if we had a hundred years to plan this and so as a result of tonight's meeting we have good feedback on what a development agreement maybe shed a tail and then and then we've heard from both the planning commission and staff and that'll be made known to the city council and report to them um and so uh i would just recommend well i have a question i have a few more things to add to the list too sorry infrastructure payment for citizens that are already there

development agreement says that the city will be waiving them I know that the City Council was not a favorite of that so well I let me retract that I just would like to have direction on what what how you would want to have the infrastructure impact fees handled with the current residents like people with septic tanks

If I can get some light on that. So in the city council meeting, we discussed some of the bigger things where a lot of the people who were coming on didn't want to have to pay. There was this, I think, $17,000 impact fee. The $17,000 impact fee. And in lieu of that, they were going to be able to sell their West Grand Water share for roughly $45,000 to $40,000. That's what the billing rate is. So they do net. If they were to pay it, they'd net it. But a lot of them didn't want to pay that. In fact, they had already paid those fees in essence once, so why would we have to pay it again to the county side? And so they wanted that to be cleared.

So in discussions, we were back and forth, and we were trying to figure out a way to make it so that they wouldn't have to.

And so before Justin all left, he recommended that, and so that's what we had to come with. But there could be other ways that could remedy those things, and

So, yeah, I think it's a mute point because, I mean, whether the city or developer, I mean, you trade them. I mean, if they don't want to pay it, then trade them for their West Korean water share, which they don't need anymore.

Yeah, but that's real property. Now you're telling them they have to do that. But it's their own real property. They've already paid the fee as part of their construction. Oh, sure.

But they're also getting the sewer. I mean, a lot of the septics are failing. know I just showed a home over there recently and that was the number one thing they said is we're going to get sewer so don't worry about our septic system that's failing so when the septic systems fail it will be irrelevant whether they own a water share or not it will be critical whether they put down to the sewer I think that's the whole purpose of why the city did what they did and was another benefit we haven't talked about as far as Brody putting all this stuff in because again same problem the city already annexed all of their property in with the promise that they would provide sewer to them which if they don't i mean they're going to have to get it to them one way or the other it'll just be on the city's dime instead of on brody's time 34 000 for their shares yeah that's what they're going for i think 34 34.5 is i think what they're selling for 17 000 to hook this up for the sewer up to their house and the water that's for the impact so that's like how much i would pay like if i already have a house there

I would have to pay $17,000, or I could sell my water share.

You get to sell your water share at that point. You don't get to because you're using less green water currently.

Yeah. So I could either hook up to Septic and get that and pay that $17,000, right, or sell it. I'm going to sell your share, though.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But, like, what happens to the rest of them?

It's real property. It's part of what needed that share. It's part property.

So if they didn't want to sell their share, they wanted to keep it, but they would be out $17,000.

The agreement just states that there is no fee. That's what it currently states in there. And so residents in London, they were saying, hey, we've got to get the full benefit of that and sell that share.

there was a lot of discussions about the annexation and negotiations with there's a lot of history there that we probably don't have yeah more than enough time to get into yeah well i think it's really that's going to be the city council decision i'm not sure that that's really part of this conversation today in my mind but some would be included i mean you're saying it's in the agreement it's in the agreement this is also where we can modify that agreement

sure is the development agreement far enough along that you feel like we can make these additions to it or do you got to go and like i've already looked at my attorney and we've gone through it all and we said it you know back in that's where we're at right now so i'm in the back of course of the city and then that's where we're at now but the problem is is and i'm not trying to we had a change of staff in the meantime so i don't know i don't think christine and jeremy have

Well, some of the other things I wanted to put in there was specifically, like, quantifying the car acreage, quantifying the lift station location, the easement associated, just because, you know, we don't want to get to a point where, okay, we're required to do this, but we don't have the correct easements and the location of the septics or the lift pump, lift station. i also think we should put the 0.25 requirement for the guest parking or is that written down already okay and then i also think we should review i don't know what should happen but probably need to have a traffic study tell us what safety uh fire safety corrections need to be made because in reading his thing he kind of acted like he was talking about the train and a bunch of it and i'm not sure that i really grasped to fix it and i'm not sure if it really needs to be fixed because he does have multiple exits on multiple roads but just i just wanted to put in there to make sure if there was any corrections necessary to meet the code that we put those in the agreement and then the pond the bond for the park um i think we should put those in there at some point uh and what else did they have his name what bond in his name usually what they'll do is they'll do like a development loan or cash either one and then essentially put the money out from saying okay we're gonna we're gonna improve this thing and then it's there to draw on if he fails or doesn't build it out in the time frame necessary he does okay if they have to just like an insurance almost like an insurance policy you pay it and then if he fails to build the park it goes out but that's the whole vision of this is he's got and he's got to make sure that he's going to build it you know fast enough and along with it to be able to pay for all the infrastructure the parks and everything that he's got you know but that's why this thing you know it's a big project but if you cut any of those pieces out he can't afford to do all the things that we're demanding of him and the city can't afford to do it like we proposed either you know

I'm just sorry about your comment about the egress from the fire department there too. Previously you mentioned about averaging across the PUD overlay too. I think you also need to take into consideration one ingress and egress too then for the area. And if that's the case, you only have three exits for all those homes.

your ingress and egress as part of that fire evaluation is do they're really sufficient with those of that east west road on both ends is it the rail approach okay maybe it's only two i don't know how that evaluation would go yeah well that's why i don't think we're ready to decide i think the traffic study the traffic engineers professionals they need to figure that out but i'm not sure that it's paramount with this he has at least two um and if he has three fantastic but he has two you know exits and entrances that i you know i think meets the definition of the code.

So what about that road on the other side, on the east side? Is that all owned by the city? Yeah. That's a city road that comes up right there. I think it actually comes up as owned by the city.

Some of it is, but I don't think all of it is.

The county is probably at the bottom section. Yeah, I think the annexation goes up to the railroad tracks all so that rest of that from i-15 south which includes that and the road talks to east which includes that county road is counted so that east road is it'll eventually be the city no because the annexation plan doesn't go further east that is the end of the annexation plan we'd have to change our future annexation plan yeah which we will i mean i'm sure we're going to annex those pieces in that are on the road i mean they're not going to go into elwood elwood doesn't even have any city services anywhere across the river

There was a discussion with Elwood on that and I'd have to check my notes to see if that's part of our future implementation plan that we're currently working on.

Mr. Chair, if there's no more legal questions, I will be conscious of the city's resources and head out.

Yeah, those really lucrative resources that were being paid to you.

Is there anything that's going to be gained if we delay the vote? Because in my mind, I mean, we can vote whatever stipulations we want now to put in the agreement.

Yeah, I would say you can make your recommendation either way. That includes suggestions for stuff to, suggestions for things to step into again.

And I would also like to thank the Planning Commission for the deliberation and the discussion, and just bring it all back to the land use. We've had a good discussion on what could be happening, but also bring it back to the land use of this area. That's what you guys are supposed to be deciding, all the details that we discussed in the development agreement, as the staff will look at that, and then it's your guys' job to deliberate, does this fit what the city plans for this area?

mean honestly i wish this was next to my house i mean yeah because it would be closer to the city center it's the park is the parks like my kids there's not even a sidewalk to get the parks where i live but i mean eventually rivers edge is going to do their thing but that park's pretty tiny compared to this you know but i think this is exactly what we were hoping would happen is that there would be huge things i think gets built out and all the neighbors around there utilize those facilities and parks and their values will go up because of the sewer and water infrastructure that's available for them to utilize I mean for me if you're entertaining I'd entertain a motion to approve it and recommend a positive recommendation City Council with those requirements added to the development agreement the traffic study the total number of units quantified The exact product types, I think we should quantify in the development agreement. The acreage for the park, I think the architectural standards are already in there. The lift station and the easement, the parking for the 0.25 for the guests, the safety for fire, and the bond for the parks.

It would be the parking 2.5, does that give him more policy?

No, it just gives him more parking.

Disturbing.

He just needs to have . Yeah. he's probably going to lose some homes to fit it in just because he's got to add a quarter for every unit so we've got to add however many units that is i mean at least for both that's happening in the reduction of the dense units is also possible

Well, he only needs it more. Yeah, he only needs it for the townhomes.

And I would say we cap the density of what is proposed is that he can't go more than the proposed density of 496. You know, and put all that in there that he, you know, has to pay for it, that there was no reimbursement except for impact fees on his project. On his... On future. There's no reimbursement unless his project... creates impact fees to reimburse him for the improvements. Which is what the agreement already says. The agreement already says that, so I don't think that's a good idea.

It's been moved, as stated, that we recommend to the City Council All the things that I named off. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

I move and second it. All those in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No. Those opposed say no. Yeah. Yeah. The motion passes. And here's why on my end, because I know it's been asked. And this is something that I've been rolling around in my head for probably since May or whenever it was first brought to us. I don't think it's the city's business to influence a developer one way or another. And that's a private property owner, just like each of you. And I think the city would do well to, with care, approach their desires and their intents in the right timeline and under the right assumptions before they Not expect, but anticipate actions from private citizens that they would hope happen. Does that make any sense? I don't think it's the purpose of government to influence a negotiation for private money. That's my take. And because of that, I think that it's almost a right for this developer to continue doing as they have been done, or as they've passed, because of the assumption by us as a city given to them way back from the beginning. I don't think it's right that it happened. But because it did, I think this is a certain way to make that private, that person whole. That's my, talking about risk, we can talk about risk and city annexation actions and the force of government and how, where and when it starts and ends. but it goes and it goes back to the same same concern with the septic tanks versus getting hooked up i don't think it's it should they should not be able to force you to get rid of your water shares it's my opinion to get the offer to get the pieces that they are saying you will get as an annexed person that you didn't agree to be annexed or you know whatever i just think that This is a private transaction that I would apply to every private citizen equally. I think it's worth, that's why, that's my why.

Can I give my number? Yeah. This neighborhood is just like my parents' neighborhood in Smithfield. It's off of, I mean like prior Main Street goes down Smithfield and it's off S600 or whatever, there's a massive park there. And they built this big visionary neighborhood. And it is amazing. My parents, my kids love it so much. There's so much diversity. My kids go to the park and meet friends that are like in my parents' neighborhood from townhouses and from other homes. And they just love it so much. And it feels like the right amount of density for that area. Just like in Smithfield, it's not in the city center. It's down a few blocks from the city center, but it's close enough. that it gives people that sense of community, and it really is that whole community that gives you those different type of people that can be there with you, and we can have that kind of, establish that kind of community within this development. So for me, that makes sense to me, and I think that having the park and having all those amenities and all that, it will just build more community in Tremont, and bring more people that we want here. So that's my line.

What I don't want to have happen is what they're doing, what's going to happen if we don't do stuff like this. Because right now, there's hundreds of people that are going to watch this. And there's hundreds of people that need a place to live, and they can't find one. Fortunately, we all have places to live, but there's a bunch of people who don't. And I feel like we have to stand up, and we have allow the developers to create units that are cheap enough and small enough that people can afford to live, that our kids have a place to live. And unfortunately, like Idaho, they just had to lamb-bam. They just changed the legislature, passed a code that requires every city over 10,000 to allow every residential acre in every city to be 1,400 square foot lots, which 1,400 square foot lots is 31 units to the acre. Entire Idaho just passed that. And that's what's going to happen in our state if we don't allow developers to pay for everything and put in these projects that have some affordability to them. It's going to be crammed down the city's throat, in my opinion. And then I think we're going to get the same thing just without all the parks and all the bells and whistles and the things that we're trying to make him do, in my opinion.

And welcome for your no's if you want to. You guys know I was requesting the yes.

Yeah, what's your no? Tell us your no.

Again, it all stems from the main plan. And until we as a city stick to a plan and develop from that plan, we're just going to have these things way out here and way out there. And you can build this thing way out down the Iowa String and the kids won't be able to walk to town. There's no sidewalks to be walking to those. And that's what I get closer to about this town. They built these islands, island out here and island out there.

Your example is great. Everything was right there. But this is going to be way out there again. And it's limited roads.

One road will have the railroad tracks on it. And Iowa's dream is, like you said, it's crazy busy. Semi's running down that thing at 55 miles an hour. And it's just busy.

I think this is actually closer than the temple is in 50 miles to Main Street. That's my answer. I am predicting that this would be a great spot.

I like the concept. I just wish it was in town.

I just wish it was close in town so people would get to it. I mean, there's a lot of people. It's going to be almost 5,000 people. There's 73 acres. You're right. You're right. But it's way out there in town.

Yeah, but where would you put it? There's not 73 acres available anywhere in town, period. I mean, show me a 73-acre beach. I wish there was. You asked why I said no.

Actually, to be honest, I agree with

I support a lot of these ideas.

Like I actually believe that Brody deserves to be able to do what he's. And like, I mean, a lot of these things that we're talking about, if we had been able to preemptively do some things, it would be really nice at this point. I'm just, I'm not a solid yes. So I felt like I needed to be a no. But yes, I do wish it wasn't him. And that is, I mean, we don't, it's,

making two choices that are a difficult choice it's a yes or no yeah i really appreciate mike he gets into these details a lot of things for you guys to take back and make sure that this happens right especially the vlog that reminds me that was and that's important i mean i'm sure we did but just figure out how to go all the way through and listen to him to get this the county road and city I really, really think that's going to be important. It's a way that we can secure those for the city in some fashion so that we can control that rather than be at the mercy of a timeline that we can never determine

and maybe we should get in that challenge is to say, hey, let's find a way to get the sidewalk to city, you know, for the project, so.

That was my biggest concern is sidewalks in the town.

walking trail is right there, and they're trying to . And maybe we can even put that on the application for the infrastructure. That would maybe be considered under the infrastructure requirements. I don't know, put the grant with the state. That'd be helpful. Can I make a motion to adjourn? Well, we're going to do some public comments.

Oh, we have public comments? They don't want to do that. I don't really do. I've gotten a little nervous. Point five, so public comments. This is where I'll back up. Give us what you got.

so after you're going to the origin there i did want to make just one last point there with kind of the point of being outside of town or including the community where we have the freeway coming through there it's a very distinct demarcation line within the town with um a lot of everything centered on the on the north side now peace with me we need our age to grow right at times when we bring out some pounds at our foot we already have islands and i know so my parents live in lehigh it's very it's very much the same where The north side was very late in developing and almost came from American Forks back down to the freeway. We're trying to force this development across the freeway to go out. And I don't think that by trying to move this type of development and setting a precedent for this out that way is gonna really keep Tremont in the way that it's gonna, by any plan like that, is envisioned for those areas. However, I do appreciate your full respect. it is a landowner it deserves to do with what you know what's there that's not supposed to code but is it right for how at least between one developed that area and i respectfully disagree with that decision but i do appreciate it thank you thank you the chair excuses micah

I motion to- No. No? Public comments.

I was hoping to motion to close the public comments. I really want to give it a little longer, Stu.

Bill Crowther, I live on the Iowa stream and I was in this meeting when this whole thing took place Whether it was going to be annexed into the city or not and I know this exact thing was what our concern was that once it's annexed in the city and we lose control and we were lied to by everyone sitting up here not you guys but city council and it is just frustrating because it it wouldn't have been annexed into the city then still ben county so that's just been my frustration

Jamie Crowder, and I have to disagree with you both, too, because I 100% agree with what you're saying. South of the freeway, I don't know why we can't maintain that residential railfield. You are getting pushed by a developer that is who's pushing this. Why wouldn't we want this? That is a developer's opinion. That is his. It's not respect. It's not what everybody else in the area. And to compare this to Smithville, this isn't Smithville. And I don't like it when you can keep comparing things so that they're not even the same. Oh, my kid, that's not our situation. You know? And when you say, where is even that road? It's kind of frustrating when it's when you're making a decision of this size to affect this many people and you don't know where all the roads and where they go. That's frustrating. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your comments and answering why you did that. But I do disagree with the decision. i feel like south of the freeway should be maintained the residential road bill i agree with you know this is a great spot but i do think it needs to be closer to the city center than 100 agree with what ben bringer says and just i just would hope that city council can maybe listen to voices of the people you know and put faith and trust back into are you listening to what the people say and what they want and not what a developer on the planning commission

I just want to say that many families chose to live here because of the open space, the quiet streets, and the sense of community. Replacing those features with large density or medium density pack developments can permanently alter what makes our city unique and attractive. Sorry, can you see me? Oh, my name's Krista Spredkar.

Appreciate you waiting. Lane Wilding. Again, I looked at the staff report, appendix L, had a whole lot of do not recommend that we go forward until we get the questions answered. I have not seen any answers or heard any discussion here relative to the staff report in that appendix L of that staff report, and this does not meet the requirements as addressed by the staff report. Maybe I have an obsolete staff report. This is the one I got last week.

just curious how we're going to address those thank you my name is brenda i just have a quick question uh we have a business of trucks and we parked in our properties what's going to happen with that and what's going to happen with the school buses because i have my babies girls they If you guys could sidewalk, the bus is not going to stop right there. So she told me, hey, so my bus stops in my house. What are you guys going to do about that? And I have horses, animals, cows, chickens. What's going to happen with that? If you guys bring other people, what about the other people complaining of the smell or the stuff? That's my question.

don't what was your name brenda brenda yeah thank you Would you like me to do it out loud? Yeah, I'll ask all the other public comments. Happy to hear it. All right.

OK.

It's been moved that we end public comments. Second. And seconded. Those in favor, say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes at 7.55. Any new staff questions?

We have one staff business item. I'll let Jeremy take over.

Sure. Okay. Both the state statute and our own code require training for the planning commission, one hour on open meetings law, three hours on land use topics. So staff are formulating ways that we can help you meet the requirement. One hour on land use law. for this year. So there are two, there are really only two relevant conferences in the planning world. And one is upcoming. It's called the Utah Land Use Institute, abbreviated ULUI. I have been wanting to go to this one. It's headed by some really cool people. A hero of mine, Craig Call. He's a heavy hitter in the planning world. He has this thing. It's his brainchild, really. So October 22nd and 23rd So there's a full conference both days. There's generally one of the days they'll choose, and maybe it's like a few classes and a few segments generally together. And so we would recommend, and there are opportunities to fund planning commissioners. We'll check the funding opportunities.

This one's in Sandy.

And so, yeah. That I don't know. So anyway, the training's coming up. Save the date. If you want to go, we want to try to enable funding commission training.

This is October 22nd. So usually there's a date for public or city or county. People like us. Yeah. Is that due? Will you let us know? We'll look into that. And then there's the full conference. On four days? Well, if you were going to pick a day. I mean, I went to one in Logan, and it was mind-blowingly helpful.

The topic's generally designed to help you in your role, as well as there being broader topics to discuss.

But the broader topics are also really helpful because it gives you content.

We would find out what the schedule is and find out what is pertinent to you, and then we can discuss there. We just wanted to throw out the dates right now.

Yes, yes. It's the county one. What do they call that? Isn't it going to be a fall?

The county planning office is putting on, it's an event of some sort and it's finally related. And it's gonna be at the Utah State campus there in Brigham City. Save the date for that one. Why don't I just send an email? Send an email. Because that is coming up and I believe it's, I think it's September.

Yeah, I think it's in September. So. Okay, thank you.

That will also count for training as well.

That's all staff has. I appreciate it. I appreciate you guys being here. I'm happy to talk. Let me know.

I would like to motion that we adjourn.

It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor?

Yes.

Motion passes.