Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] for the February 28th, 2026. We will start this off with a prayer from Mr. Segmiller and the pledge by Commissioner Davis. [sighs]

Heavenly Father, we're thankful to be gathered tonight and acknowledge uh the great blessing and opportunity we have to be involved with our local government and the decisions that affect our communities. We ask that thou will watch over our meeting and guide those who speak and those who think and need to make decisions. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[clears throat]

First on item on the agenda for tonight is the approval of tonight's agenda. Mr. Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve tonight's agenda planning commission. Commissioner Yur second. I have a first by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor? I. Uh item two is the approval of the planning commission minute meetings from February 4th, 2026. This is commissioner. I move that we approve the planning commission minutes from February 4th, 2026. Seconds. First and from Commissioner Yur and a second. Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I.

Item three is declaration of abstensions or conflicts. Does anyone have any with tonight's? All right. Item [clears throat] jump right in to item four. Item 4 A is G-25-07. A request to amend the general plan land use map from [clears throat] the V LD to LD/medium density, low density to CCOM and noncom to CCOM located at Antigua Lane and George [clears throat] Washington Boulevard. We'll turn the time over to Elden on this.

Thank you, commissioners. Um again I just want to reiterate this is a general plan amendment um which is a high-level comprehensive road map that guides lands use decisions in regards to zoning transportation and resource resource management uh providers for the city. you know, we haven't seen any specific site plans or details as to how this land is going to develop out, but just a very high level general plan is is what we're looking at tonight. So, we'll dig in here. You mentioned some terms there. Um, and I don't want to overlook those abbreviations. I want all the public understands those. You know, the VLD is very low density. The LD is low density. The CCOM is community commercial and the ENCOM is neighborhood commercial. You can see the map here. This is the location that we're looking at. It's approximately 17.94 acres and is broken down as follows. Here we'll dig in this next exhibit. the general plan currently sits. The red on the bottom half is neighborhood commercial and then that yellow area is low density and then the green is is the very low density areas. You can see here neighborhood commercial currently exists on the property which is this bottom red area. The applicant's proposing to change this existing neighborhood commercial to community commercial, which is approximately 5.38

acres, and then expand this to the north of approximately 4.3 acres for a total commercial of 9.76 acres. So, that's kind of the first component to this general plan. And then looking to the north in this yellow area, this black line here is is the north end of the proposed commercial. Approximately 1 acres of low density remaining. They're asking to change that to medium density and extend that medium density to the north for a total area of 3.828. And then lastly is this green area on the north end. They're proposing or asking to change that from very low density to low density. And this is what their proposal includes. You got the red proposed commercial 9.76 acres, medium density of approximately 3.82 82 and then low density of 4.36. Staff has reviewed the requested change and is comfortable with the proposal as it feathers the existing uses there of very low density and low density to to uh the proposed commercial there. Furthermore, Antigua Lane will help transition between the existing residential and commercial uses. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval of G-25-07 as outlined and discussed in these

exhibits on to city council. And that concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Elden, on the the community commercial, what are some of the things that can go in? What's the difference between the community commercial and the neighborhood commercial? So, community commercial um neighborhood commercial includes the AP and C1 uses um and is is a a community commercial feel um which is the the existing Ncom. We can see here how it sits today. The Ncom includes the AP and the C1 uses. They're asking it to go to the CCOM, which is more of a service based commercial. Um, it includes outdoor uh sales. Um, and just a little bit heavier type of commercial. Our commercial uses are broken into a C1, which is a very light use indoors, and we go to a C2, which is a service-based commercial, and then a C3 use, which is more of a regional draw, big box commercial, and they're proposing to go to the CCOM, which includes up to the C2 use,

but not the C3. Correct. So in the C2 we might see a service station or a a quick serve restaurant.

Correct. Yeah. Service stations are are uh at allowed use in the C1. Um you know C2 would allow them to expand to outdoor sales uh little outdoor storage areas in that regard. And then the medium density is basically how many units per we're not going to see condos or or or town homes or or apartments in the mixed in the medium density. Correct.

It it'd be an option. Um medium density includes 4 and a half to six units per acre. includes the R2, the R16, and the R18 zoning, which is a 6,000 square foot or an 8,000 square foot lot size. Um, but more so looking to the density count, you know, 4 1/2 to six units per acre, whereas the very low density is 1 and a half to 2 and 1/2 units per acre.

Okay. Can um Commissioner Elden, could you provide some more examples of the types of commercial uses we'd see under SECOM? [clears throat] You bet. Great question. Um I can just roll through the the use regulations if you'd like. Um we go through that. It includes auditorium, conference rooms, museum theaters, libraries, and community social centers, mobile food vendor, repairing, renovating, painting, and cleaning of goods, merchandise, and equipment where all operations are conducted entirely within a fully enclosed building. and then retail and/or wholesale and or rental of goods, merchandise and equipment which may include storage and display outside [clears throat] itself. Um and then we get into some condition conditional use permit approvals um hospital motel motor vehicle trailer camper recreational vehicle sales agencies. What might we what kinds of things might we see under SECOM that we would not see under ENCOM already?

The um hospital, hotel or motel are not in the in those type of uses. The motor vehicle, trailer, camper and recreational vehicle sales agency outdoor sales as well. Some of those would require conditional use permits as well, but correct. Okay. And one other question for you, you used the phrase feathering the density. Um, it sounds like that may be a best practice. Can you explain that in this situation? Like what did you mean by that?

Great question. We'll zoom in here so you can see this light or the green area is very low density. It currently then transitions into the low density and then that low density bumps up to the neighborhood commercial. Typically, we like to transition these general plans no greater than one step in in density. Um so what they're proposing meets that criteria as this very low density they are then transitioning to the low density which is not greater than one step in transition [clears throat]

steps down density which is another feather which will then

so the feathering means we don't want one use that's in stark contrast to another use. For example, we wouldn't want very low density right next to high density. They don't vibe well. We we try to like create a little barrier between them. And is there a reason why we go to a a higher level of density next to commercial rather than having low density next to commercial? Why are we feathering it that way as well? Yeah, those fall under best practices. Uh, higher density and commercial typically fall near arterial roadways, hightraicked areas, higher density next to commercial. Um, which which creates that buffer transition into those larger lot areas. Oh, so it's like where we place commercial where there's already large roadways and that it can handle a lot of traffic and those happen to be the same conditions we're looking for in lower density. So that's why we it tends to go, you know, cuz it's not just here, but it's all throughout town where it's like commercial and then higher density and then it slowly gets to lower density as it steps out of those commercial arteries. Is that it?

Yes. Typically that's that's how we like to see it. There are variances, you know, outliers with that and circumstances, but typically that's how it works. Yes. Do you guys have any other questions? Do you have any questions, F? Okay, we will open this up to public hearing. Um, we did get the the ones that were turned in online that were submitted online. We've all had the chance to read them and go through them. Um, so if any of you would like to get up and speak to this, I'm sure some of you are because there's only one item on the agenda and there's a lot of people here. Um, when you come up to speak, please state your name in the mic and try to keep it as close as you can to the three minutes and try not to just keep repeating the same thing. I mean, it kind of wears on us up here and doesn't help us make our decision any easier. So, at this point, if anyone would like to come up and speak, please do so. Am

I okay? As long as you're not reiterating the whole thing, that's that's fine. If you have something else to say online that you said online, that's that's fine.

Uh, good evening. My name is Chris Kurs. I live at 1475 Majestic Drive. That's the property at the northmost portion there of that image that we're looking at uh before it becomes a uh uh 8 acre parcel. Um, I'm not going to reiterate what I put in writing. You've all read it. You understand my position on it. But what I do want to look at is if we're looking at this map here just from a common sense perspective as a developer and as a resident of Washington city and somebody that lives here, what you have right now, barring what's outlined is you have your very low density and you have your low density. So you have a combination of 1acre parcels and you have halfacre residential parcels. If you look at the outline of the streets, the layout of how the [clears throat] community is currently built and what it appears to have been intended as, this was never intended to be changed from the original general plan. It's obvious looking at the local street maps there that it was meant to be continued as the halfacre parcels in the lower half and possibly 1acre parcels towards the upper third of that image there. [clears throat] Through this proposal by the developer, we're saying that we're going to buffer from very low density to medium density to neighborhood commercial to community commercial. But in essence, we're not because if you look at the home there on the corner of Antigua and Galilee, that's on a halfacre lot. And according to this developer, they want to butt that right next to this community commercial that's being proposed. So that's completely against what the general plan calls for as far as that buffering that we that you were discussing earlier. The other issue is that and this goes for the other homes that are along Antigua as well. The other issue is that the city has already designated neighborhood commercial parcels on 3650 at the intersection of Route 7 of SR7 and at the intersection of Washington Fields Road. These developers coming in looking at the general plan understand that there are areas that were designated to service the community for commercial businesses,

whether it be a grocery store, whatever the the neighborhood commercial definition fits. That's already been established by the city of Washington to service the region. So to expand upon that and then to say at a greater level now we're going to put community commercial and the possibility of multi-story buildings and larger businesses whatnot butdding right next up to very low density and lowdensity properties. Imagine what that's going to do. Imagine how it's going to impact the neighborhood. Imagine how it's going to impact the property values of those properties there. People that have been living there like ourselves seven years but in a home that was built two decades ago. So 20 years ago when Majestic Drive was developed and you have 1acre homes going through there, it was considered a premier neighborhood for Washington City. Now we're going to say, well, we're going to put community commercial within several hundred feet of this premier neighborhood as was originally designated. That's not fair to the residents, not unfair to the people who did their due diligence, read the general plan, and purchased there with the understanding that yes, it would be developed as residential, but certainly not community commercial and likely not neighborhood commercial, but budding that close to the existing properties given that the general plan already called for neighborhood commercial at the intersection of SR7 and Washington Fields Road. In my opinion, obviously I'm against this, but in my opinion, this is an excessive change of the general plan. The negative impact upon the existing neighborhood is going to be detrimental. It will be forever uh impactful to the residents there. If you're familiar with the neighborhood, it's a very familyoriented neighborhood. A lot of kids there, kids playing in the streets on the regular basis all year round. You introduce community commercial there, you're going to bring that traffic into the neighborhood. These cars are going to be cutting up majestic trying to get through there. You're going to have traffic not knowing where they're going. They're trying to find the businesses wandering down these back roads that were never designed to handle the level of traffic that community commercial is going to bring. So now the residents are going to deal

with that. So the quality of life is going to go down the impact on again the home values. Look at again Galilee Way and Antigua. You've got homes that are on halfacre parcels that are now going to be butdding up the community commercial. What's going to happen to the value of those homes where these people have lived for years now with the anticipation that sure I'm going to have a neighbor, but I'm going to have a like neighbor. I'm not going to be staring in a parking lot and a strip mall. We have places and open space throughout Washington that we can put these sort of businesses. We don't need to butt them right up to existing established neighborhoods that are already very low density and low density. It's improper. It doesn't make sense in according to your own general plan. But just from a common sense perspective, looking at this map as a layman, you say to yourself, well, no, why would you do it that way? You would put it closer to SR7. If you want to make that neighborhood, if you want to take that neighborhood parcel and say, well, we're going to make a portion of that community commercial to fit that need there by SR7, this makes sense. Butting it up to existing very low density and and low density homes, it makes no sense. So, that's all. Thanks for taking the time to hear me. All right. [clears throat]

Yes. If nobody else then I will. My name is Frank Linhard and I live on Galilee Way. I've spent many years sitting in your seat over in Hurricane on the planning commission and mayor in Apple Valley. Uh, one of the things I always did when we were presented and we did uh, general plans and and uh, request for zone changes was I tried to put myself in the neighbor's shoes if I was living the one owning property on Galilee way or right there. Would I want commercial encroaching on and being my neighbor? And the answer is I certainly wouldn't. Um I have not much issue with them if they change the from very low to low and the medium density should be adjacent to the current u commercial because like you said earlier you need a buffer between uh the um the commercial and the low density residential. So it makes sense to do that. Um, so a little tweak to this plan, leave the commercial where it is, put the medium dension next to it, and now it's still as it was before, all residential neighborhood with people mingling with their neighbors, and you don't risk having a big box night right next to you. And we appreciate you considering that. Thank you. Hi, how you doing? I'm Carrie Boon. I live right next to the red area on Mountain Ridge Drive. Um,

and I appreciate you taking time to listen. I really appreciate your questions. Um, uh, that helped clarify some of the terminology for me. And I appreciate the idea of feathering. What I notice as you're explaining this plan is that the feathering does a great job going north to south, but I don't see that happening moving east to west where our home is directly next to in low density directly next to red um the commercial. So, I don't think that the shift in um changing the zoning for that area is consistent with that approach to buffering or graduating um the zoning. All the things that have been said with just it being a family community, it's not what we all bought into. We've already had, while I know this is the issue we're talking about tonight, I think that context is important and that there have already been zone changes around us. So, what the general plan looked like when we moved in 5 years ago is different, very different now. Um, especially as you start putting more red just all around our house. So, um, I really appreciate the previous comment by Frank of, you know, would you want this in your neighborhood? Would you want a commercial zone budding right up to your house? Um, I certainly don't. Thanks.

Hi, I'm uh Brandon Sigard. Uh that's my house right above the uh yellow box there. The one singular halfacre uh plot there. Um looking at this feathering I guess as you call it really to me just kind of looks like a joke. I mean there's it's not even half of a block between each little layer there. I mean to go from such a short space I mean I go on that walk every day down Antigua. I mean, it's like 30 seconds to get from one end to the other to go from all of our community houses up there that we have a good neighborhood to suddenly commercial where we could have a Burger King drive-thru right there. That and also pretty much Caddyy Corn across the street. You you know, we have the Wheels Park going in there. I mean, it's kids everywhere. I can see this making sense again against the seven, but right here in the middle of this neighborhood, it's a lot of people in our neighborhood are are very upset at seeing this. Um, so I'm just echoing that. Thanks.

My name is Michael Fiser. I live on Galilee Way. Um, I think one of my big things is it's very ambiguous saying that there's a developer that has applied for a zoning change, but yet there's no proposal as to what they want to build. Seems like there's a lot of vagueness there. There is a lot of children in our neighborhood. It's a fall. It's it's a family neighborhood. We all know each other. You know, we look out for one another. This is going to create issues with traffic in our neighborhood. These streets weren't designed for that. They were designed as a residential low density neighborhood, you know, with 2 and a half to three parcels per acre, not 6 to 8 to 12. So I feel that you [clears throat] know it should not be allowed to be changed to commercial as far as next to a existing residential neighborhood due to the fact of traffic noise and again just the whole idea of young families that purchased homes there with the intent of having a nice community area to raise their children in that's safe secure. They don't have to worry about trucks, cars, traffic, people that are lost shortcutting into Linds or Smiths because, oh, I don't want to go over to George Washington because it's inconvenient. So, I feel that opening up Antigga Lane to Galilee Majestic is a huge disservice to those of us that do own homes in the neighborhood. Our property values will be negatively impacted. I think we all know that. So, that's my opinion. Thank [clears throat] you very much. Uh James Leonard, I'm on Galilee Way. Also, uh it's going to be pretty hard to to I pretty much have to echo it everything everybody else has said. uh devaluation

of the property. Once you open this up to medium density, which you now show as up to six uh units per acre, you're going to and the commercial and you open up Antigua, which you will do, you're going to open up shortcutting traffic right down uh Galilee and clear down to Washington Fields. You're going to they're going to shortcut Majestic and through Galilee and uh we already those are wide streets now. We already have a speed problem there. They're 25 mph speed zones and it's not being enforced. The average is running 35 and 40 m an hour through there. Kids play out constantly. It's just not fair to what are now million-dollar homes to butt this up against them. That's our my opinion and I'm pretty sure that it's pretty much the opinion of the whole neighborhood. So, thank you gentlemen. Thank you.

Hello. Uh, my name is Ryan Taylor. I live on Noble Drive [clears throat] and uh just want to say I'm pretty much against any of the changes to the general plan on this except you know maybe convince me to put a little bit of commercial zone right on um George Washington but I would say more buffer east to west like somebody stated before. Um [clears throat] otherwise I could just see so much traffic being sent in sent into the neighborhood and it would just be bad news. We've already had a lot of changes. We don't need more. Wouldn't be good for anybody. We don't need to get a kid hit on a bike or a skateboard or something. Thank you. My name is Tyler Elias and I live on the corner of Majestic and Noble. um want to just voice my opinion um in opposition to the proposed changes. I think the existing outline um better serves the community. Um want to just voice my my concern about the current infrastructure on Majestic. Um, you know, my neighbors and I all know how crazy it is just trying to drive to work at at 8:30 when everyone's dropping off their kids or picking up kids after school and um the proposed changes would would compound the the problems there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Yeah, my name is Garrett Jennings. I live on Majestic Drive there at the intersection with Imperial Lane. And I just wanted to say that I am in opposition to this. And I am certain that basically everyone in the community is against it. And I don't know if you need to get signatures or something to prove that, but I feel like the value of this land that they were proposing to change can can be attributed to this community and they want to change it so that they can build more units per acre or businesses and make it more valuable for them while also making the value of all the homes in the community uh less. And so I just don't think that that is fair because the value of the land is kind of the existing development due to the existing development and the people who have bought in 20 30 years ago and so yeah I just think that that is not cool. So yeah that's it.

Thank you. Okay, if there's no one else, I'll close the public hearing, but if anyone else wants to, please.

So, I agree or my name is Grant Halverson. I live on Majestic. So, I agree with what everyone said, but maybe have a different question that maybe you can't answer. Um, I'm very skeptical of any developer, specifically with the developer that finished the what's in yellow there, the existing low density. Um, with all the clay that all those houses are built on and all the lawsuits that are going on with those houses are built on, me included, and the city taking no responsibility for approving any development there or developers taking responsibility for building on top of clay. And by continuing to develop through there, that whole area is full of clay. You can see it when you walk over the top of it. And have no trust that a developer will develop it properly, which will then leave all the low density, the medium density homeowners in a similar situation to a significant amount of people in the existing low density who are there today with multiple lawsuits happening right now against develop builders of those homes. And our property values have already been destroyed. and don't want to see that happen to those who are purchasing in the low development in the medium development on top of the clay either without trusting that developers are just going to do it as cheaply as quickly as possible with the city approving it and leaving the homeowner to deal with homes they're lit literally ripping themselves apart

thank you I will just clarify that the city doesn't admit administer the composition of soils under under private land projects. Um the city does require development to employ and hire engineers and geotechnical experts and it's on the advice of those experts that development happens. But the city doesn't have a soils inspector for example or a soils composition inspector. That's something that's uh in the purview of development world and their engineers. Okay, if no one else would like to speak, we're going to close the public hearing portion of this. And do we have any more questions? I'm sure

I might just say this one, this one is interesting because if you if you pan out on the general plan, larger swaths of general plan designated areas kind of move and all end up in this point and there's kind of a pinch point that exists now, which is part of what what I think you're addressing. Um it is interesting to note that 10 years ago, maybe even a little less than 10 years ago, the main route to the interchange was intended to be Majestic. So Majestic was intended to be the through the through fair all the way to the intersection at Warner Valley and then that was changed 7 8 10 years ago to be the George Washington Boulevard road that exists today. And so in a way that the routing the rerouting of that through fair has also impacted this kind of general planning discussion and you see that a little bit in the pinch point that's created there. My question would be who is the developer and what?

Sir, we're we're done with the public comment right now. We don't we don't we don't know who we just have someone asking. There's no development there's no development coming yet. They just asked to change the general plan. We still have other steps to go through before we know anything that's going to happen. The applicant's name is a matter of public record. The name is Lance Richards. Um Mr. Richard is likely an expert engineer or something that made application on behalf of the owner that is capital funding Ltd.

Do you guys have is the applicant present? The applicant is yes. Do you guys have any questions for him? Yeah, if Yeah, if you would please. Jason Smith with Rosenberg Associates representing the applicant. he couldn't be here tonight. So, uh, yeah, Commissioner Davis, just, you know, just generally speaking, if you could just kind of walk us through the purpose of the request and and the benefit.

Well, definitely the public's brought up some great great things and and this is like um, attorney Segiller said, this is kind of comes together. Um if you bring up the transportation plan, if you look at it, uh the the proposed this is the first full intersection from SR7 will be the will be the not Antigua, but the the other side of the the east side of the property is the first full intersection from from SR7. So, so it's kind of coming together there and and the the goal is just to get a transition point. Um I know we we've talked about um leaving it the same as it was mentioned and they say, "Well, if we leave it the same, well, if we build third acre lots like the same, then we still deal with the problem with the people that just got there. they they still deal with the problem the transition as we keep moving. So at some point there has to be a transition. We feel that where this is the first major intersection that this is the point to to start that transition. Um the property owner owns the property directly to the west of the of the commercial um that he plans to to do residential on. um the extension of of Rolling Rock, Rolling Ridge is is it? Sorry, Rolling Ridge. Um he owns that property. It's it's planned to maintain residential there at low density. Um and there is that corner up to where the house is for a commercial that that you know, Cat Corner, they do they do touch, but there is a road in between it and and he needed for some of the things that he's been in talks with. I don't know if they've moved forward or not,

but he needed a little more depth on the commercial and that's the reason that he's he's asking for that. Um that [clears throat] I don't foresee any any major changes in the residential. Um we're just trying to make more of a transition um transition there is is what the goal is. Um just start the transition. Tasm. Um [clears throat] would the plan be to have Rolling Ridge and in a culde-sac or take it through?

Um they've looked at both options. Um I don't know if they've decided either way. Um there's benefits for both for sure. um part, you know, if you make it a culde-sac, then it's a it's just it's backyards. If they they go through it, and I guess I'm referring to the the piece that that your client owns um west of this project. Would that end dead end in a culde-sac or or would it carry through into your proposed community commercial? Well, he he hasn't he hasn't made a a decision on that yet. Um it's real concern in addressing the we've looked at both of everybody like

a lot of them are worried about the other the other residential and so forth but I think that the main impact is going to be main [clears throat] impact is going to be the rolling ridge where it currently lines up if that were a through road it would go straight into the community or into the community commercial and that would be the problem road.

Yeah. and and commercial wise, we're anticipating a good 90, you know, majority of the traffic is going to go to to George Washington Boulevard. Um because that's where that's where the the traffic is meant to go. That's a arterial road. That's the that's going to be the frontage. That's going to be the where the the traffic will go. But but um there hasn't been a decision to be honest [clears throat] with you. I we can do a culde-sac. Um I'd have to the depth is the only concern is the length that they have from that intersection if it's if it's long enough would be the

I have lots of other issues with it but that in particular like let's say if if it went forward and went to zoning and everything eventually you know as you've proposed and that would be a deal breaker 100% that that you can't have that's got to be a culde-sac no matter what I That's like the worst part of this whole thing is is Rolling Ridge. Rolling Ridge could come down and hook into Mountain Ridge. Yeah, it could it could back around and just to punch it through the community commercial. That's like the absolute worst part of this of this proposal. Yeah, that makes sense.

There's plenty of other issues with but that's the worst worst part of it. And that would impact these residents way more than any of the other stuff in this in this proposal. Well, and which which you know I mean you've you stood there in their shoes arguing the exact same thing for a lot less than this. So you know what I'm talking about. I disagree on that. But but I understand what you're saying. Um yeah this this parcel is actually not on the the isn't part of this application. No I know. I'm just saying that's understood but that's part of the say 100% don't. Right. So I mean I guess

I guess at the time of I I understand that at the time we we move they move forward on that then then we can I mean that's that's noted and and I think a culde-sac is warranted there. I'm not I don't disagree with you. But you're representing at this point that they plan on doing residential. Yes. On that location of what's on the agenda tonight? Sorry. everything to the west of what's on the agenda tonight. Those those parcels there. I believe that's to the west. So there Yeah, they only own the one. They don't own the one along at They only the upper one. They don't They don't own the lower one.

But yeah, the that is to be planned to be residential. It's zoned residential and they have no they haven't made any application to change it. So yeah, that low that lower that lower piece on George Washington, it's not been general planned yet. It just says noted some reason. It's a big hole. I've got a question to build on that on um Elden, can you go to the other map that shows the proposed with with the colored outlines? Um, can you go to the one that that has the satellite view and we can see the the homes? Yeah, I like that. Um, commercial line here is right kind of below Galile Way, right? Galilee way. It's like right there. Why are we going Why are we putting the proposed line there instead of dropping it down to below that that home right there? So that you know we don't have commercial right next door to that particular home and the line is only moving a little. That that that seems odd to me to have the line right where they did it. Why why is the line there?

Just that the distance from the rideway to is is what he requested. Um, not there isn't a he just said he needed the 650 feet or to to the depth is what is is what is what's driving that line. That makes sense. I still think we should move that. I mean, that's one thing that to me immediately makes sense is to

boost to to to kind of like decrease the size of commercial at least enough to where you don't have that one residential home. even though I know we're going to do residential down there, we have time to kind of think about that and how to buffer that and how to like move it into the commercial. So anyway, that was just one of the thoughts I had. And then I have a question about what's east of this on the general plan. Elden, so um are tell me your name again. Jason. Jason. So what Jason was saying is that you have to have a transition point somewhere. Was that implying that east of that we're going to go to lower density in the general plan?

It's not determined. We've got existing neighborhood density is what? Correct. Yes. Typically that's what we would see there as we move closer to the Southern Parkway.

Uh yeah. And and what are your thoughts as staff about that transition point versus a transition point that's further east, closer to the artery? Yeah, that's what we're discussing tonight. You know what? What makes sense? Um, if you take the layer off here, you can see at Tigua Lane is it's a natural buffer transition point. Makes sense to to make the transition at at Antigua. Uh, not knowing when or where other future roadways will run north to south there. Um,

so the idea is that Antigua would handle the traffic and pull it down to I guess Galile Galley or George Washington. Hopefully George Washington. Majority of traffic is going to flow to George Washington that's visiting the commercial. I mean, they want to be in and out of there as quick as they can, unless it's neighbors in that area that are coming from the north or the west to to that area. Can you pull the transportation line up there? Because there is a there is a collector road that's running north to south that's planned north to south on that other on the east side of the parcel. So what are we looking at there? Yeah. So that blue line is the east.

So that's the transportation master plan. And so it's showing it doesn't show the internal roads like Antigua's never been a master plan road even though it's generally understood that it needs to come and connect into George Washington Boulevard to provide just fluidity of flow. But the blue one is a future road that the city based on this plan would exact and whatever they do on its side would need to produce and provide that right away as well. And that's a 66ft road not a 50ft road that's the standard residential.

Okay. Okay. So, if I'm understanding this right, we've got currently um very low density that feathers into low density that feathers into um ENCOM and what we're Yeah. [clears throat] Today, that's what is currently how it's zoned

and planned. I mean, thanks. And what we're talking about doing is increasing the density on the two um residential and expanding the commercial. And the question is and and just as a big picture general plan, eventually we are going to increase the density to the east. And that big blue road, that big that dotted blue line right there is creating a a big road, a big artery that is going to make it possible to funnel the traffic and the growth that's going to come because whether we want it or not, the growth is coming. And so that will help us channel that. And so at some point there's going to have to be a transition between these very low density and low density to low density and medium density. that transition is going to happen because of the future plan and then the that coming in right there. So the question is, do we have that transition point this far west or do we move it further east? And you know what I hear you saying is looking at that, you think that this is a a good spot to make that transition point um using Antigua Lane is kind of like the demarcation that Yes, you're correct. Yeah, the transition there. It's got to occur somewhere. Uh, attorney Zeg Miller mentioned that um, you know, this is the funnel point within this area and what what do we feel comfortable with staff supports the proposal as they prop presented here. I think the other important detail is in our system in this state and really in our country, private land owners are allowed the property right of submitting an application to influence where those lines end up being drawn

on their parcel or not. Right? And so that's part of through tonight is the public assembly is trying to figure out application is one that meets the best interest of the city and the Mhm. [clears throat] Can you can you pull up the the current general plan overlay on this?

So, I agree with Jason that this is the transition point. I mean, that's obvious because you have the the road there, which is why we've got neighborhood commercial just very well from there up. You know, it just went from neighborhood commercial to low density. Should have been when when it was general plan, there should have been a medium density somewhere. Well, at some point, and I'm and I'm fine with that. And changing from very low density to low density, most people would have no clue you can get it. You wouldn't even know even and I know that that most people in the crowd would disagree with me on this, but most most of the time you wouldn't notice it that much going to medium density either. It's not as big of a change. The biggest change here is the commercial piece and not even the commercial per se. It's my problem is how far it's pushing up in. I think it does need to be it does need to be feathered. Personally, I think if I if you want to change the the the neighborhood commercial to community commercial, I think that's fine. But I think where it's currently sits as neighborhood commercial is the correct line to put it at based on where the interior roads and everything are. I mean, you have, you know, Rocky Ridge Road is there where it's currently, you know, zoned low density on that piece. You know, that would be your feathering point. And I mean, Rocky Ridge Road should be the medium density portion because you've got a road there, you got houses on either side and then the next road up, Galilee Way, you know, that should be the low density, you know, portion of that. And it just feathers out because when you're developing everything like phases and stuff, you feather by you phase it by street. You got a street and you got houses on either side of the street, right? And so your line to kind of break those up is is not the street. It's between back houses. So I I I don't think this is appropriate to

to push to push the the commercial up into the middle of the of the neighborhood. I think I think it is appropriate to do feathering and add some medium density in there. I think the place to do it is right above the existing neighborhood commercial and if you want to go community commercial instead of neighborhood commercial I mean that's fine but I think the way that that this is drawn I I would say a no to it

if they culac rolling ridge sorry my eyes are not if they culde-sac rolling ridge are you still opposed to it? I I think no matter what it gets zoned, I mean I I think Rolling Ridge should not go into the commercial period either way, but but I think that I think Rolling Ridge is your best road to turn medium down. Wants more space than that. And so that might be an issue for that. But as far as feathering and how it impacts the neighborhood, that's that's more logical way to do that. Understand there might be constraints on what he wants to put on there, but anyway, This Commissioner Davis, just to weigh in, you know, based on what I've read and heard, I mean, I haven't seen anything that would convince me that it's the appropriate move to expand the commercial to the north or or I guess it is to the north. I I again I don't have an issue, you know, if you want to have a conversation about changing the neighborhood to to SECOM that you know, you're close enough to George Washington Boulevard, that could make a lot of sense. But the expansion I again I haven't heard anything that gives me a compelling reason to support that at this point. This is Commissioner Yur and [clears throat] I just want to add to that and I guess just kind of like on a personal note what I'm feeling about this. Um I've been on the planning [clears throat] commission now for maybe 6 months or something like that. And my first experience with it was coming to a hearing just like this where lower density uh I mean higher density um was coming into my neighborhood and I [clears throat] live on an acre and this

higher density was going to be just you know half a block from me and I came like all of you and I came and opposed that and was like look this is going to affect our [clears throat] neighborhood. It's going to bring down our property values. we have kids in the street. It's, you know, it's very personal because we live there. And as a result, partially of that meeting, I started to kind of like get more involved. And one of the big motivating things for me was just a such a frustration with all of the growth. Just such a frustration that I grew up here. I've lived here my whole life basically. And the growth has certainly affected the quality of life for me. And so my question was how do we intentionally grow? How do we do this? and maybe the planning commission is a way we I can kind of like start understanding and I'm still new but some things that have really helped me to understand this are first we have to in have to have more places with high density because if we don't our kids can't live here. I've got a 20-year-old she cannot afford to get into a home here. our kids are literally going to have to move away if we don't have more affordable housing and nobody wants it in their area. So, what we have to do is look at where are their big arteries, where are their big streets that can handle that and we have to we have to park it down near that. And it just so happens that there are big arteries right here in this corner and there's another one going in here in this blue dotted line. So, that's one thing that I didn't I wasn't aware of. I didn't know how to think about that. Another thing is that there's a lot of research that shows that when we bring commercial into residential areas, that actually ends up benefiting those areas in the long run and it decreases

traffic throughout because you're not driving as far to go get to places. So these big old neighborhoods where it's just a sea of homes and there's no commercial like in Little Valley, they had just have that one little pocket. So many people wish that they had a big grocery store, that they had some kind of big property out there to anchor those stores and to bring more people to bring more um commercial into their area. But another [clears throat] thing about commercial is that it brings in property taxes. It brings in tax a lot of sales tax and those taxes direct effect on your taxes. And that was another thing that I I didn't quite have my head around that. And so we all kind of have this incentive to bring in higher density housing in an appropriate way, to bring in commercial in an appropriate way, and none of us want it in our backyard. So now that I'm on this side of it, it's more like a balancing of all these interests. There are these clear interests that everybody has and how do we bring those together and balance them out as a community? And I think that's especially important as we're growing. so fast like we're barely staying in front of it and it's and it's frustrating. But what do we do? Do we tell people you can't sell your land? Do we tell them you can't use your land for that? So maybe we can be more intentional with our zoning and our general plan and maybe the general plan does need some updates. It's been a while. But at the end of the day, it's difficult. There's a balancing of interests that all of us have an incentive in getting it right. And at the end of the day, we all have to give things up. We all have to kind of like move and flow with this. And so now what's changed for me, just this probably is too much personal information, but what's changed for me is when I when I see this development going into my neighborhood, I kind of have a softer spot for it. It's kind of like, you know, I want a place for my kids to live and these are starter homes and condos and stuff. And it it kind of feels like or not condos, but town homes

and like, yeah, you know, I get it now and it feels a little bit better. And so hopefully that can, you know, make a difference. And hopefully seeing that the general plan has this big additional street coming in here that's going to handle a lot of that traffic makes a difference. And knowing that somewhere we have to put a demarcation point, we have to to go from very low density to low density and from low density to medium density. That has to happen somewhere between where it is right now basically at that blue line. And so it's it's never going to be fun to have that happen, but we have to back up and look at this whole big picture and the way things are unfolding and growing. So we have to grow in a reasonable way. So all of that said, um [clears throat] you know, those are just the things that if I were in your shoes, I I now that I'm kind of like have a little bit of experience up here, I'm like, "Oh, okay. I can kind of see there's more interests to weigh in here." But as for me, I kind of agree with I I I agree with the other two commissioners. I don't think we should be pushing the commercial further up into that neighborhood. I think it's fine where it where it currently is. And whether it's CCOM or or ENCOM, I feel like I I don't know that that's going to matter that much, but I do think we have an interest in our community and having commercial and in having it next to arteries. That's I I think that that's in most of the community's best interest. Maybe not the people right next to it. maybe it's not in their best interest, but again, we have to like back up and look at the whole thing and try to find how it balances. So, that's kind of my thought. I will be interested and in seeing what's proposed to the west of the commercial and how [clears throat] they're going to finish building out that residential, how we're going to appropriately buffer that. Um, and and I just don't think we should be pushing the commercial into the residential that far north. So that was very long, but that's my thought.

I And thank you for your time. I don't know if anyone else needs to or if you want to say anything else. One thing about the commercial um the Outlands Richards is a commercial developer. Um and he's the basically saying that the depth of that is is why is what they need. And so that's that's the reason like if we shorten it up then it it becomes less marketable as a as a commercial piece. Um and so that's the that's the reason that we we went that way. Um and so that's what's the depth of it now

that I mean we're expanding but we're expanding to 650. We're not expanding 650 additional feet or it to the total 650 ft and I'm trying to remember 386. Maybe it's not even 650. Maybe it was approximate. So it seems like we would need to know

what what can be done. So it's 200 ft. So, I mean, if if if it's more depth that that you need, and again, you might need within depths, but if you go along, you know, the the future proposed road and go further up, that's a lot more palatable. It's it's it's on the west side where it punches neighborhood part of it. Um, so maybe he could come make the case to us about why those additional feet would make it. Maybe we can look at it and have it session. But more and keep it along.

The the problem the problem we have with that is that's not the step that we're that we're in. You know, I'm not arguing here, but yeah, but I agree. I mean, I'd almost rather see it as a PUDC. So that you could actually tell what was going in and and and change it. But they're not asking for that. And that's the that's the scary part about it is we don't know what's going we know it can't be a big box store, you know, but the other stuff I mean if it was a neighborhood commercial we or the PUDC, we could see what was going in and see how it was and see how it affected up against these neighbors. It might not be a big deal, but that's not what we're asking for here. Mhm. [clears throat] Well, it's because it's the general plan. It's not the zone change. Yeah, that would be

that would be the PUC. you you would still you'll still see it again in the zone change, right? Is and that's that's when you'll see the plan. That's true. I missed that spot. There are options with the next step. You know, this is general plan. Next step is zone change. They can zone ask to propose C1, C2 or QD. So there there's options there. And again, Jason, just give me my two cents. I mean, no,

I think what you proposed to go low density is fine. Or you proposed to go medium density on way could work, but I think that the Rocky Ridge portion needs to stay residential and would be a good place for the medium density as well. My big thing is more than anything is pushing the commercial up into the Rocky Ridge Serare. I think that's Where's Where's Rocky Ridge? Rock Rocky Ridge or Rolling Rolling Ridge, whatever it's called. Sorry. Closing rolling rock. We're We're both wrong. It was close. [laughter] Anyway, that rolling

both that and Gileway or just one of them. I mean, could be your medium. I mean, whatever. But that's not the real issue. Commercial pushing the res. That's the bigger problem. Another challenge is that not yet determined and not owned by this applicant space because Rolling Ridge could connect to Mountain Ridge and just a a uh loop. Right. Right. But we've also talked tonight about Rolling Ridge maybe being a culde-sac and then that leaves Mountain Ridge either as a culde-sac or even just with with a wall right at the end of Rolling Ridge Drive. And so the final planning of those roads needs that other property owner to be part of that discussion.

Mhm. [clears throat] Yeah.

Yeah. You guys can make a motion. This is Commissioner Anderson. I'll make a motion to deny G-25-07 request to amend the general planned use map from very low density to low density and medium density and from low density to commercial and from noncom to com CCOM located at Antigua Lane and George Washington Boulevard. It's amend to recommend denial at tonight.

Recommend denial. Excuse me. is for the [clears throat] folks here on on general plan amendments. The planning commission is a reviewing and recommending body. There will be a second hearing at the city council where a decision is made. So tonight's purpose is to hear all of your input and feedback, give you some of their response, and then send a recommendation to a meeting at the city council next week. And so you'll have another chance to come and possibly be heard if the mayor allows that. And that's when the decision would be made. Could could I request a table so Lance could Lance Richards could actually discuss the commercial more adequately? It's always we've always allowed applicants to the opportunity to request it.

When would you rather table it to? Yeah. When would you want to table it to? How long do you need? We have to have a date. I don't know. Lance actually had a medical emergency and I don't know quite how long it is. Um, the reason why we ask for a date is just for these folks to be able to follow the process. I know. That's why I've got Mr. Kurs, did you have a question while he's looking at his calendar? Council meeting. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. [clears throat]

The difference is the decision then will be a decision, not a recommendation. And it's not a public hearing like tonight's is per state statute. We have an obligation if a land use applicant wants to change the general plan to let the public come and have a public hearing. The city council meeting won't be published as a public hearing. The mayor and city council are very generous in allowing folks that will be like you are tonight. You're thoughtful, conservative timing and and direct and so I would guess you have a good chance of also sharing at that meeting if you show up.

Um, can I step out and just call so I can find out his date? So one month just so you know will be March 18th or two weeks will be March 4th.

I don't understand that you will pass this on to the city council. They make the decision. Correct. That's correct. On there are some land use items where the planning commission is the deciding body. Um there's others where they are recommending body. Tonight on general plan amendments, they are a recommending body and so the city council will watch and listen to this and then have their own chance to make the decision. That meeting will be next Wednesday unless this is tabled. Then it'll be at least one week after whenever the tableabling date gets set to

very much allowed to appear at that. It's a public meeting. Every one of you's allowed to come and be there. The only difference is it's not noticed as a public hearing. So, you're not guaranteed a a opportunity to talk. Um, I also am the attorney for the city council and they always let people that are like you folks tonight uh talk because you're careful with your comments. You're direct in what you're talking about. You're and so I think you'd all have a chance if if you showed up. So, just so you all know what's happening right now is I had made a motion to deny to recommend denial. The applicant had asked if he can talk to his client to see if if we can table it or basically give him two or four weeks or whatever they can come back and change it and present something different for us to look at. So, he may ask to do that or they may say just recommend denial and if that happens then it goes to city council. if they ask to table it, then they'll go back and come up with something different and bring back.

And that's not uncommon. Uh the planning commission doesn't have to grant a tableabling, but generally um when the applicant requests it, it's something we do if it's within reasonability. Mr. Smith, I'd request a month.

Bonnie, this is Commissioner Anderson. I'll the motion then. Um, amend the motion to table just add in there on at request of the applicant request of the applicant to table G-25-07 till March the March 18th planning commission meeting. Commissioner Davis seconds that motion. Commissioners, will you just indicate whether you also want to table the the public hearing if if you would allow the public to come and also have a chance to comment on whatever changes might come in that meeting? I'm well, we're not going to know any changes. I mean, I think that's the purpose of the tableing, right?

Table and he'll come back with something come back to answer us something, but I mean, do we want typically I'll just public hearing all over again? Typically, my recommendation is if the meeting, if the item that had a public hearing gets tabled, I recommend that you also specify that the public hearing will also be continued to the table date because if they do bring different details that would give the public a chance that are in attendance tonight to comment on those if if they wanted to. Can I follow up on that? If if we table it, is the applicant allowed to bring a different application next time or would he have to withdraw right now and then actually bring a different one next time?

Staff decision. If it's within the general parameters of what we're looking at, we generally allow it to be tabled. If it if it's change, we would probably ask them to submit. Got it. Thanks. Yeah, I I say yeah. Yeah, we can do that as well. So we'll continue the public hearing on the A includes continuing the the recommendation as well as the public hearing. Yes. Yes. Yes. Second and and yes. I just I didn't hear the second. All right. We have a first by We have first by Commissioner Anderson, a second by Commissioner Davis.

All right. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Yur I. And Commissioner Bulock I'm an I as well. So we will table this for one month on the 18th. But you will not get noticed on it. So So this is the notice. This is the notice where we table it. You won't get another mailed out notice. This is this is it. And the process would be the 18th would would in theory have another motion that would either recommend denial, recommend approval, and then it would go to a city council decision the week after that. Well, that's if you want to plan your Wednesdays, sketch those ones into your book out there.

Correct. The city council will have a meeting next week, but it won't have this item on their agenda. So back here again, you're not compelled, but you're you're invited.

All right. Item five is adjournment. I'll look for a motion to adjurnn this meeting. Commissioner Anderson, I move to adjourn. Commissioner Davis seconds the motion. I first by Commissioner Anderson, a second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I. Meeting is adjourned. We'll start the land use meeting here shortly.

All right. Welcome to the land use meeting for February 18th, 2026. Item one on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. We'll look for a motion for item one. This is Commissioner Yur. I move that we approve the agenda for our meeting February 18th, 2026. Commissioner Davis second. I have a first by Commissioner Y and a second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I. Uh, approval of the minutes from the February 4th, 2026 meeting. It's Commissioner Davis. I move that we approve the minutes for land use authority from February 4th.

Commissioner, you're a second. I have first by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor? I. Uh any item three is declaration of abstensions or conflicts. Does anyone have any tonight? All right. Item 4 A. There's a uh final plat approval for a minor subdivision for the Mustang Pass subdivision located at the corner of 595 West in 1860 North. applicant is Craig Coats. I'll turn the time over to Sebastian. [clears throat]

All right. The applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision plat for the Mustang Pass subdivision located at the corner of 595 West and 860 1860 North. This is a four lot subdivision covering a total of 1.91 acres. The zoning for this development is residential 110 with the residential 110 zone uh surrounding the development and some open space to the east on that map there. Staff has reviewed the proposal and find it conforms to the standards set forth in the zoning regulations and ordinances in the city. Staff recommends the lenus authority approve the final plat for the Mustang Pass minor subdivision based on the following findings and condition in this report. Uh that concludes that report and the applicants here so they can answer more questions.

Thank you. So, is that just a shared driveway coming in there to split that? Is that what is that what that is on off the knuckle of that corn sack? It looks kind of weird. Yeah, Craig Coats with the lines go. It's just an alley, but it's a a shared driveway. It But both lot lines go all the way to the street. So, it's like two flag lots is what it is. Okay. You guys lost. Thanks, Greg.

You have any questions? No, it looks like it finishes out the area as well from what I can. All right, this is a public hearing. We'll open up this to a public hearing if anyone would like to speak to this. All right, we'll close the What's that? This is just your final plat approval. Oh, final plat approval. Sorry. Next one. All right. We'll look for a motion.

This Commissioner Davis. I'll make a motion to approve the final plat for a minor subdivision for Mustang Pass subdivision located at the corner of 895 West and 1860 North. Subject to staff report. Before you vote, can I ask the representative if he's the one that chose the name Mustang Pass? Can we vote first? It's just being being funny. I like to tell you the truth, we looked at the quad map and there was a trail up there called Mustang Pass. Thought it looked cool. Awesome. I assumed it was connected to one of those little things. Yeah, it just had to do with the quad map in the area. Had a trail that was called that. That's why we went with it.

So, Mr. Commissioner Anderson. I second. That was my first. I was first by Commissioner Davis. Second by Commissioner Anderson. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Yur. I.

Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Item 5A is the final plat for Cente Phase One. 1A partial amendment applicants Craig Coats. We'll turn the time over to Sebastian. All right. So, the applicant is requesting approval of a partial final plat amendment for the Sentente Village 1 phase 1A amendment B located at Kol Lima Road east of Cente Parkway. The reason for this partial final plot amendment is to remove the easements from lots 113 to 116, 140 to 145, and lots 150 and 151. So that um map there just shows I kind of highlighted the current location of the proposed easements. And then if you scroll down um they're just well yeah they're just moving east of the development. Um the applicant can speak more on that. Um so yeah, no other changes are proposed at this time. Staff has reviewed the proposed partial final plot amendment and finds it conforms to the approved zoning of the development and is in compliance with the ordinance of the city. Staff recommends Elenius authority approve the partial final plot amendment for the Sentente Village 1 phase 1A partial amendment B based on the following findings and conditions in this report. That concludes the staff report and if you have questions applicant can answer them for you.

Thank you

Craig Co with alliance consulting representing uh the Sentente development. Uh so the purpose of this is really the the water lines were relocated to the east for and so we just moved them and so now these uh lots wanted to get those easements off the plot now. So there were some old power line easements on the right between lot 50 and 51 and the main water line and all those have been relocated to the roads and streets and outside. So they're doing amendment to clean up basically is what it is. But it nothing changed on the plot besides the easements were eliminated and relocated to the east. So, okay.

I would just add that the easement project was at the request of and and in collaboration with the city and so something that they did to to uh respond to city issues up there. So, was we appreciated that. Thank you. This is the public hearing portion. Is anyone here would like to speak to this? Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. Commissioner Anderson, I move to approve the final plat for Cente Village phase one uh village one phase 1A partial amendment B with the findings and conditions outlined by staff.

Commissioner Yur second by Commissioner Anderson and second by Commissioner Yur. Individual voting commissioner Anderson I. Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Yuri I.

Commissioner Bulock I'm an I as well. Item 5B is a preliminary plat approval for the Amara at Coral Canyon subdivision located at approximately Countryway and Telegraph Road. Applicant is Cole West. Turn over Sebastian. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the Amora at Coral Canyon subdivision located near Telegraph uh excuse me, Country Way and Telegraph Road. Uh this subdivision is a proposed affordable housing single family development that would consist of 212 lots on approximately 38.69 acres of land. This is a three-phase development with the development first occurring towards the east and ending towards the west. Uh moreover, the lot sizes for this development would range in size from about 4500 square feet to 5,500 square feet with a total density of 5.48 dwelling units an acre. The zoning designation at this location is planned community development with the planned community development zone surrounding the entire development. Uh the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the zoning and the request meets the subdivision requirements and other city ordinances for this location. [clears throat] Staff has reviewed the request and recommends the Elenius Authority approve the preliminary plat for the Amara at Coral Canyon subdivision based on the findings and conditions in this report.

Thank you chairman. If I might, there's some context here. So, I think it was two legislative sessions ago, the legislature and other state leaders put pressure on SITLA, the school institutional trust line administration, as well as other pressure on other entities to try and encourage slashcompel them to bring projects that weren't all just luxury housing. And so Sitla came to the city and said, "We'd like to do this, but we we do need do housing that isn't luxury in a market that's got luxury land prices. Sitler requested the city to cooperate and collaborate with them. And so part of this application tonight, there is a contract being worked on be that would go to the city council that would define certain concessions as well as certain uh covenants and the concessions would be from the city. The covenants would be from Sitla's developer covenants such as a deed restriction that disallows renting of any more than 20% of the total unit. So 80% have to be owner owner occupied. um covenants about the price that the the Sitla developer would would be able to charge and there'd be a cap on that. And so um the difficult thing is those are kind of market influencing uh covenants in a contract. Um, in light of the in light of the atmosphere in the state of Utah and the leaders requests, Washington City's leaders have have tried to embrace that concept and work with the school trust land administration that's a large land holder in our city to see if something can happen. And so what you're seeing is the first rendition of that concept. And

part of part of that concept is to locate this in an area that that probably will never have luxury housing anyway because of its proximity to the landfill and some of those other things. And so um with you as the planning commission, any any thoughts and feelings and feedback you can provide to the city leaders tonight would be very helpful because this is the first blush at it. But it's it is there's been a lot of work put into this to get it this far. It wouldn't have happened if it was just the city's idea. Really was Sitla and the city in response to this this request from leadership in in Salt Lake City to to try and find something that we could say, "Hey, look, here's what we did in Washington County in response to your request.

These I don't know if you know this or I do. I'm writing the contract." Okay. What? So this is a PCD but we don't have anything going. Are they just individual lots being sold? Single family homes build or are they built by one person?

I believe that a an auxiliary of coal west will be the entity that has the contract to develop and build. There'll be single family lots that will have individual ownership and single family residential homes on them. Adam, is that all accurate? I guess my question with that is normally on this if it if it's all being built by one person we'd have like rendering elevations etc and this we just have lots that's why I was wondering like why is it just lots

so you're wanting to see the structures no I just I'm just just curious what what's the product we're putting in here It's going to be a detached town home based off the street frontage, you know, 40 foot wide. Uh they're forced into it. Just a detached town home product. I like what Salsbury has down on the whatever east to their previous development. Well, it similar to this as well.

Adam Allen with American Consulting and Engineering. Uh yeah. So, I mean, they're they have they have two different product home wits, right? They have they have a a house that they want to fit on a 50 foot wide lot. They have a house that they want to fit on the 40 foot minimum wide lot. Um, you know, they they'll be a little bit nicer than a detached town home. It would be nice that they do have their own yard, right? Like the stuff that's down there. I think detach town home is trying to describe the shape of the structure. There's no common ownership between them. They are

There's no common ownership in between them. They'll all be Yeah. owner occupied. So, well, 80% of them at least. And I I maybe should I I didn't finish the city's concessions. So in exchange for for Sila and their developer reaching some of those price points and and characteristics of affordability, the city has got has offered concessions on things like roadway improvement. For example, if it was a luxury development, the city would say, "You need to come and build out Landfield Road, give it curb, gutter, get the" And the city said, "Look, we'll take care of that when we're able to." Another one would be to relocate the intersection of Landfill Road. I guess it's Countryway now, the north reach of Country Way and Telegraph, but the traffic planning says line those up with Coral Canyon Boulevard. But again, to to have that that infrastructure lift paid for by a project where we're squeezing them on their margins was one of the concessions. The city said, "Look, we'll take care of that when we can at some other time." And so the city's essentially conceded on developer exactions again in an effort to collaborate with the state's request and with Sitler who's who's expressed willingness to try and work on a project of this nature and the city's leaders have wanted to support and and see if something like that could happen in our city and this is the best you know first rendition that that we've that's come out of the the pro the process.

So I guess one question I have just We also have a sitler representative tonight that if you want to talk. Well, my my question is more along lines of I mean the other end of of countryway road has the issue of of where we put a bunch of house got all the landfill trucks and and this and that and it's it's a big thorn everyone's side. My only concern would be this backside was the only you know only viable way and now we'll have housing on both sides of the road. That's my only I don't really [clears throat] around it, but I'm not opposed to this at all. I'm just Can you just open up the side of the room here

because we're we're like getting hammered on the other end of it other end of this road. So, I'm like now we'll have housing on both ends of the road and it's going to be an issue on both sides. That's all. Yeah, that that was actually a question I had is do we want to create a little buffer zone along country right there? We've got these lots backing right up to that road. I mean, and you got hund

dirt dumping trash. Like there's all kinds of stuff going on that road. And here it's a little different because it's more like a coming to the nuisance issue where it's like you know what you're getting into here and it's specifically for accessible housing and there's all that but like maybe a little bigger of a barrier along that road. You know that's my only thought. I think it's their backyard and yeah [clears throat] the last pe the last people knew what they were moving into too. They just elected not to pay attention to it. So I mean you know the lands [clears throat] a little harder because you got community on both sides. So to them it feels like you don't have to know the community. Yeah. And this is on the outside where it comes in. I I I like it. I think it's a good idea. No, I do too. I was just No, I understand.

100%. I like it. I think it's a good I think it's a good move for what we're what they're trying to accomplish. I like that it's detached single family homes that they're not going to be rentals. I like that. I mean, once they once a single family buys them and can move out, then they can obviously rent them, but they're not selling them to be rented. Yeah. And I I think I think that the as far as my understanding and that would probably know. I think that the covenants are that's going to be main mandated by the HOA as to whether or not how much can be rented at any given time in even in the future. Is it is that what it is? That is the city expects that to be written in a contract as well.

Yeah. And so I I think that that's like the HOA is going to have to help mandate that the renters beer owner occupied. Is that the limit? That's 80% must be owner occupied. So I guess one question with this then is is how and you probably don't have any food for thought if we're looking at at you know affordable housing. I mean all my kids are trying to figure out how to [clears throat] housing. So, I I get this, but like my daughter and her husband, they just they just bought a little two bath condo and ironically the thing that kills them the most is their HOA dues. Yeah.

And I get because their disposal income is so small that like those HOA dues are just brutal.

So, where it has to be an HOA, I would just say put [clears throat] the HOA doesn't just grow and grow and grow. And that is some of the things that we've done and we worked with these guys on like we got, you know, typically Coral Canyon has landscape buffers on the streets everywhere. And so we went to the typical public street cross-section where they don't have a landscape buffer that then they have to pay the HOA fees to come by and maintain. So they've been looking at trying to do some of those things through with that. There are two things that we would like to ask before um before you guys vote. One is um the two there's two things that are that were added as as items on there. One is that we can't submit construction drawings until after the is approved. Do you know when that's going to city council the contract?

The contract to get it finalized to get on the next meeting if possible. Okay. So our their ask would be is can they submit construction drawings but no approval of construction drawings until that's approved. So that stops a legal stop. So I wouldn't put it to this body. Okay. We're just working hard to get it ready to go. But it's that contract does have to be approved by the city council. No, we meant that we could submit construction that says we can't submit construction drawings. And what I'm saying is that stop on your process is legal directed, not not planning commission. And so I wouldn't I wouldn't want them to put it in a motion tonight. Yeah. That relates to your plat. Your PL should get a vote up or down based on what it says, not not a legal condition that's got you held up on Okay. on drawings.

Then our then our second thing would be is one of the conditions is that they have the amenity put in by onethird of the units. We'd ask that they get it by two/irds because they'll put in a much nicer amenity if they don't have to attach it to the first to the financing of the first phase because we have to do the lift station, all the offsites. There's a lot of offsite. So, if they can build that farther in, then they'll put in a much nicer amenity than if they have to try to attach that at the very first phase. Um, and so that that would be that's their question. That's their ask on that one is they're not they agree they don't want to push it off too far but based on where they're trying to hit what they're trying to do with their financing and everything and the fact that they there is still a fairly significant amount of offsites that are going to happen on this that they'd ask that at 2/3 they could have that in at that point um so that they could finance it in a further phase and put in a nicer amenity.

So this is one of those conditions in the agreement. Are you saying it would be completed by 2/3 of the residential units being built out? Yeah. But you're saying the justification there is financing. Could you right now they have about 15 to $20,000 worth of offsites per unit that they have to finance in on the very first phase. And so that's that's what they're saying is like if they have to build the amenity with the first basically that'd be the first phase almost is when they'd have to put that in that they can't They can't finance the financing they're going to be able to get to do that isn't going to work to put in an amenity they'd like to put in. So, they'd have to put in a much more passive amenity. Push it off till like

Does phase one show the amenity right now? Well, it's kind of attached in it because we have to put the lift station in and that's the low point. Just trying to clarify what I see right now. That outer phase is phase one. That's closest. Okay. Then phase two is the interior. Yep. Then phase three is the end. Yep. And so you're saying the condition would be amenities completed by the the full buildout of phase one and two basically or two of the lots. Two/3 of the lots. Yeah. Cuz twothirds of the lots might be before phase two is finished when you just spitball on the total quantity of lots.

So I mean phase one and two would be ideal, right? Then they can make sure they have it finished by then. uh instead of the cos of the 30 per 3% because yeah that's that's kind of what they're asking is to get a longer time on that. The reasons in the past why the city council has wanted to make sure this is a term they negotiate is they end up with a room full of the first two phases that are saying where do our kids go and what do they do right right now in that case you say just down the trail go have fun on the city trail system but but you're right um a lot of them would buy believing that there would be an amenity someday and yeah and there will be an amenity someday it's just

just a matter [clears throat] to win and then I like having the motion include something on that because it helps us administer that time frame. Initial term was one/3. He's asking for two discretions. One the one problem with that again because we've I mean we've seen like Coral Canyon is a good example. You know, you have a recession and suddenly you have an entire community where everyone's mad minies never get built and then somebody else picks it up on the back end and suddenly it's a different mini it doesn't get built. I mean, Rob is you open up a can of worms that could possibly Right. Right. But I mean, I think that would be part in the contract they're talking about and in the motion for this approval. So, I

What What about I mean, you finished phase one, you got financing for phase. So, in phase two, you're going to have a separate set of financing. I mean, what if you build the amenities with phase two? So, that way it's not in phase one's budget, but it's in phase two's budget. I know what they're they're asking if it can be in phase 3es, but I get that. But that's a that's a her question. Yep. So, I'm Courtney McCrae. I'm from Cole West. We essentially do want to attach it to phase two. So, we just want to be able to attach it to phase 2 financing. So, it will be built out by the end of phase two. So, it will not be pushed off until phase three. So, I think but I guess my question is

if it if [clears throat] it's in phase two, can you build it at the start of phase two? Yes. Yes, we'll start. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, as soon as we get our financing to start moving dirt for phase two, then we'll have the money to start building the amenity. So, say instead of instead of a one-ird or two/3 or whatever the community, I'd say build the amenities, you know, at the start of phase two. Okay. Yep. I'm fine with that. Just the 33% was not going to work financially for us. So, I think it's easier by phases. Yep. I agree. I agree. I like that. [clears throat] back to the barrier between that and the road. I mean, that road is so busy with huge trucks. Are we going to put a big wall there? Is I mean, what are we going to do right there?

Yeah. So, I mean, right now, I think we've got a landscape buffer. I mean, the landscape buffer is something it's only like 20 ft wide, right? It's not a It's not And then we'll have a sixft wall and then those houses are actually kind of depressed down in. So, it'll even be higher, right? because those houses will have a four to six foot retaining wall behind them plus a wall on top of them. Uh as it sits right now, we're just trying to they're trying to maximize what they can put in there with what the cost,

right? Costs and all that stuff. So, it's just a factor of maintaining cost. And the reason why we did only go on the one side is because on the other side then it starts to be even right there's just more development costs on that side. So, what [clears throat] you're describing potentially is like up to 10 feet of of sound deadening if the homes if they're going to be more ft and then you got six feet of privacy. Yeah, that's what we're That's what we're talking about. Yeah, that's the currently how we have it planned right now because we have to kind of come down in kind of tapered. Yeah. So, it'll be a different scenario than what's going on on the other side of country way. But, I mean, [clears throat] yeah,

the more the more land they give as buffers, right, the more money that the houses will end up being. So, this one's a lot more intentional. Personally, I love this. I love that Sitla and our community, our leaders have all gotten involved. I mean, I don't love that the state made us, but I think I love that we're doing this. I think it's really cool. I mean, that is one of the biggest concerns that the developer had is how to make sure they're trying to buffer that property. Okay. Okay. Let's get to that. So, one question that I don't see anything about about the HOA and stuff in here. I mean, I know that's probably in your developer agreement, but I just want to make sure that it's not like part of the main Coral Canyon like it's got its own separate HOA that keeps it minimal for these people.

It's a different. So, we actually all of Coral Canyon from Solless on which is basically the last four or five years of development. We split off to the Cottonwood Community Association and then uh this will be a sub neighborhood. But just for comparison, the Rise Town Homes which are just down Telegraph from there, their HOA monthly fee is 105. And that's what we have over there like how many units? 135 or something like that. This is going to be 212. Very similar amenities. So, I think the cost will end up being well within the $100 range, if not slightly lower if we can get it to full build out with similar amenities.

Anything in the in the CCRs to kind of limit I mean, you know, I ch get turned over to home home associations, they just have creep and it just grows and grows and more rules and more fees and this. I mean, every I've been on five HOA boards and it's like it's just this it just grows you know and it's it's hard to keep it contained. I mean, I'd almost want to make sure put in your CCRs, you got some sort of language that keeps it from growing, keep keep from adding additional

I think huge problem in particular with keeping housing affordable. The HOA, especially because typically how development works is you just ask your your your attorney for, you know, some CCNRs, they do a boiler plate of the most most, you know, aggressive C, you know, HOA that they do. record and nobody thinks about it until suddenly it just starts to I can say from Cole West perspective while we're the declarant myself our VP and our attorney are the board of all of our HOAs so we're very where does it go when you guys are out of that's all I'm going to say is when you guys are gone right and but I mean

I'll comment on that so when we when we administer plat and final plat signatures the legal department reviews any any community that's going to have common area we verify that their entities he's legally created and in good standing and we verify that they do have at least a draft of the CCNRs that will be signed when they commence. The challenge that exists legally with what you're asking is once they've set off to be their own community, the city doesn't get to dictate the terms of their CCNRs anymore. And so make sure they have the best CCNRs ever. They can change those.

I know that. I'm just trying to put a bug in people's air to say lots on lots of these things. I've done communities and and hways my own. It's I just think that's something that that especially where we're trying to make stuff affordable. It negatively impacts people a few years down the road.

And I can speak from experience. We've maintained steady fees on all of our communities for the last several years. I think the m most any have increased is $5 over the last several years. And that's strictly just because of the cost of doing business within the community. Um, but I know that once we turn it over to the community, obviously it's out of our hands at that point, but if they're trying to keep it affordable for themselves, I would hope that they would maintain the same level of standards. Just just I I completely get it, but I would hope that

I was the president of an HOA of a development that I did. I kept the dues under $100 for over 10 years and I reduced them every single year. And the minute I left the community and was out, the new board came in and they quadrupled the dues overnight. So, I'm just saying nothing to do with your plan. New board is the new board is elected by the owners of those lots. And so,

yeah. And that's that's why we don't get to dictate their CCNRs once that new board takes takes over control. As long as Cole West is the declarant, our our contract with them can can govern. But and I don't know what your percentage is in your CCRs, but at some point they're obligated to to give control to the to the owners and now have met a significant percentage of ownership to take over control. What is it at like I don't remember what it is either. It's pretty

usually it's usually at the highest rate the state allows because that's the best for administration. So yeah, it'll be toward towards the tail end of the de development, but even then again, I would really hope that as a homeowner within the community, they themselves would not want to be paying higher dues. So in theory, that's how it should go. But I can't make any guarantees and I don't know. I can ask our attorney if there's yet any language that can be added to the CCNRs, but even if we did, if a new board comes in, they can change the CCNRs, too. So, one other detail I'd hope to discuss because I believe this is one of the terms of the agreement is I just want to clarify that the areas that are shown as green aren't water using grass. Is that correct? No.

Cuz I I believe one of the agreements was that it would be a water conservative development as well. So, they're open space. That's what it shows. Not showing open space. And I I've I've tried and tried and tried and I've talked to my guys a thousand times like stop showing green, start showing brown. But it keeps popping up every time. Every time I turn around, green's back on a plat and it's it back in the city's hands. And I'm like, "All right, they're going to ask me about it. [laughter] I'm doing it just to clarify on the recording that that if anybody sees that and assumes it's they're entitled to green lawns and those places. That is not what the exhibit shows." No.

I have a question along those lines. Well, not really along those lines, but what do we know about the property worth of that that's got that sitting body of water there? Sometimes there's water there, sometimes there's not.

That's that's sit land. Um there's two different water sources that go there. Runoff water from the Coral Canyon area. Some of that's run off from the golf course. The city also has a water treatment plant on the opposite wash on the east side of Telegraph where the city receives wa raw water from Coil Creek Reservoir and the city treats it and adds it to the potable system at that location and there's sometimes runoff from there and so that body of water is a combination of storm flows as well as flows from the golf course andor the water treatment plant. I believe that uh habitat folks worry about it as being a a uh what's the word I'm looking

like a plant a wetland land area and I that's why they're staying away from it I assume um flood plane right it's got the flood 100-year flood plane line so it'll fill up with water if there's ever a big 100year event so you try not to do anything really in those big cloud bursts there's a lot of water go through them yeah And so it's got wetland. It's also got some old field piles up towards Telegraph that nobody really wants to reopen whatever the story is there. And so so between floodway wetland and old dirt moving, I believe the the sit's not planning to do much there for the for the short term, midterm, maybe long term. There's not really anything you can do in that area.

Yeah, it's basically it'll sit like that forever. That's good.

I have one comment to add in as well just in regards to the trails. This development is proposing to tie into where the existing trail uh dead ends and is going to connect further to the northeast which is just a huge connection, you know, great amenity that citizens this development can access and utilize and and continue to connect. I I did want to get some clarification here. I I spoke to our leisure services assistant director and in our our pre-development conversations, your submitt and Courtney um we discussed connecting under the uh telegraph road and and uh Paul just wanted some clarification. Are we still planning to connect underneath?

We're in the process of looking at what that would look like if we can make it go through those two culverts. So, as we've said before, if if it's something that's easy and we can make happen without having to do some sort of major, you know, stuff there, then then that's Yeah. So, we're you're willing to work with Yeah, we're willing to work with public works and everybody else as we stated before. We're gathering information on that covert and the floodway and stuff that goes through there and just making sure we're not doing something we shouldn't. So, [clears throat] I don't think we had our public hearing yet.

I'll I'll open this up for a public hearing if there's anyone that would like to speak to it. Okay, I'll close the public hearing portion of this and and look for a motion. I like it. I like this project. I think it's Commissioner Anderson. I'll make a motion to approve preliminary plat for Amara at Coral Canyon subdivision located approximately Countryway and Telegraph Road with the findings and conditions outlined by staff with the changing condition 13. um to read instead of instead of amenities shall be completed upon 33% of the homes being completed have it read that the amenities shall be completed at the commencement of phase 2.

Commissioner Davis seconds that motion first by Commissioner Anderson and second by Commissioner Davis. Uh Commissioner Anderson Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Yur I Commissioner Bulock I'm an I as well. Uh item six is adjournment. Mr. Davis I move that we adjourn. Commissioner second. Uh your second first and second. All in favor? I meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.

Thank you for adding right when it sat down. Right. When I sat down, I was like