Um, then looking at at water and sewer, um those items were addressed in the engineer memo. Um hopefully you had the opportunity to read those. um certainly can answer any questions you have um regarding that. Um but the the applicant will be extending um city sewer and water to service this area.

Um based on the information provided um the the applicant the developer will be improving that section of Buck Lake Road to a rural section um per city engineering standards.

It would seem to make um a ton of sense to have a traffic study done of the intersection of Buck Lake Road and Highway 7, uh to see how the proposed development will impact that and what if if any appro improvements will be necessary to that intersection.

First one, the added traffic that's going to be on Buck Lake Road. It's just a simple country gravel road. You're going to have 200 and some houses there. 200 and some 300 cars, people that are leaving to work. You're going to have 150 people leaving at the same time.

This petition specifically warns that a right only, which was brought up at the Watertown Township meeting, I believe, by the developer. That's not directly to me, but that was conversation after the meeting. Or similar limited access concept at Buck Lake Road and Highway 7 could push drivers towards nearby gravel township roads as alternative routes.

It is a safety factor, and I do not believe that you can be safe without some sort of traffic uh roundabout or something that's going to be there prior to going with the development.

So, there's a number I if I may chair, So, there's a number of issues. Um again the traffic study um and this is what the preliminary um approval is all about because what you do is you say it's not going to get final approval unless you have this this and this in place.

I would like some in this development some planned green space or a park for the kids because it's pretty isolated and um kids are going to play. They're going to play and this these are family homes.

Um the request would be to take that from the current stage development urban reserve area to a residential low medium um in that 3.5 units per acre that we've discussed with the previous application that the mech council's outlining in their 2050 system statements.

But right now, tonight, it's just basically whether or not we want to amend our comprehensive plan to bring this into the the urban service area. Does that make sense?

I have to ask the question is is uh what is St. Bonnie's involvement as far as this going forward like water coming from St. Bonnie is the s is the sewer passing through St. Bonnie and causes additional fees, volume problems.

This particular map here shows a huge amount of forest being knocked down.

I would appreciate it if you would vote uh to stay with your comprehensive plan as is. I see a need for more development uh on the north side of St. Bonnie. You've got it on the east, you've got it on the west. 92 is a problem. 110 is a problem.

I don't think it's going to be apartment complex cuz it's residential, low medium. I don't think that that's an option even with the with the trees and all that.

We don't want to do um explosive growth that's going to cause us a lot of pain because explosive growth does cause communities pain. But we have to look out and say okay where would development be the most efficient and the most uh make the most sense from infrastructure and from roads and then will do those do those properties meet th that requirement.